On December 17, 2010 at 13:33 EST I got an email from CRTC. I was actually CC'd in a mail to Ms. Suzanne Papineau, of the client services division of CRTC. It was a letter from Mr. John van Driel, who is the Vice President of Programming and Operations of MZ Media Inc, which owns CFMZ, CFMX and CFZM. Canadian Thamil Broadcasting Corporation CTBC sub-leases a SCMO (Subsidiary Communication Multiplex Operations) sub-carrier of CFMZ-FM. I've uploaded the letter through screen shots, as neither me nor my computer have the technical competencies to make a PDF File compatible to a Blog.
Letter from MZ Media Inc to CRTC
So, CTBC's response has come out in expected lines. whoever produced the advertisement, choose their words cleverly. the sad part of this issue is, people in MZ Media Inc. did not see or did not have the desire to the implied message in the advertisement. I decided to reply the above communication and wrote a letter to Ms. Papineau and CC'd MZ Media Inc.'s President and CEO George Grant, V.P. of Programming and Operations Mr. John van Driel and their lawyer Mr. Mark Lewis. I don't know how professional the letter is, but thought I should not take a step back in this issue.
December 18, 2010
Ms. Suzanne Papineau
Client Services
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0N2
Re: Case Id: 509280
Dear Ms. Papineau,
I received the copy of the letter from Mr. John van Driel (V.P Programming and Operations, MZ Media Inc) and the copy of the document containing the English translation of the advertisement broadcast by CTBC. I acknowledge all the steps taken by CRTC in this case which reinstates my faith in the role of regulatory bodies in the Canadian system. I also want to acknowledge and thank Mr. van Driel for his response and time spent. Though, this is not a case of black and white, we got to investigate the grey shades in between to come up with the final decision.
Following were the main points about the advertisement in Mr. van Driel’s response:
1. There is nothing in the translation that appears to attack Mr. Smitherman and refer to his sexual orientation.
2. No mention of Mr. Smitherman’s candidacy is made in the advertisement.
3. The advertisement was apparently broadcast in support of Mayoral candidate Mr. Rob Ford
Now let us outline the main facts from the advertisement itself:
1. I am a Tamil. I have a religion and a culture on our own. Take Rob Ford, his wife is a woman beside he said he will reduce the Land transfer taxes and other taxes.
2. That (Immigration) is a federal government issue, may be he said this to solicit white people’s votes
Dear Ms. Papineau this is where the questions about the intention of the advertisement arise. This is where as a member of a regulatory board; you must look beyond the direct interpretation of the carefully chosen words used in the advertisement. This is where, Mr. van Driel , as a media person should apply his social responsibility ahead of his corporate responsibility.
As Mr. van Driel outlined there was no direct reference to Mr. Smitherman and his sexual orientation. But, look at the facts of the advertisement.” I am a Tamil; I have a religion and culture of our own” says the person in the advertisement; acknowledged. “He said he will reduce the Land transfer taxes and other taxes” continues the man; accepted with glee. “Immigration is a federal government issue may be he said this to solicit white people’s votes”; makes sense, although it sounds weird for an immigrant society to support a politician with anti-immigration policies. But, Dear Ms. Papineau and Dear Mr. van Driel, I just can’t logically connect all these facts to this statement, “take Rob Ford, his wife is a woman”. What logical sense makes us to connect the fact that Mr. Rob Fords wife being a woman to the candidacy of Mr. Ford? Isn’t it another way of saying “take George Smitherman, his spouse is a male”? Don’t we see the clear and clever manipulation of language in here Ms. Papineau and Mr. van Driel?
Culture is a noise while we transmit messages between cultures. That plays a huge role in the interpretation of this advertisement in question. The tone in which the person who lets out those words in red tells a Tamil speaking person thousand stories. The message is interpreted in the true spirit of the advertisement. It’s where members of marginalized group have a tough time in getting justice. Dear Ms. Papineau, please do not interpret the message contained in this advertisement by just using the direct meanings of the words given to you in the translation document. Please use your own judgment and some research about the “Religion and Culture” mentioned in the advertisement.
Dear Ms. Papineau, this complaint is not about demanding an action against CTBC. This is about making them acknowledge and apologize. What I want as a general person you may cross on a subway or a mall is an apology from CTBC for the tactics the used in that advertisement or an acknowledgement that they are a conservative media with far right ideologies. If the advertisement was indeed paid for by a third party, identify that third party. Or the least I could ask them is to come up with a logical connection between Mr. Ford’s candidacy and the fact that he is married to a woman. The end result I as a person want is increased responsibility of public media towards the marginalized.
Thank you.
Regards
Kumarasamy Kiruthikan.
CC’d: George Grant, President & CEO MZ Media Inc,
John van Driel, V.P. Programming and Operations, MZ Media Inc
Mark Lewis, Lewis Birnberg Hanet, LLP
I attached this to an email and sent it to Ms. Papineau on December 18, 2010 at 11.06. As was the case, I'm waiting for a reply.
No comments:
Post a Comment