SumOfUs
is a movement of consumers, workers and shareholders speaking
with one voice to counterbalance the growing power of large corporations.
Join us on our journey as we seek to make the world a better place for
ourselves, our children and all who share our planet.
with one voice to counterbalance the growing power of large corporations.
Join us on our journey as we seek to make the world a better place for
ourselves, our children and all who share our planet.
That’s
how this organization introduces itself on the Internet. I’m not sure I’m a
member, but I do receive emails from them regularly and every time they urge me
to vote for this or that anti-corporate cause. Apparently the organization is
capable of arousing millions of people around the globe into action. It really
is quite remarkable how it can mobilize those millions to change the actions
and policies of various megacorps. I am really quite impressed with them,
though I’m not sure I know enough about them to recommend them to you or, to
the contrary, to warn you against them.
I know
quite a bit about that corporate world actually and am very aware of the
oppressive shenanigans they pull off against the peoples of the world,
including their own fellow citizens. If that sounds like a boast, I claim the
right to that boast after I wrote a 220-page book on the subject under the
title Caught in the Middle: Christians in Transnational Corporations. The
entire book is within your immediate easy reach for free on my website. Just go
to < www.SocialTheology.com/Boeriana.htm > and do a search (^F) there.
A few days ago,
SumOfUs sent me a message under the heading “Terrifying news for the CBC.” For
the non-Canadians among my readers, “CBC” is the acronym for “Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation,” the semi-government-owned and, if you can believe
them, most popular and most effective broadcaster in the country. It’s what we
call a “crown corporation,” by virtue of which it is heavily subsidized by the
Federal Government. I may as well be upfront by immediately confessing I’m not
all that fond of it, even though I do watch it quite frequently, along with
other Canadian channels.
So
what’s this “terrifying news?” Allow me to quote SumOfUs’ own “alarming”
statement:
Documents were just leaked from the
top-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations -- and the news is bad for the
CBC. If the TPP passes, Crown corporations like the CBC could be required to
operate entirely for profit.
And worse -- this move could force
the CBC to be privatized.
The mission of the
CBC is to tell the bilingual and multicultural story of Canada – not
just to exist for corporate profit. Canadian politicians are extremely
vulnerable to public pressure right now as they head into one of the longest
election campaigns in Canadian history -- let’s make sure our CBC is protected
and not sold off for profit.
To make
sure readers get the full impact of this horrible scenario, they repeat, “Leaked
documents show CBC could be forced to operate solely for profit if the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal passes,” all of it in bold letters.
Ah,
yes, this could turn out to become a Canadian nightmare. But the axe was not restricted to CBC. Canada
Post and “other crown corporations” are also slated for the same treatment. Now
I could be motivated to protect Canada Post, since it delivers where private
carriers won’t be seen, but to me the CBC is a very different kettle of fish.
I have long been annoyed by this govt-funded CBC. You want a completely
govt-funded CBC, but it isn't even now. It advertises like any other medium
and, worse, it advertises against the very people who pay the taxes that
support it. I am talking about the private TV and radio stations against
which it advertises and competes. Govt should not be competing with and
advertising against its own tax payers. Months after this post was published, Andrew Coyne, one of my favourite journalists, wrote that the CBC should be defunded. "This disparate treatment" can no longer be tolerated, he wrote. Among other things, it leads to a sense of superiority vis a vis the private competition (Vancouver Sun, February 18, 2016, p. B2).
Besides, “for-profit” is not the only alternative. Let CBC become a not-for-profit but privately funded medium. Then it will have to be more concerned to appeal to the public, all the public. Certain religious groups are either ignored or given mostly--mostly, not totally--negative coverage. I have occasionally watched some of their “comical” programmes, but almost without exception turn them off in disgust at the poor, not to say, brutish, taste displayed on the screen, again often at the expense of certain groups in society. As it is, it can afford to ignore or lambast without consequences for itself.
Still another alternative is for government to give some support to all radio and TV channels on condition that they include certain types of programmes alongside those of their own choice. Treat them all alike. Now that would be true pluralism. However, that would be impossible for sure. Coyne writes that if the government subsidizes some, in the name of fairness, it would have to subsidize all, but "that way lies madness." Therefore, if it cannot subsidize all, it should subsidize none.
SumOfUs, you are giving a false picture by suggesting that a purely capitalist system is the only alternative. I am not sure of your motive. Are you getting some kind of support from CBC either in the form of money or favourable coverage? I don't believe you are giving a one-sided picture because you can't think beyond your nose; you're too smart for that. So, there must be a reason, possibly the one I just hinted at.
Besides, “for-profit” is not the only alternative. Let CBC become a not-for-profit but privately funded medium. Then it will have to be more concerned to appeal to the public, all the public. Certain religious groups are either ignored or given mostly--mostly, not totally--negative coverage. I have occasionally watched some of their “comical” programmes, but almost without exception turn them off in disgust at the poor, not to say, brutish, taste displayed on the screen, again often at the expense of certain groups in society. As it is, it can afford to ignore or lambast without consequences for itself.
Still another alternative is for government to give some support to all radio and TV channels on condition that they include certain types of programmes alongside those of their own choice. Treat them all alike. Now that would be true pluralism. However, that would be impossible for sure. Coyne writes that if the government subsidizes some, in the name of fairness, it would have to subsidize all, but "that way lies madness." Therefore, if it cannot subsidize all, it should subsidize none.
SumOfUs, you are giving a false picture by suggesting that a purely capitalist system is the only alternative. I am not sure of your motive. Are you getting some kind of support from CBC either in the form of money or favourable coverage? I don't believe you are giving a one-sided picture because you can't think beyond your nose; you're too smart for that. So, there must be a reason, possibly the one I just hinted at.
In closing, I cannot resist making
a statement I’ve made many times in different contexts. If you’re criticizing
corporations, don’t forget the largely faceless and nameless people behind
them—the shareholders. Some of them may be members of SumOfUs, but it is those
shareholders with their demands for and expectations of dividends that drive
the corporations. SumOfUs should
consider targeting those shareholders, that is, the ordinary citizens, and hold
them also responsible for the distortions they introduce into society.
But perhaps you would like to hear to hear more from the
horse’s mouth. That is to say, from the same sources from which SumOfUs got
their info. They kindly have left us with the address of their sources, which I
herewith pass on to you:
TPP Trade Deal
Proposal Would See CBC, Canada Post Exist Solely For Profit, Huffington Post, 30 July 2015.
Analysis of Leaked TPPA Paper for Ministers' Guidance on SOEs, Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, 28 July 2015.
Analysis of Leaked TPPA Paper for Ministers' Guidance on SOEs, Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, 28 July 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment