They're been doing a few of these animated highlight shows over the last month:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-UXK3ThXvU

It looks like a Roblox-tier video game.

torontostan wrote:

Walter wrote:

Nobody will ever beat what he did in 72. 

In terms of player legacy, Crosby has. In terms of cultural supremacy, McDavid might've just tied him.

I think it's insulting to compare a gold medal game and the Summit Series to this. McDavid will undoubtedly be in the Hockey Hall of Fame, but this will likely be a footnote.

This tournament's a publicity stunt for the NHL and is less reflective of the best the sport has to offer than the largely throwaway IIHF tournaments held in the late spring. A certain country's lack of involvement due to actual real world strife means this isn't even the best the NHL has to offer. Two months ago it meant less than the World Cup of Hockey, which is saying something.

The only notoriety comes from real world politics, but the animosity is artificial. This isn't the Summit Series where people with very opposing ideologies met for the first times in their lives. These are all millionaires who are going to be playing on the same teams in a few days. Leafs management aren't going to have to separate Marner and Matthews.

You could argue this was good for the country's moral, but I'd argue a game doesn't change reality. Prior to this year, nationalism and pride in being Canadian had reached historic lows under our post-nationalist Prime Minister. This is a dead cat bounce. Those tariffs either come in and wreck things, they don't, or they get repealed after Trump's term is up. The outcome of a sporting event changes none of that.

None of the kids are old enough to where "aging out" would be a genuine concern. The show might've had to change as they became teens, but they're throwing in the towel before reaching that point. Family sitcoms have had no problem accommodating that in the past. 

I'd guess diminishing returns or Rath being an actual mother of two young kids herself are bigger issues.

As touched upon by a few other commenters, this isn't exactly a fair comparison. Other than OLN -> Bravo (which isn't included here despite that being another Corus v. Rogers fight), the Rogers channels aren't rebrands of existing services that have long-established distribution across Canadian pay-TV systems. If you aren't a Rogers/Shaw subscriber, it's not guaranteed your provider even carries these new channels. 

This also borders on a pyrrhic victory given the state of Corus' finances and the overall health of linear television. 

You know, when our Prime Minstrel called Canada "post-national," I don't think this is what he meant.

Their program page suggests they were doing two intakes a year for this. Unless the class size is in the single digits, I have to view that as a school exploiting the dreams of students. This is an industry that's been in decline for at least a decade now. Who was supposed to be hiring these graduates? The companies that have been consistently laying people off and cutting back on local production for years?

Truthfully, even in the "good" years that seems egregious. There's never been an infinite amount of jobs available. Radio and TV hosting gigs are limited. Those that get that work do it for decades. There's no mass annual retirements nor new companies sprouting up to justify a bunch of schools doing annual intakes. The behind-the-scenes TV production crews probably saw an increase in demand during the streaming bubble, but those days are now over.

They sent out this newsletter a few days ago previewing some of the channels included: https://mailchi.mp/newsletter.parrot.tv/early-birds-5111071

It's nothing too special. Channel Zero's assets, a Newfoundland broadcaster, some existing FAST channels, etc. It's kind of interesting to see the paid channels from Channel Zero and Allarco on there. You'd think that would make their value to the pay-TV providers, uh ... zero. That's assuming the Allarco stuff is accurate. They launched two FAST-only channels last year.

I don't know how this will standout from Pluto TV, Plex, Tubi, Roku and any other FAST provider in Canada. The multi-nationals are already established in this space and have apps on almost everything you'd reasonably expect to watch TV on.

I drive two vehicles made within the last decade (one's less than 5 years old) and neither were equipped with HD radios. One's manufactured in Canada. The other's from the U.S. I cannot afford luxury brands, but neither of these vehicles are low end, nor are they the base package. Admittedly, there are versions with HD radios (and if I really wanted to, I could swap out the centre console), but it seems like it's really easy to avoid this technology. Both of them have XM and CarPlay/Android Auto support.

It's obvious why adoption is so slow. As stated, very few broadcasters in Canada utilize the technology in any substantial way. Fewer promote that. This in turn means consumer awareness is undoubtedly low. I don't see how you increase that when even more capable technology (streaming) is common place. That creates a vicious cycle where manufacturers feel no need to pay Xperi for the hardware and licensing costs. You see this with the at-home HD radio market, which isn't really a market. Sangean appears to be the only one currently making any that aren't aimed exclusively at audiophiles. At this point, general consumers are probably better off just buying an internet radio or pairing apps from their phone to a Bluetooth speaker.

paterson1 wrote:

=12pxThanks for commenting Retaw.  First off I am not totally disagreeing with your post.  However, watch some of Tucker Carlsons posts and comments on this and tell me he is not passing along misinformation and misleading the audience watching.

I'm not going to argue on the specifics of what Carlson did or didn't say because I don't watch his show or really, any talking heads. My issue is with claiming misinfo regarding things that at least in your characterization, didn't seem all that inaccurate with what other outlets had reported.

