Pass the Berlusconi…and a grain of salt please.

Matthew Hibberd’s article, Italian Democracy Gone Mad? Public Service Broadcasting in the Berlusconi Era, was a very interesting read to me. Not only does the article map out and explain the original goals and roles of the media system in Italy, it also goes into detail on how the elected Silvio Berlusconi (who also happens to own Mediaset, a major Italian media corporation) has drastically changed and influences the Italian media sphere. While Hibberd sees Berlusconi’s connections to Mediaset and the negative impact they have on the “sovereignty” of State broadcaster, Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI), he does not blame Berlusconi solely for whatever happens to the future of RAI. I agree with Hibberd in that I too believe that if the part-privatization of the RAI is allowed, the RAI will no longer have its own goals and freedoms to answer to, it would then have politicians, and part owners’ agendas to carry out. This conflict could make for a messy situation in the future in regards to freedom in the media throughout Italy.

In the article Hibberd goes into detail on some of the things Berlusconi has done with his ‘power’ to semi-monopolize the media process in Italy. He talks of the different ways Mediaset and the RAI have dodged certain legislation that have deemed both media companies as part of a duopoly. The article discusses how in 1997 the Constitutional Court in Italy decided that the RAI and Mediaset would have to cut one of their advertising channels, however because there was not a specific timeline set out for when this was supposed to happen, both companies have lobbied their way around  it and delayed the implementation of the rule.

Hibberd also make a very valid point in saying that because both the Mediaset and RAI have risen as the two prominent companies in Italy, they have created a semi-dependence on each other. Hibberd argues that Mediaset needs RAI to justify having three channels (as a private media company), and the RAI uses Mediaset as an excuse to push towards more commercial programming and profit driven programming in competition and defense against Mediaset. I agree with the idea that they have created a co-dependence with each other and I see that it could prove to be very hurtful for the future of especially the RAI, in fulfilling the goals of the public and the Broadcasting Acts outlined plans for what public broadcasting like the RAI should be focusing on to promote a free media environment in Italy. The RAI’s ‘competition’ with Mediaset will only push it to become more of a private company, which in turn means that it will become more susceptible to the demands of its privatized owners.

In further reading outside of the article, I stumbled on this blog at http://europeanmediablog.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/mediaset-and-rai-vs-sky-italia/  which talks about how Mediaset and RAI have basically joined forces to fight the new frontier of television which is the digital television world. The blog talks about how both companies are investing over a billion dollars in the development of the countries digital Freeview format. This investment is also being made to fend of the emerging SKY TV owned by Rupert Murdoch, which is expected to lead in share holders for payTV.

In all of this, it is most interesting to see how companies, much like individuals are constantly evolving and are presented with situations in which they must do things they may have not originally planned for, just to keep up with the times and avoid falling out of the playing field.

Dub Me and I’m Yours

Dubbing The Simpson: Or How Groundskeeper Willie Lost His Kilt in Sardinia is an article written by Chiara Ferrari which basically goes into detail on the many different techniques that must be employed to domesticate an imported television show. Ferrari believes that “dubbing” brings many new possibilities that would allow these shows to be properly translated internationally. I agree with Ferrari on this, as I have had two international roommates who have both confirmed to me that shows do not typically translate for themselves very well. However, they did point out that there are very many similar shows to those we have in America except they are better “translated” for their culture.

Ferrari’s article gives many examples of ways shows have been translated for other national audiences as well as goes into some of the techniques that are implemented in the decision-making process that determines these changes. Her first prime example mentioned was in fact the Arabian version of the Simpson. The name was changed to Al Shamshoon, Homer was changed to Omar, beer was changed to soda, and other alterations were made. This was all done in order to make a foreign(US) product and make it familiar to the Arab audience, and of course maximization of profit. I found this particularly interesting that its the company that is importing that often makes the dubbings and changes. I thought it might be the original company that would change things around depending on where they were exporting to. I guess it makes more sense that way because the importing company would have a better grasp on what needed to change, and would save the exporter the hassle of hiring and hoping they are correctly adapting the version. Does seem like a little heavy pressure, in this case for the Arab network MBC, who can only hope that their translation does the show justice and meanwhile adapting to their public audiences.

Another example Ferrari talked about in relation to the techniques used by these companies to translate the episodes is the Italian version in which the translated version is creative with its use of dialect between members of the “Springfield” community to depict the different dialects and their stereotypes all across Italy. This immediately adapts this version for the whole country of Italy and makes it possible for this show to see its acceptance all over Italy.

These two examples provide the evidence needed to understand how useful it is for networks to adapt foreign shows to their job. If television shows are merely picked to draw an audience for advertisers then I think it is important for these networks to have shows and versions of shows that can draw the advertisers to them instead of other networks.

