Hi everybody!!

I'm currently working on an essay about Television in Canada, the only thing is I can't seem to find an online TV guide for Canada like we have in The Netherlands. I was hoping maybe someone here knew where to find something like that.
I need the Canadian TV-guide to see how many American TV-shows are being broadcasted in Canada..

If anyone knows where to find one online..you'll be of great great help..

There are a couple of basic sites... although they arent that detailed... :(


http://www.ctv.ca/


and


http://tvlistings3.zap2it.com/partners/zip...?partner_id=097 (but you need a postal code because what's on TV depends on where you live in the country)


I'm looking at American TV Sitcoms for one of my uni projects, so if you come up with anything intresting to report I'd love to hear about it. :)

Television in Canada... :unsure:

I just realised how limited my knowledge of television outside the US and Europe is, even though I have a BA degree in Film and TV history. We are really centered on the US and the larger European countries. In fact, I haven't even had a course focussed on just Dutch TV :o

Anyways, like Rich I'm interested in the results. Are you doing some quantitative research (just numbers) or do you hope to test some interesting hypotheses about the dominance of American TV?

Oooh thanks so much for those links, they're really helpful *huggs* :hugy:

I'm trying to find out how Canadian Society is invluenced by American TV..my thesis is that although Canadian television has had some rough times, their currently doing better than ever.

Did you know that Canada is the second largest exporter of Television Productions after the United States.... :o

Ooh Rich which TV shows are you analyzing for your research? I'm considering analyzing LOST with theories of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes...

Impressive, Jantien! Please keep me posted about it.

I have noticed that there are a lot of films and tvseries filmed in Canada, probably because of tax-regulations...

BTW, have you considered using John Fiske for your research? He occupied himself with studying the functions of television, and the effects televisionprogrammes have on audiences, concerning class differences etc. He's a British Cultural Studies-theorist, and I'm a supporter of his theories. (British Cultural Studies stems from Marxism, but there's a lot of commentary on Marx as well.)

FYI: I have to present and defend an article by Fiske this week, that's why I know so much about him now... :hee:

Really? Over here we certainly get a LOT of american stuff, but in all honestly I would have problems telling the diffrence between American and Canadian TV :red: :red: :red:


I'm basically looking at how masclinity is "presented" or constructed in Sitcoms... I'm looking in detail at Malcolm in the Middle :lol: I did want to do LOST too! But looking over my posts about the way Jack acts etc its clear studing it in detail would just turn me off the show :o



Jo.... He sounds like a guy I need to look into!!! Is he really into class issues tho? Not really after that... :unsure: I'm more of a Social Constructionist than Marxist lol, but I guess they cover the same sort of things. Its soooo broad it's hard to really say where you stand... :hee:

Fiske is coming from a Marxist-tradition, but he rejects quite a few of their basic notions. Fiske's main point is that a text (tvprogram) can be read in more way than what the producers want to evoke in the viewers. You have the (dominant) preferred meaning, a negotiated reading, and a subversive reading.

For example: you, as a white male would support Jack as the leader, since he is a white male too, and the ideology of white males often is the dominant ideology. But since you're gay too, that would complicate things. As far as I know, there aren't any gay characters in LOST as yet, so you would probably also feel a bit sad about that, thinking (could also be an unconscious process) that the white straight males always have the power in hands.
You would negotiate a meaning for LOST that would fit your social position. I, as a woman, am fed up with all the male characters that occupy powerpositions, so I was quite happy with A.L (am speaking in code now for the people who haven't seen season 2 in whole) as a leader. (Although that has changed because of recent developments). I would seek a meaning in LOST that reflects my social identity, preferring certain characters over others when they go through things that are similar to struggles I am going through.

I am a bit bold now, but this is how I interpret Fiske. And thanks to this post, I have a starting point for the presentationtext I was supposed to work on! :lol:

Jo I'm stunned!!! :o :o you think I'm gay!!!????? :lollol: :lollol: :NO:




I can’t pretend to Know his work in detail, but there are a few things already I don’t disagree with...

OK I suppose that in the case of LOST the idea that other white (straight; I don’t see how sexuality would effect that, it implies that your sex preference is your most potent aspect of social identity when relating to others) males should support Jack, is the (dominant) preferred meaning?

In which case I think its strange that Locke, (white male straight) would be so actively against Jack's leadership, and its not like Locke's aim are supported by only him, there are others on the island who think Locke has "good" ideas etc, which to me suggests that there will be watchers who support Locke more than Jack :unsure: . I suppose it’s possible that the idea is Locke and Jack are both male and white, so it doesn’t matter who the watcher supports because in a way they are the "same". :rolleyes:


At the most basic level, I don’t think every single white male viewer will support Jack (or Locke), in the same way I don’t think a female viewer would 100% support a leading female character. = Fiske being to general. (?)


