NOTES
- Michael Koch, “Two Solitudes: Canadian Communications Regulation Applied to the Internet,” International journal of Communications Law and Policy 2 (Winter 1998–1999): 4, online at www.ijclp.ore/2 1999/pdf/ijclp webdoc 2 2 1999.pdf
- Although the details of their analysis are somewhat dated, Colin Hoskins and Rolf Mirus expand this economic and industrial argument in scope and depth (and relate it to questions of cultural receptivity) in “Reasons for the U.S. Dominance of the International Trade in Television Programmes,” Media, Culture and Society 10 (1988): 499–515. As regards Canada in particular, see Bruce Feldthusen, “Awakening from the National Broadcasting Dream: Rethinking Television Regulation for National Cultural Goals,” in David H. Flaherty and Frank E. Manning, eds., The Beaver Bites Buck?: American Popular Culture in Canada (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993), especially pp. 51–52.
- The literature about the influence of American culture on Canada is too vast to cover here, but I wish to point to the general issues that have preoccupied scholars and policy-makers. Scholarly debates have focused on questions of political economy in general and dependency theory in particular, which Dallas W. Smythe describes with considerable force in Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness, and Canada (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1981). Scholars have made similar arguments from a cultural studies (rather than political economy) perspective, demonstrating, for instance, how struggles in Canada to define “Canadian culture” have often articulated “Canadian culture” to notions of elite or high culture and “American culture” to what have been perceived to be baser forms of mass culture. See Paul Rutherford, “Made in America: The Problem of Mass Culture in Canada,” in Flaherty and Manning, eds., The Beaver Bites Buck?, pp. 260–280. The perceived threat of American culture has figured even more centrally in debates concerning television and broadcasting policy, where the relationship of Canadian culture to non-Canadian cultural products has been at the heart of the debates leading to the creation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Société Radio-Canada, as well as to the institution of Canadian content rules. See Margaret Prang, “The Origin of Public Broadcasting in Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 46 (1965): 1–31. More recent statements made by policy-makers indicate a growing awareness of the need to consider globalization trends and the increasing importance of international coproductions in both film and television. See Clifford Lincoln, chair, Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting (Ottawa: Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 2003), and François Macerola, Canadian Content in the 21st Century in Film and Television Productions: A Matter of Cultural Identity (Ottawa: Heritage Canada, 2003).
- Paul Attallah, “Canadian Television Exports: Into the Mainstream,” in John Sinclair, Elizabeth Jacka, and Stuart Cunningham, eds., New Patterns in Global Television: Peripheral Vision (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 161–191.
- Attallah, “Canadian Television Exports,” pp. 169 and 182.
- Attallah, “Canadian Television Exports,” p. 171.
- My approach here is informed largely by the cultural studies model that Julie D'Acci describes as “the circuit of media study” in her essay “Cultural Studies, Television Studies, and the Crisis in the Humanities,” in Lynn Spigel and Jan Olsson, eds., Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004), pp. 418–445. D'Acci locates television studies' object of analysis in the articulation of four discursive sites centered around 1) the cultural artifact itself, 2) the production of the artifact, 3) the reception of the artifact, and 4) the socio-historical context. Hence my concern to examine the links between 1) YCDTOTV as a television text, 2) the production of YCDTOTV (and the regulations shaping how the show circulated), 3) the critical reception of YCDTOTV, and 4) the socio-historical context within which larger debates concerning children's programming were taking place in the 1980s.
- For the purposes of this paper, the terms “niche” and “narrowcast” are essentially equivalent. “Niche” refers to the audience targeted while “narrowcast,” a neologism modeled after the word “broadcast,” refers to the strategy of targeting a specific audience.
- “Kids In Spotlight On CTV Show,” 1979. Newspaper article reproduced without full citation on Slime Society website, online at www.ycdtotv.com/articles/spotlight.html.
- Tony Atherton, “The Evolution of Gross,” Ottawa Citizen, 29 August 1998, p. H1.
- Slime Society website, “Who Says You Can't Do That On Television?,” 2000, online at www.ycdtotv.com/articles/whosavs.html.
- Quoted in “Who Says You Can't Do That on Television?” on Slime Society website.
- Tony Atherton, “CJOH at 40,” Ottawa Citizen, 10 March 2001, p. K1.
- Slime Society website, “YCDTOTV Show History,” 2000, online at www.ycdtotv.com/info/index.html.
- Slime Society website, “Who Says You Can't Do That On Television?”
- TV Guide, 10–16 March 1984, Illinois-Wisconsin edition; Slime Society website, “YCDTOTV Show History.”
- (Ottawa) Citizen TV Times, 10–17 March 1984, (Montreal) Gazette TV Times, 10–16 March 1984.