Truthfully, I've found the federal government's response to this protest to be abhorrent long before they brought out an act whose last incarnation was only used once in peacetime in response to a terrorist group who kidnapped and killed people. I don't know what to say when I read things like this. If these restrictions are meant to protect people then ... I must be too dimwitted to understand the science.

paterson1 wrote:

=12pxFox News predictably has been misinforming Americans both on air and on their website. Trudeau controls Canadians bank accounts!  Horses trample protesters in crowd! Martial Law declared in Canada! Canadian government takes freedoms away on a whim! Canadian State News (CBC) suggests Russian forces behind trucker convoy! Canadian state media (CBC) hiding information from Canadians!   And many more.  Fox News many opinion hosts like Tucker Carlson have been salivating about this story for weeks now.

Trudeau and Freeland have outright said they would seize the bank accounts of the protesters. That's a big part of them pushing the Emergency Act. Trampling is maybe an overstatement, but people were clearly hit by a horse. The police themselves have confirmed a woman has suffered serious injuries as a result. CBC's Nil Koksal did ask on-air if Russians could be behind the protest. They were smart enough to not republish that elsewhere (suggesting it might've been a conspiracy of Nil's creation alone), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Outside of Martial Law (no one's being gunned down), the rest of what you're claiming is misinfo is going to vary by personal opinion. 

betaylored wrote:

https://twitter.com/Gray_Mackenzie/status/1495226976847728640?t=coQKGoT_8XzXt25FXVcaBg&s=19

is it time for every media corporation to get serious and come up with a good strategy about the personal safety of reporters and production teams when they're on the job?

It should've been time when Global's reporters were physically assaulted by the left-wing "protesters" years ago. Verbal abuse is nothing new and frankly, shoul

That Canadaland interview does little else but emphasize that Brown is a staunch believer in the nouveau religion and that Henley seems unwilling to commit to anything. You can't honestly believe an environment that suspends a veteran journalist for reciting a book's title is one where people aren't on eggshells. The most unbelievable part is that she suggests this is a recent development. 

While I think it's fair to question someone's motives, I'm not sure that Gawker article (why would someone revive that site?) is fair to Henley. Her writing does seem to have mainly consisted of CBC.ca fluff, but that wasn't the extent of her work history at the company. I'm not sure how you'd track down which radio and TV stories she contributed to as a producer - especially given her complaint was about being stifled. I also don't think the jilted journalist grift is as lucrative in Canada as that piece suggests it could be. Though, I guess if Levant and Brown can make a career out of it ... 

It used to be that I was the one furthest to the left in any newsroom, occasionally causing strain in story meetings with my views on issues like the housing crisis. I am now easily the most conservative, frequently sparking tension by questioning identity politics. This happened in the span of about 18 months. My own politics did not change.

Makes you wonder what happened to those other journalists. Did they all retire or "coincidentally" lose their jobs?

I have a very mixed relationship with Michael Geist and Open Media. I appreciate the activism for things that would otherwise be swept under the rug. However, I don't think it would be wrong to say they're often crying wolf. In fact, their website currently has a campaign pushing to change the FCC's stance on net neutrality, despite the doomsday scenarios we were warned of seemingly not materializing. It's been years and I haven't heard of U.S. internet providers charging more for access to certain sites.

The shady handling of C-10 does make me fear this might be one of the times the wolf is real. A last-second addition to any bill raises alarm bells. Especially so, when the heritage minister and his staff are unable to agree on the purpose of it.

Prod Guy wrote:

Can you guys knock it off with the politics? It’s getting really tiresome. This is supposed to be a media board not the Toronto Sun comment section.
You’re old and white. You don’t have to tell people how you voted. We already know.

You expect a thread about a government bill regulating media to not touch upon politics? The subject of discussion is literally politics impacting media.

I don't usually remember users lacking avatars, but I did recall your fixation on demeaning the perceived race and age demo of this site. That behaviour is far more toxic than political jabs about socks. You bring it up specifically to stifle discussion.

I get the COVID desperation + Fox's limited internal abilities, but it's still weird they picked this up. I don't think Mike Holmes has Property Brothers-levels of popularity internationally. It's absolutely cable fodder.

Radiowiz wrote:

Retaw wrote:

Radiowiz wrote:

Interesting. Does this mean that Stacked TV will suddenly have a Stacked Sports option to carry all the Peacock Sports content?

That would require Corus to buy into sports programming, which is not something they usually do. Their contract for Peacock shows only covers stuff NBC Universal owns outright.

Then how do Canadians (legally) watch WWE content once this takes effect?

Unless stated otherwise, I wouldn't expect any changes on the Canadian side of things yet. AFAIK, WWE never actually offered the SVOD service in Canada - just a programming deal licensed to Rogers.
 

paterson1 wrote:

I think this is hilarious, all these so called CBC "make work" shows that many like to trash and that nobody watches in Canada are good enough for FOX and the CW.  And the CW has been regularly running CBC programming for years. 

This programming only has value to U.S. networks when they have no other options. Last year, Fox ran a TV show where alleged celebrities react to other TV shows. To say they're scratching the bottom of the barrel would be putting things lightly.

In a non-COVID world, this series would continue to be ignored by mainstream U.S. platforms. Fewer than 200,000 people watched Diggstown live. That's likely the lowest audience out of any ongoing Canadian broadcast drama. I imagine that's why so many other shows were picked up in the U.S. before it. Nurses is a trashy show, but its ratings on Global were multiple times that.