I would chose to view LOST as a media tool, replicating current social order (which I suppose Fiske is basically suggesting???), men in power, women not as much, or if they are (A.L or R) then they are shown to be very unfeminine, even "butch" in their handling of events. Kate is shown to be very feminine, but she is "nothing" on the Island, in her flash backs she is strong willed and I felt to be a feminine girl there as well, but on the island she is the one to be captured and be tricked by other males, she acts submissive, being preoccupied with ideas of “love”. The males are respected or at least shown to be in positions of leadership again enforcing stereotypes. Jin being the wife protector because Sun can do nothing other than act as “nurse” (Jack as Doctor :Wink1: ) or plant stuff, Claire being so weak all the time, depending on Locke or Charlie (men) to solve all her problems (it’s almost embarrassing to watch :red: ).

I think LOST in a way is so popular because people can relate to the structure of the group, as it’s reflected in everyday life. But I have disagreements that what is shown is "natural" or even "nature" It’s all constructed (i.e. if society was dominated by women LOST as it is now, would look absurd).



I do feel America as a whole is VERY intrinsic in its constructs of identity, especially of gender, and religion. They import very few programs from other countries; where as every other country in the world imports a fair amount, especially from America, and so don’t get a taste of other cultures like we do for example. Thus when J.J writes his plots, he does it because he doesn’t know anything else; to him it’s the natural way for males and females to behave. (Ok very basic I know :hee: , but I think you get my point)

Think its also fair to suggest that’s part of the reason why America (and China) advanced cultures in a political climate, is so backward in its treatment of individual or minority groups, unless your white straight, looking for, or marinating a nuclear family and Christian you seem to face social problems. I.e. last week they made abortion in one state completely illegal, few gay rights (you can still be sacked for being gay in some US states :o ) single parents are seen to be deviant etc. In a nut shell, I think your be hard pressed to find a SERIOUS American TV show which shows these “minority” (IMO not minority at all :hee: ) groups in a positive light.

Canada in contrast is extremely liberal so it would be interesting to compare TV programs in both those countries… would they be refelecting the society they are being made?

Oh my I went off on one :hee: , if you read my mini essay to the end lol well done! Please do comment on any points you have issues with because I’d rather think about my ideas than go on thinking they are correct. :red:

I've made it, though I had to read it twice cuz last night I was way to tired to respond.

You do indeed touch upon many things Fiske has expressed or suggested.

Fiske indeed stresses that television reflects the social struggles and social values. So when we see powerful men in LOST, we may take that as a reflection of how we value powerful men in our society. Yet, with the different readings I mentioned (prefered, negotiated, oppositional) I wanted to say that Fiske leaves room in society and in televisionanalysis for people who want to reject the dominant values (men have power). Feminist viewers would probably find suitable explanations for Kate's feminine character, with which she at least tries to defeat the male power (or something... I haven't really thought about a feminist reading of LOST).
When I watch LOST, when I try to understand the relations between the characters, even when I make crazy explanatory theories about the show, everything I do is coloured by my social position. Marx would see me as someone from the upper middle class, destined to keep my position in society, even struggling to keep that position. When I would read LOST in a Marxist way, I would break down the plot to reflect the capitalist society, point out the characters who are fighting against the powerful.
Marxist tradition was too limited for British Cultural Studies: they incorporated more viewerpositions in the audience. A punker can enjoy LOST as much as a yuppie, but both viewers would probably like it for different reasons. The punker looking for reflections of his struggle against the rightwing-views on life; the yuppie looking for reflections of his workinglife and his struggle to end up higher in the social system (with a better job, a bigger house, a girl/boyfriend).

Like the producers of tvshows, the audience produces a meaning. The meaning the producers spread out is the dominant ideology.

JJ's writings are the dominant (prefered) reading of LOST (which may very well also be resisting the American way of life. It's, like Rich said, his way of how the world works that is represented in LOST).

In fact, I think we aren't that far apart from each other. You were just looking more at the representational side (the side of the tvproducers) while I was trying to say something about how Fiske theorises about how the audiences see a meaning in the show.

If you are still with us: congratulations! This is top academic discussion. :hee:

And to get back to Canadian television: I am going to find out if there are any Canadian shows on telly right now. I want to see if there are differences in representational issues between Canadian and US shows. The cultural differences between the two countries would suggest that, but Fiske overcomes that by saying that any late capitalist society (I read that as 'every Western country') is trying to spread out a capitalist ideology.

But hey, I'm tiring myself out just by thinking about this too much. I think my body has just showed me that there is something as too much thinking. (tudy<