- Slime Society website, “YCDTOTV Show History.”
- (Ottawa) Citizen TV Times, 3–10 March 1979; (Ottawa) Citizen TV Times, 7–14 March 1981; Slime Society website, “YCDTOTV Episode Guides 1979: Season One,” 26 September 2003, online at www.ycdtotv.com/epguide/1981.html; Slime Society website, “YCDTOTV Episode Guides 1981: Season Two,” 26 September 2003, online at www.ycdtotv.com/epguide/1981.html.
- (Montreal) Gazette TV Times, 3–9 March 1979; (Montreal) Gazette TV Times, 7–13 March 1981.
- Frank Batten, with Jeffrey L. Cruikshank, The Weather Channel: The Improbable Rise of a Media Phenomenon (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002), p. 24.
- Batten, The Weather Channel, pp. 46–47, 50–57; see also Len Strazewski, “As Milestones Fall, Cable Carries Weight,” in Shirley Biagi, ed., Media/Reader: Perspectives on Mass Media Industries, Effects, and Issues (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1989), pp. 103–106.
- Attallah, “Canadian Television Exports,” p. 183.
- Karen Murray, “Local Fare Finds Hungrier Palates South of the Border,” Variety, 16 November 1992, pp. 41, 52.
- Ken Easton, Building an Industry: A History of Cable Television and its Development in Canada (Lawrencetown Beach, NS: Pottersfield Press, 2000), pp. 199–200.
- Arthur Siegel, Politics and the Media in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1983), pp. 4–5.
- Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Committee (CRTC), Introductory statement to decisions CRTC 87–895 to 87–906: Canadian specialty and pay television services (Ottawa: CRTC, 1987), sec. Ila, online at www.crtc.ec.ca/archive/ENG/Noticed/1987/PB87–260.HTM.
- See Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), Ensuring Place of Pride for Canadian Programming Services (Ottawa: CAB, 1999), appendix B, online at www.crtc.gc.ca/Broadcast/eng/eng/NOT1CES/1999/1999–19/co028–3.doc
- CRTC, Introductory statement, sec. III. For a journalist's critical take on this process, see Tony Atherton, “Not So Special Anymore,” Ottawa Citizen, 2 September 1998, p. C1.
- Tony Atherton, “You Can't Do That on Television,” Ottawa Citizen, 4 February 1989, online at www.tcdtotv.com/articles/10yearslater.htm.
- Rod Townley, “Room Noodles—and Livewire—to the Rescue,” TV Guide, 24 September 1983, p. 21.
- Townley, “Room Noodles,” p. 23.
- See Henry Jenkins, “Interview with Geraldine Laybourne,” in Heather Hendershot, ed., Nickelodeon Nation: The History, Politics, and Economics Of America's only TV Channel for Kids (New York: New York University Press, 2004), pp. 134–152.
- ACT had been advocating age-specific programming since its foundation in 1968. See William Melody, Children's TV: The Economics of Exploitation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973), especially ch. 5–7.
- Quoted in Armen Keteyian, “Experts Recommend the Best Children's Shows on TV,” TV Guide, 15 February 1985, p. 34, and in Aljean Harmetz, “Action Group Aroused by Nickelodeon Ad Plan,” New York Times, 14 February 1984, sec. C, p. 17.
- Townley, “Room Noodles,” pp. 21–22.
- See James P. Forkan, “Nickelodeon After More Ads.” Advertising Age, 16 January 1984, p. 57.
- Patricia Brennan, “The Kids' Channel that 'Double Dares' to Be Different,” Washington Post, 25 September 1988, p. Y8.
- On Nickeledeon's efforts to brand itself as an alternative to broadcast television, see Kevin S. Sandler, “'A Kid's Gotta Do What a Kid's Gotta Do': Branding the Nickelodeon Experience,” in Hendershot, ed., Nickelodeon Nation, pp. 45–68.
- Charles P. Pierce, “Building a Better Fun Factory,” Los Angels Times Magazine, 22 January 1995, p. 12.
- Quoted in Brennan, “The Kids' Channel,” p. Y8.
- Quoted in Kari Granville, “They Dared and Won,” Newsday, 24–30 April 1988, p. 9.
- Joseph M. Winski, “'Addicted' to Research, Nick Shows Strong Kids' Lure,” Advertising Age, 10 February 1992, p. S2; Granville, “They Dared and Won,” p. 9.
- Quoted in David Ciminelli, “Slime Sticks in Fans' Consciousness,” Daily Variety, 19 April 2002, p. A4.
- Quoted in Pierce, “Building a Better Fun Factory,” p. 13.
- Granville, They Dared and Won,” p. 8.
- Jennifer Lawrence, “Green Slime in Demand: Fun is Good Business When It Comes to Kids,” Advertising Age, 27 October 1986, p. 57.