Another thing to add outside of what Ferrari states in her article is there are times when shows will be canceled due to a license expiration between the importing and exporting companies. As explained in this blog http://en.allexperts.com/q/Sailor-Moon-1181/x-8.htm, Sailor Moon was no longer allowed to be aired in the US due to the fact that the original company TOEI did not approve the renewal of the contract which allowed the show to be dubbed in America. This makes me wonder if some companies will not extend their contracts if the dubbed version has a negative impact on the show or does not translate very well (which I did not think Sailor Moon translated well, only considering the 2 times I ever saw it).

Another spot of Tea-V please…

In the article, Broadcasting Regulation in the United Kingdom: Shifting Public Policy Objectives, David Ward talks heavily about how the broadcast responsibilities and efforts have changed over time to compete commercially and gain more appeal through the United Kingdom. Much like the battle between public duty and commercial appeal that is going on with broadcast companies in Italy (RAI and Mediaset), the UK sees a similar struggle. Ward argues that as time moves on, we will see similar shifts and patterns as we have seen elsewhere, in which the “competition between the main television broadcasters will increase while the public service remits of the commercial broadcasters are further relaxed. I agree with Ward on this statement mostly because I understand that anytime a profit is involved between different companies and the government, competition and regulation are often the two biggest driving forces for change or lack of change in any type of system.

In article, Ward includes an excerpt of a report funded by the Conservative Party in 2004 which states two problems to arise from the dominance of the BBC. The two problems are (1) a growing threat to cultural and political pluralism and (2) a decline in quality, as creative competition diminishes. These findings are very true in application to what is happening in British television. As other broadcast networks must compete with the publicly funded BBC, they are sure to run into a much harder time trying to gain the attention of the British audience while supporting themselves. This competition could be likened to a channel like the WB having to compete with the publicly and government funded PBS station (if the PBS was as prominent as the BBC) was reaching for commercial appeal without the hassles of finding funding through advertisement. This would be a seemingly one sided competition as it would be hard for the WB to hold up to the PBS who would have much more revenue to work with for future efforts.

Ward also includes the results of an Ofcom review of public service television which showed that the public highly supported public service broadcasting and its shows which are governed by social values, quality and diversity among other things. The review also found that the British public believe it is important that they watch British produced programs and only 27% believed there was any importance in bringing American programs to their channels. One thing that can be concluded from this is that as companies like the BBC continue their move to be more commercial, they should expect the public to follow as their support for BBC and channels like it continues.

Outside of the article, I found this blog at http://europeanmediablog.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/bbc-cuts-its-marketing-budget-by-25/ which talks about how the BBC will be basically cutting their advertising/marketing budget in the next year by 25%. This is an example of why the BBC can be so successful in the competitive market, because frankly it can afford to not spend so much money on its image/personal advertisement, and find other things to put that money toward that will continue to ensure their

Oh Canada.

After reading Television in Canada: Continuity or Change?, by David Skinner, my mind took me back to the discussions that we had in my African Music class last quarter. Skinner talks in this article about the Canadian broadcast system and its media, and how it is linked to America do to its location, and how Canada is trying to find ways to separate itself culturally through its programs. Also, Skinner points out how the Canadian broadcast system and the Canadian government are products of their social struggles and the imaginative efforts used to continue cultural sovereignty.

Skinner points out in the reading that since the early 1990′s when technological improvements and new ideologies merged, big commercial media companies began to get greater playing time in Canada. He talks about how this ‘market-driven’ system was in place to “enhance consumer choice” but however undermines the goals of system which are trying to build up the domestic programs which are supposed to help bring a social identity among the Canadian people. This market-driven system seemingly gets in the way of this as it continues to pour external content into Canada which in turn plays a heavy role in the influencing of cultural beliefs and other social aspects of Canadian life.

The article also makes mention of the different Broadcasting Acts established by the government which set out to define broadcasting as a “public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty.” This to me seems like a clear expression of the Canadian people that they too understand TV’s importance in the definition of a cultures identity. I believe that it is important for Canada to define themselves through their own media and in their broadcasting instead of allowing outside (American) programs to take the stage on their screens and heavily influence cultural identity.  Skinner talks about the importance of the government and Canadian broadcast system continuing their efforts to not allow the pressures of new technologies and ideologies to control how they achieve their goals.

Outside of the article, I found the website of the CRTC and when I looked at their mandate, it was interesting to see that they use a lot of what was established in the broadcasting acts as their goals and their personal mission statement.  I believe this quote clearly states that there is still a major emphasis on using the broadcasting system as a major tool to help set a cultural identity and unifying the country socially and mentally. “Programming in the Canadian broadcasting system should reflect Canadian creativity and talent, our bilingual nature, our multicultural diversity and the special place of aboriginal peoples in our society.”

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/backgrnd/brochures/b29903.htm