本文是媒体专业的Essay范例，题目是“Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Evaluation（加拿大广播电视和电信委员会(CRTC)评估）”，1968年，加拿大广播电视和电信委员会(CRTC)作为《加拿大广播法》的一部分成立。该法案的目的是作为一种行政技术，满足加拿大公民在广播方面的需要和标准，同时仍然维护加拿大文化。这一规定阐明了有关必须是加拿大人的保险金额的所有规则，无论是由加拿大人生产的还是在加拿大生产的。CRTC的另一个角色是管理互联网和广播。有关这项法律有严格的规定。然而，近年来，这些规定已经变得不那么重要了，因为许多加拿大人希望有更多的机会收看某些节目，并有自由观看或收听任何他们想要的节目。为了满足加拿大消费者的需求，必须修改加拿大内容要求。这些规定导致了经济和金融资源的滥用，同时剥夺了许多人想看什么就看什么的自由。为了使加拿大广播电视和电信委员会在今天仍然有效，必须对它进行审查和修改。
Out with the old, In with the New Canadian Content Requirements淘汰旧的，引进新的加拿大内容要求
In 1968, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications commission (CRTC) came about as part of the Canadian Broadcasting Act. The purpose of this act is to serve as an administrative technique to meet the needs and standards of Canadian citizens regarding broadcasting, while still upholding Canadian culture. This provision states all the rules pertaining to the amount of coverage that must be Canadian, either produced by Canadians or in Canada. Another role of the CRTC is to regulate the internet and radio. There are strict rules in place relating to this law. However, in the most recent years, these regulations have become less relevant as many Canadians wish to have more access to certain programming, and the freedom to stream, watch, or listen to whatever they want. In order to satisfy the needs of Canadian consumers, Canadian content requirements must be altered. These regulations result in the misuse of economic and financial resources, while denying many people the freedom to watch what they want. For the purpose of staying relevant in present day, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission must be reviewed and modified.
One of the main problems that the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications commission presents is that it can lead to financial losses because of misallocation of resources. This is because producers will often put re-runs of their shows on and use content that is not of the highest standards just to meet the requirements of the CRTC. As a result of this, consumers choose not to watch the programs because they do not satisfy their needs. In the article An Economic Analysis of Canadian Content Regulations and a New Proposal the authors offer a solution to this problem. “A new policy tool, transferable quotas, allows quotas to be sold by the government, and to be bought and sold by broadcasters” (Shedd, William, & Burch, 1990). What this means is that the government of Canada has a high chance of earning revenue, and in turn companies can sell their quotas so that premium content can be aired at the most significant times. With high quality content being premiered at the times where viewers are most likely to watch, more money is likely to be generated. The suggestion of the buying and selling of quotas proves that there are inadequate regulations in place.
加拿大广播电视和电信委员会提出的一个主要问题是，由于资源分配不当，它可能导致财政损失。这是因为制片人经常会重播他们的节目，并使用不是最高标准的内容，只是为了满足CRTC的要求。因此，消费者选择不看这些节目，因为这些节目不能满足他们的需求。在文章《加拿大内容监管的经济分析与新建议》中，作者提出了解决这一问题的方法。“一种新的政策工具，可转让配额，允许政府出售配额，并由广播公司买卖配额”(Shedd, William， & Burch, 1990)。这意味着加拿大的政府有很高的收入机会，反过来，公司可以出售他们的配额，这样就可以在最重要的时间播放付费内容。高质量的内容在观众最可能观看的时间播出，可能会产生更多的钱。关于配额买卖的建议，证明了相关规定的不足。
Another problem with the CRTC is that only certain amounts of money can be spent on Canadian and foreign content. Most producers are profit driven so instead of focusing on what they are producing, they focus on the amount of revenue they can generate from each program. This takes away from the consumer. There is limited access to what they can watch because of this. Sports play a big role in the lives of many Canadians, but, there is limited access to many of the games. For example, with the National Basketball Association, many of the games are not aired on Canadian channels. The guidelines to qualify as Canadian programming are as follows. The broadcast must be produced by Canadians and broadcast by Canadians and if the game or event is being played outside of the country, it must represent a team from Canada or Canadian athletes (Acheson & Maule, 1990). If there are other games being played but these regulations aren’t met, it just leads to people trying to find other ways to watch through means such as, illegal streaming.
This problem exists in Canada but is noted from people all over the world. In European countries there was a proposal to add a commission in place that is very similar to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. The authors provide a plethora of reasons as to why these regulations are not beneficial. Acheson and Maule start by saying that the new technologies that have come with satellite dishes and other the other alternative that are outside regular broadcasting can be used as a way to bypass the CRTC. When producing films and shows in other countries with multiple partners, it becomes very messy and confusing of knowing who the credit belongs to. A commission like the CRTC would only add to this problem (Acheson & Maule, 1992). Ultimately, the European nations decided against this and it is clear why they did. The commission can add unnecessary governance to an area of entertainment in which people would be unhappy with and there are multiple ways that people can get around the laws of the commissions set in place by using the tools of streaming. If other are countries are looking at Canada to see an example of government content regulations and see a problem, those living in Canada will be able to recognize it too.
这个问题存在于加拿大，但全世界的人都注意到了。在欧洲国家，有人提议增加一个类似于加拿大广播电视和电信委员会的委员会。作者们提供了大量的理由来解释为什么这些规定是无益的。艾奇逊和莫尔一开始就说，卫星天线和其他常规广播之外的替代技术可以用来绕过CRTC。当在其他国家有多个合作伙伴制作电影和节目时，要知道功劳属于谁会变得非常混乱和混乱。像CRTC这样的委员会只会增加这个问题(Acheson & Maule, 1992)。最终，欧洲国家做出了反对的决定，原因显而易见。委员会可以在人们不满意的娱乐领域增加不必要的管理，人们可以通过使用流媒体工具来绕过委员会的法律。如果其他国家把加拿大作为政府内容监管的一个例子，并看到一个问题，那些生活在加拿大的人也将能够认识到这一点。
The CRTC was created in a time where the internet was not an important factor. Today, the internet provides people unlimited access to millions of resources, so the regulations must accommodate this. In the article Canadian Broadcasting Policy for a World of Abundance the author says, “major media companies argue that new media, particularly the internet, provides a strong counterbalance to consolidation in the television, radio, and newspaper sectors since Internet video, podcasting, and blogging deliver similar content from a diverse array of sources” (Geist, 2007). The author brings up an important point saying that the introduction of these new services begs for a revamp of the current CRTC regulations.
Along with the increased use of the internet today’s society comes the introductions of streaming sites such as, Netflix and Hulu. Considered the future of broadcasting, these platforms pose a threat to regular cable and satellite. One of the main objectives of the CRTC is to encourage and promote Canadian cultures but these websites make it harder to safeguard this. The licensing section of the CRTC is how they intend to do so. In the article High Noon at the CRTC, the author suggests that to ensure Canadian talent and Canadian broadcasting are prioritized, one must have a licensing deal and in order to keep that agreement, all rules must be followed. (Doyle, 2011). Instead of trying to find a way to prohibit Netflix and other similar sites, the CRTC should find a way to better incorporate these resources into their act so that instead of trying to compete against them they can increase revenue and appease their consumers. In Strengthening Canadian Television Content: Creation, Discovery, and Export in a Digital World, the authors provide valid arguments as to why the CRTC is flawed. If television that is streamed over the internet grows at a steady rate like it is today, the amount of regulated Canadian content will face a problem. If sites like Netflix are not regulated, Canadian broadcasters will be at an unfair disadvantage and will struggle to stay relevant if foreign services face no taxes (Hunter, Engelhart, & Miller, 2017). If Canadian providers continue to face this problem, it will be almost impossible for them to compete against foreign streaming sites.
随着当今社会越来越多地使用互联网，Netflix和Hulu等流媒体网站也出现了。考虑到广播的未来，这些平台对普通的有线电视和卫星电视构成了威胁。CRTC的主要目标之一是鼓励和推广加拿大文化，但这些网站使其更难维护。CRTC的授权部门是他们打算如何做的。在CRTC的文章《正午》(High Noon at the CRTC)中，作者建议，为了确保加拿大人才和加拿大广播得到优先考虑，必须签订许可协议，为了遵守该协议，必须遵守所有规则。(柯南道尔,2011)。与其试图找到一种方法来禁止Netflix和其他类似的网站，CRTC应该找到一种方法来更好地将这些资源整合到他们的行动中，这样他们就可以增加收入并安抚他们的消费者，而不是试图与他们竞争。在《加强加拿大电视内容:数字世界中的创造、发现和输出》一书中，作者就为什么CRTC存在缺陷提供了有效的论据。如果互联网上的流媒体电视节目像今天一样以稳定的速度增长，加拿大受监管内容的数量将面临问题。如果像Netflix这样的网站不受监管，加拿大广播公司将处于不公平的劣势，如果外国服务无需缴税，将难以保持相关地位(Hunter, Engelhart， & Miller, 2017)。如果加拿大的服务提供商继续面临这个问题，他们将几乎不可能与外国流媒体网站竞争。
The CRTC has been in place for 50 years. Over time these ideas turn into traditions. The problems with traditions are that people are often scared to stray away from them and make their own new rules. This is one of the problems that can be seen in the CRTC, people are comfortable with it and are afraid to go outside of the norm. In an article by Patricia Goff and Barbara Jenkins, about reexamining Canadian cultural policy they say that there are many different ways to approach cultural policy. To begin there are many people who rather follow guidelines because of their traditional and nostalgic feelings. Because of this there is no evolution in cultural goals (Goff, & Jenkins, 2006). It is important to be able to expand and grow in all aspects of life, especially when technology is involved. Every year, new models of different devices come out with new software. This makes it crucial to advance the administrations because if everything else in the world is advancing, and the CRTC stays the same, it will not be compatible with the rest of society and their technologies.