- PR Newswire, distributed to music and TV news editors, 18 April 1986. Retrieved through LexisNexis.
- Quoted in Pierce, “Building a Better Fun Factory.” p. 12.
- Linda Ellerbee, quoted in Pierce, “Building a Better Fun Factory,” p. 28.
- Quoted in Pierce, “Building a Better Fun Factory,” p. 12.
- Pierce, “Building a Better Fun Factory,” p. 12.
- Irene Lacher, “Birth of a Nickelodeon Nation,” Los Angeles Times Magazine, 26 March 2000, p. 32.
- Peggy Charren, quoted in Keteyian, “Experts Recommend,” p. 34. For a nuanced analysis of the larger debate over “program-length commercials,” see Heather Hendershot, Saturday Morning Censors: Television Regulation before the V-Chip (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998), ch. 4.
- Townley, “Room Noodles,” p. 22.
- Maurine Christopher, “Nets Need to Go Beyond Saturday Cartoons,” Advertising Age, 16 January 1984, p. 57.
- Townley, “Room Noodles,” p. 20.
- Quoted in Harmetz, “Action Group,” p. 17.
- Lenore Skenazy, “For Fred & Alan, Logo Rhythms Count, Too,” Advertising Age, 25 April 1985, p. 9
- Alexis Greene, “What Cable Offers Children,” New York Times, 25 April 1982, sec. 2, p. 28.
- Quoted in Keteyian, “Experts Recommend,” p. 36.
- Pierce, “Building a Better Fun Factory,” p. 27.
- Critics would also later come to share the concern for children's self-esteem promoted by YCDTOTV's creators, although they would focus on shows such as Blue's Clues that were targeted at a younger demographic than YCDTOTV. Donna Petrozzello, “Nick Turns 20, Pass the Slime,” (New York) Daily News, 27 June 1999, p. 6.
- Cathleen Schine, “From Lassie to Pee-wee,” New York Times Magazine, 30 October 1988, pp. 38–39,77–81,92.
- Schine, “From Lassie to Pee-wee,” p. 92.
- See, for instance, Alan Bunce, “Old Foes Rekindle Battle over Children's Television,” Christian Science Monitor, 6 June 1995, TV sec., p. 10.
- Pierce, “Building a Better Fun Factory,” p. 28.
- “The Hit TV Show Canada Ignores,” Ottawa Citizen, 1985. Newspaper article reproduced without full citation on Slime Society website, online at www.vcdtotv.codarticles/ienores.html.
- Hoskins and Mirus, “Reasons for the U.S. Dominance,” p. 500.
- Serra Tinic, “Going Global: International Coproductions and the Disappearing Domestic Audience in Canada,” in Lisa Parks and Shanti Kumar, eds., Planet TV: A Global Television Reader (New York: New York University Press, 2003), p. 176. See also Colin Hoskins and Stuart McFadyen, “Canadian Participation in International Co-Productions and Co-Ventures in Television Programming,” Canadian Journal of Communication 18, no. 2 (1993): 219–236.
- Robert Fulford, “Mary Pickford, Glenn Gould, Anne of Green Gables, and Captain Kirk: Canadians in the World's Imagination,” lecture delivered at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 5 June 1997, online at www.robertfulford.com/hebrewu.html
- Marsha A. Tate and Valerie Allen, “Integrating Distinctively Canadian Elements into Television Drama: A Formula for Success for Failure? The Due South Experience,” Canadian Journal of Communication 28, no. 1 (2003): 79.
- Quoted in “Hit TV Show Canada Ignores” on Slime Society website.
- The authors of the Slime Society website speculate that Price and Darby arrived at their decision to cut the length of an episode to a half hour out of concerns for the show's potential syndication, which is not inconsistent with my interpretation of Price's remarks regarding the show's “internationalization.” Slime Society website, “YCDTOTV Episode Guides 1981: Season Two.”
- Yesterdayland website, “You Can't Do That on Television: Synopsis,” 2000, retrieved online at www.yesterdayland.com/popopedia/shows/Saturday/sa1646.php on 22 October 2002. The website is now defunct.
- DeGrassi Junior High producer Linda Schuyler, quoted in Larry Neumeister, “Controversial Canadian Show Wins International Emmy,” distributed by the Associated Press, 24 November 1987. Retrieved through LexisNexus. For a comparison of TV shows that moves in the direction I suggest, see Marie-Claire Simonetti, “Teenage Truths and Tribulations Across Cultures: Degrassi Junior High and Beverly Hills 90210,” Journal of Popular Film and Television 22, no. 1 (1994): 38–42.
- Tony Atherton, “The Best and Worst of Canadian TV,” Ottawa Citizen, 21 September 2002, p. J3.