Source: Edmonton Journal

Canadian broadcasters are running an expensive campaign encouraging us to support local TV. They say that "Local TV Matters." But how much "local" actually exists in local TV today? With the exception of news, sadly very little. Exactly what part of the "local" aspect of these stations really matters? What exactly are we supposed to support?

There was a time, not long ago, when local TV production was an industry. Edmonton, for example, had three studios operating full time -- four if you include the educational ACCESS station -- and the industry supported local performers, writers and production crews. We created local talk shows, music programs and dramas. At one time, Edmonton was on the broadcast map thanks to pioneers such as Dr. Charles Allard and Dr. Richard Rice. The SCTV comedy series was produced here; Tommy Banks interviewed and performed with world-famous musicians on the CBC; ITV (now Global) recorded live concerts with the ESO and artists like Ray Charles; most locals over 40 can remember watching Popcorn Playhouse. Today, sadly, there's not one local owner among the seven broadcasters in Edmonton. Each Edmonton channel is a clone in a chain of other cities' "local stations" with identical graphics, voice-over announcers and program schedules.

Canada's broadcasters are warring with the cable companies for revenue from local feeds. Cable companies say broadcasters are paying too much for American shows and are trying to make up their shortfalls in advertising by "taxing" television in Canada.

The focus of this argument is simply about the amount of money each party rakes in from the pile of cash paid monthly by Canadians to the cable and satellite companies; it has little or nothing to do with supporting local TV. When cable service arrived in the 1970s (does anyone remember QCTV and Capital Cable?), these companies were handed a virtual licence to print money by the CRTC's grant of exclusive territories and later by the monopolies created by the big players (Shaw, Rogers, Videotron), which bought the smaller regional companies. Although today most Canadians are wired for TV, and most consider their cable bill part of the cost of living, initially the primary attraction to cable was the clearer picture it provided from local stations. Back then, the interference on a TV that relied on rabbit ears was ridiculously annoying. Viewers watching CBC on Channel 5 could often see the "ghost" of CFRN (Channel 3) haunting the image. The added American channels came as a bonus, given that most of the popular U.S. shows were already on local channels. What we didn't have then were 30 or 40 channels on home decorating, food, cartoons, sports and movies that doubled or tripled the cable bill. I wonder how much we benefit from those extra channels when you can click through and see Law & Order, The Simpsons, CSI and Friends duplicated on different channels.

Do we need 200 channels? Sure, many people want that and are willing to pay for it. But, according to a poll commissioned by the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, 76 per cent of Canadians feel that local news is "very important."

I believe that local productions that feature local issues and talent would also rate highly on that poll.

Canada's broadcasting act, first for radio and then for television, was established to ensure that Canadian culture, both local and national, would benefit from the new technologies of broadcasting. This principle appears to have been abandoned to the draw of American-produced drama and programs like Entertainment Tonight, Oprah and NFL football -- and to the conglomeration of media ownership by Bell/CTV, Rogers and Canwest/Global. OK then, broadcasters, give us House, Biggest Loser and Glee, but may we please see some of our communities in our local television?

It is perhaps ironic that Shaw is trying to buy the TV assets of Global/ Canwest, as this would put it on both sides of the Local TV Matters argument. What it does not do is alter the fundamental problem. We have too little local TV production in Canada and Shaw's purchase of Global is unlikely to change that.

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times says many Americans enjoy high-quality reception on their new digital HD TVs with -- wait for it -- rabbit ears. They're cancelling the cable and watching local broadcasts. Local TV matters to those people. When Canada follows suit and we switch to digital TV broadcasts in 2011, Canadian broadcasters will have a golden opportunity to go back to being truly local and to create local programs to complement the pricey U.S. shows. Logic follows that more local advertising would fill the best time slots and more money could be spent on local production, to the benefit of all.

The bottom line is this: Broadcasting companies care more about top U.S. shows and advertising dollars than being local. It seems inevitable that cable companies will charge us more if they're forced to pay national broadcasters for local service. Yet we will continue to see very little local TV on any local channels. That is a tragic loss for the industry, for the community and for local culture.

Jim Sellers is an Edmonton writer. He has 20 years' experience in broadcast television production as a writer, editor and director.

© Edmonton Journal