CRTC已经存在了50年。随着时间的推移，这些想法变成了传统。传统的问题在于人们常常害怕偏离传统，制定自己的新规则。这是可以在CRTC中看到的问题之一，人们对它感到舒适，害怕跳出常规。在帕特里夏·戈夫和芭芭拉·詹金斯的一篇关于重新审视加拿大文化政策的文章中，他们说，有许多不同的方式来处理文化政策。首先，有很多人因为传统和怀旧的感觉而更愿意遵循指导方针。正因为如此，文化目标没有进化(Goff， & Jenkins, 2006)。能够在生活的各个方面扩展和成长是很重要的，特别是当涉及到技术的时候。每年，不同型号的设备都会推出新的软件。这使得推进政府管理变得至关重要，因为如果世界上其他一切都在进步，而CRTC保持不变，它将与社会的其他部分和他们的技术不兼容。
There is no doubt that there is need for the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission. What this does not mean is that it can stay how it is. In order to support Canadians, the CRTC must be used within a certain limitation and it must support the relevance of today’s world. In A Matter of choice: toward a more creative Canadian policy culture, the author says, “the definition of Canadian content used for tax, subsidy, or broadcasting content rules should be less focused on Canadian ownership and production expenditures per se, and more on Canadian creative output and Canadian interests” (Schwanen, 1997). When the focus is shifted from the monetary side of things and the government really starts focusing on what the people want, that is when the potential to generate excess revenue and satisfy Canadians comes about. People are willing to watch programs and support homegrown initiatives if they serve a purpose.
As previously mentioned, in order for content to be considered Canadian it must meet the specific requirements. The MAPL standing for: Music, Artist, Producer, Lyrics section of the CRTC is what governs these regulations for music. For a song or musical composition to be deemed Canadian it must fulfill two of the following requirements. The music must be created by a Canadian, the lyrics must be mostly performed by a Canadian, the performance has to be in Canada and broadcast live in Canada, and the lyrics must be written by a Canadian (The Government of Canada, 2009). For example, when Brian Adams, a famous Canadian singer and songwriter found out that his songs on his new album did not qualify to be played on the radio as Canadian content he was furious. It seems bizarre that a song written by a Canadian, would not be classified as Canadian. Adams recommends going to the United States to produce songs because one will get a better deal and will never be accused of being unpatriotic (Edwardson, 2008, p.4). The MAPL regulations are driving Canadian artists away. Why would an artist put in time and money on producing content that could potentially not be recognized by their native country? This is a clear example of how modifying the regulations of the CRTC would benefit every party involved. A revision would make Canadian artists want to produce content, it would give consumers quality content thus resulting in profit.
Nowadays, there is a wide variety of platforms for people to access Canadian content. Whether it be regarding music or television these media forms can be reached internationally and nationally in Canada with the use of the internet. In the article Radio Free Canada, the author suggests convergence to remove all foreign restrictions, to partner with institutions all over the world so that content can be shared globally along with regular updates of the CRTC supporting cultural growth (Munro, 2013). Munro’s article provides ways that the CRTC can be modified so that it becomes compatible with the shifts of society and technology. These new forms of technology should be capitalized on instead of taken for granted.
如今，人们可以通过各种各样的平台访问加拿大的内容。无论是音乐还是电视，这些媒体形式都可以通过互联网在加拿大的国际和全国范围内传播。在《自由加拿大电台》(Radio Free Canada)这篇文章中，作者建议融合消除所有外国限制，与世界各地的机构合作，以便内容可以在全球共享，并定期更新CRTC，支持文化增长(Munro, 2013)。Munro的文章提供了可以修改CRTC的方法，使其与社会和技术的变化相适应。这些新形式的技术应该加以利用，而不是想当然。
It is evident that the current regulations in the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission are not suitable for the target audience in today’s society. As a result of the inadequate regulations there is a loss in economic profit, along with the restriction of materials that Canadians have access to. These problems hinder the advancement and growth of Canadian content. However, with the right modifications this can be reversed. In order to keep the CRTC applicable in today’s day and age, the requirements must be modified.