Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Agree in principle, but the fact is that most American content is subsidized in one way or another, and most other countries also subsidize film and TV production. From an economic view I don't like subsidies, but as someone who works in indie film I'm not going to be purist about it if one helps me get paid, it's difficult enough to fund and sell film as it is.

Cultural material is not a simple commodity that you can apply laws of supply and demand to, because cultural products are not economic substitutes for each other. This is one of the few areas where I think some protectionism may be justified, because if you import all your media then it tends to crowd out one's domestic culture, which in extreme cases can lead to social fragmentation. If you don't have any kind of domestic media output then that also limits your country's potential for tourism and inward investment.

I grew up in Ireland and although I was very interested in film from an early age there was very little domestic film or TV production going on; maybe 30-40% of what was on TV came from the UK and >50% came from the US (cheap for programmers to purchase given the tiny size of the market, and for political reasons we did not wish to get too much of our programming from the UK). There was only one TV channel for many years and it was quite demoralizing to realize that how little cultural output of our own there was. Apart from a documentary shot in 1934 by an Irish-American filmmaker, there wasn't a single Irish-produced feature film for nearly 50 years, until 1982 (when I was 12), and even that involved an English director. The domestic industry didn't really get going until the early 1990s.

As a kid, I would borrow library books and read magazine articles about film production but even the notion of 'home movies' seemed impossibly remote - I literally never saw a video or film camera until I moved to London. It didn't occur to me to pursue a career in film as a youth because the domestic industry simply didn't exist. Even with cheap digital technology available today, making a film is quite an expensive undertaking - there's no guarantee that filmmakers will simply bootstrap themselves as the inevitable result of market forces.

Or every ethnic group isn't entitled to their own set of TV shows, movies, etc especially if there isn't enough demand to justify it.

I think your way of thinking ties too closely with the failed multiculturalism experiments of the 20th century. Trying to artificially make media fit for various demographics leads to low quality media, tax increases, and ultimately a certain level of isolation.

In the USA in the 70s and 80s, we tried this sort of thing. There was a cola for black people, urban newspapers for the black community, we encouraged them to go to traditionally black colleges, we encouraged them entering traditionally black jobs, staying in traditionally black communities, staying out of the suburbs, etc. Instead of trying to integrate them into the mainstream, we isolated them. It was a disservice. The same thing is happening all over the world, especially with Muslims immigrants. We can see the multicultural mindset causing problems in Europe, especially in the UK and France.

Even if we took your argument on face value, what then? Some kind of quota for Irish directors? So we turn down an English director with great ideas and lots of talent for some Irish director because you feel, as an Irish person, that somehow you can feel his "Irishness" via his directorial decisions? So if he made a sci-fi film about the future on another planet, you'll absorb some level of Irishness from this? That's absurd.

I think its time we put multiculturism down and accept that a certain level of assimilation is normal and healthy. If your entire cultural identity is at risk from a Michael Bay film, well, that sounds like it wasn't too strong to begin with. My parents were immigrants. I feel only a superficial connection to their culture. I don't see why that's so terrible. Their great grandparents came from another culture as well. The idea that we need to protect those from a certain culture from change is highly questionable.

I'm talking about countries offering subsidies and/or setting programming standards for indigenous film production within their own borders. As an Irish person, my view and experience is that it was a good thing for the Irish government to invest some Irish money in the development and production of Irish films, and likewise I think there may be good reasons for the Canadian government to take the approach they do to supporting Canadian content. In Canada.

This is pretty much the opposite of what you are complaining about.

I'm fine with subsidies. It's the programming standards that should go away. In economic terms, they are a moral hazard. There's less incentive to make good films and shows when you know they are going to get preferential treatment in programming. Aside from that, it's a burden on companies that really have no responsibility for Canada's self-perceived problem.

A burden on which companies? Rogers and Bell? The companies that a making money hand-over-fist? I think that they're doing fine, even if they have to show more content from the country in which they're based.

Er, Netflix - a non-Canadian company.

> Or every ethnic group isn't entitled to their own set of TV shows, movies, etc especially if there isn't enough demand to justify it.

There is plenty of evidence that the "market" is NOT always right. Where is your evidence that is is correct in this case?

In addition, there is a big difference between "no demand" and "so much cheaper to buy somebody else's."

Like many things, movie production has an economy of scale. Peter Jackson proved that by basically subsidizing an entire movie industry in New Zealand.

This is not about creating content for every ethnic group in Canada. This is just about creating Canadian content for Canadians. It's not about multiculturalism, it's about supporting Canada's homegrown television and film production sectors.

Also, I thought the 70s and 80s were about DE-segregating people. I thought that's what the Freedom Riders went South for.

There is already more than "a certain level of assimilation" going around in Canada, for example. Content laws are there to make sure it doesn't turn to total assimilation.

> This is just about creating Canadian content for Canadians. It's not about multiculturalism, it's about supporting Canada's homegrown television and film production sectors.

Well, the thing about that is that it's simply not going to work if Canadians themselves don't buy it to begin with. But that's already happening and a few silly media laws requiring the production of content almost nobody wants isn't really going to turn back the tide.

I mean, Tim Hortons sold out. I'm pretty sure that the handwriting on the wall is up to at least 'מנא, מנא, תקל' by now...

" This is just about creating Canadian content for Canadians."

How about American (not USian) making content for Americans? Or Terran, making content for Terrans? Why this divide?

As someone who lives in Canada, why should I let someone else decides what I'm going to watch?

Why should Québec and New Hampshire be so different? They are geographically close. It would make sense for them to tend to become more and more alike. If anything, those laws are artificially creating different cultures.

It's not 'assimilation', it's living with other people. Do you think of yourself as 'assimilated' if you start playing the same games as one of your friends?

I agree with you, but the laws shouldn't affect Netflix. The internet almost completely removes the need for enforced broadcasting of content. I can make a show and put it online and get a worldwide audience easily.

THe only problem is that if you don't put these restrictions on netflix then you have a harder time justifying it with legacy television providers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com