It is a move that should have happened years ago, but nonetheless, it is here.
In a press release, Ontario University Athletics (OUA) announced a partnership with Stretch Internet to create OUA.tv – the central home for streaming the league’s football and basketball games. Previously, individual schools would broadcast the games on their websites. McMaster used their athletic domain, marauders.ca, to stream games, while some schools used YouTube services or alternative domains. More sports will be added in the future, per the OUA, and championships for volleyball, rugby and soccer will be featured.
With OUA.tv, fans don’t have to scour through Twitter feeds to find stream links or deal with a bombardment of ads on athletics pages. Instead, it’s a one-stop shop. According to the press release, you only have to go to one place to watch the game of your choosing.
OUT WEST
To say this is a positive step for the league would be an understatement. Atlantic University Sport and Canada West have already successfully implemented similar programs and as the reality is fewer and fewer students are buying cable packages, the OUA’s desired market cannot watch the broadcasts on Sportsnet. When the Score was more than just a website and super-app, they would stream games online and put together a fantastic product, but that ceased when Rogers bought out the channel and rebranded it to Sportsnet 360.
But the relationship between Sportsnet and OUA football appears to have follow the same trajectory of a summer fling – beautiful at the start, full of effort and promise, before slowly falling apart and becoming nothing worth maintaining. While nothing is official yet, the OUA released their football schedule in April, but Sportsnet was not mentioned in the press release once.
And that is probably for the better anyways. OUA.tv may seem unconventional in comparison to a TV deal, but there are a ton of awesome nuggets that come with the new program and a seeming lack of handcuffs. For one, games will now be archived immediately after the conclusion of the game, meaning you can easily access a highlight or catch up on a game that you missed. This is especially beneficial for media who may not have been able to catch the game but still want to report on it, or die-hard fans that want to be able to watch all games. Last season, games were all played on similar timelines – usually 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. tip-offs – making it impossible to catch both games if you were attending one.
There will also be live stats with the game, catering to a new generation of fans who use statistics to understand the game more than ever before. Live stats also means that you will not have to turn up the volume and pray the announcing crew gives you the score once a minute. Muting without consequences.
And if those were not enough to perk your ears, Stretch Internet stated that you can use Google Chromecast or Apple TV to stream the game to a television, which is one of the minor aspects of the announcement but could actually be one of the widely appreciated aspects in five years. If you’ve ever had more than two people try to watch a game before, I am sure you know what I’m talking about. A 13 to 15-inch screen does not cut it for an intense playoff basketball game. On the other end, you’ll be able to watch games on tablets and smartphones – an embracement of modern digital culture.
THE CATCH
For all the positives, there remain some questions. While the issues range in importance, the wary student audience will magnify any obvious quirk or negative aspect to OUA.tv. One of the major problems will be streaming quality.
Right now, that quality varies from borderline unwatchable to 720p. Ryerson and Queen’s have put together very professional products, while others schools have been a downright embarrassment. You can imagine the OUA will put some pressure on those schools to beef up the quality, but that could be a tough ask of those with smaller budgets.
Then, there is the issue of staffing the broadcasts. At McMaster, the department struck a deal with Mohawk to use co-op students to take the lead on broadcasts. A major shout-out is in order for the athletics and recreation group since the broadcasts were sleek, had multiple camera angles and were orchestrated well. But not every school has that luxury, and it remains to be seen how a school would be able to corral the bodies necessary for doing a broadcast.
Finally, the problem of commentary: the OUA press release states that all games will have a play-by-play and commentary team. Sure, this seems like a minor issue and it was mentioned above that live stats mean you can mute them. But a broadcast team should not be bad to the point of muting. Avid followers of CIS athletics probably have a sore neck from nodding, and the criticism is true. Broadcast teams are usually one or all of the three: uninformed on the sport or league, biased, and/or reluctantly broadcasting. Having someone with any of those three qualities drastically diminishes the professionalism of the product, and it would probably be better to have just the sounds of the gym than two talking heads.
A BETTER PRODUCT
And really, that is what the OUA.tv project comes down to: a move towards a professional product. All major sport leagues have this kind of system to accompany their television contracts, and the OUA joins that company with this deal. The content will never come close to the level of the pros or their NCAA counterparts, but the production just might. OUA.tv could be a catapult, taking a league that is largely an afterthought in the minds of students into the conversation of something worth paying attention to, and possibly, eventually, paying for.
Cassandra Jeffery
The Silhouette
I’ve been reflecting a lot lately. Reflecting on my four-year term here at McMaster. Reflecting on the countless part-time jobs I’ve held since the prime of my teenage youth. Reflecting on the joys and pitfalls my young life has been exposed to; the stress and temptations that hinder my ability to get any productive studying done.
Amidst all of my reflection, I realized that I indulge in a certain level of escapism whenever I find myself at the breaking point of full-fledged hysteria, which unfortunately, seems to be more often than not. For example, one of my biggest vices has to be television. I could escape with a good drama or rom-com for hours.
Granted I’m not always allotted such a large time frame of TV enjoyment, I’ll be the first to admit that perhaps I indulge just a tad too much in the soothing sounds of laugh tracks and witty dialogue. I’ll use my favourite show as background noise while I study. I’ll take multiple “snack breaks” just to have an excuse to pop on an episode of something involving vampires. In fact, Gilmore Girls is periodically distracting me right now as I type away.
The point is, TV is in my life for better or worse and as much I would like to teeter away from my bad habit of turning my educated brain to mush, I just can’t help it.
There’s a lot to be said for escapism. In an academic and social sense it’s mostly rejected as a legitimate concept that discourages critical thinking and educational development. However, I don’t believe that my avid TV connoisseur lifestyle is a means for intervention.
TV as a form of escapism allows me to shut down and forget everything going on in my life at least for just a little while. Otherwise, I’m stuck reflecting (more like overanalyzing) every thought that comes to mind—cue hysterical fit of tears and frustration. I’m not suggesting that this escapism is necessarily the best choice though, as it certainly impacts my time management skills when I decide to watch two hours of television instead of working through my readings for class the next day.
However, in light of everything, I try to view TV as a culturally defining factor in my life. Yes, I understand that we live in a privileged North American, middle class world where we’ve legitimized the socially buy viagra online beloved concept of “me-time.” A concept that exploited sweatshop workers in Bangladesh simply could not fathom as a legitimate use of time. I get it. I could be using my valuable time much more constructively. What can I say? I’m a product of the time.
But in all seriousness, right now TV trumps reading one hundred pages of a philosophy text. Maybe as I ripen with age I’ll reflect on this moment and change my TV viewing habits forever. Now that to me is a legitimate excuse to keep on escaping with How I Met Your Mother.
I’m confident when I say that I’m not the only avid TV watcher out there because media, television specifically, is so ingrained in our society (a term coined pop culture) that it becomes difficult to escape from escapism.
However, what is there to be said on other forms of escapism that are most likely widely used although not as culturally accepted as television in the form of escapism?
For example, critics are more likely to jump down the throat of a heroin addict than someone who watches one-too-many Seinfeld re-runs. Although it may be difficult to refrain from harsh judgement at the use of heroin as a form of escapism, I believe it’s important to understand that individual’s cultural context.
Engaging in a drug such as heroin isn’t a good choice for anyone but for someone who is using the drug it probably has become the most accessible, most logical and most culturally contextual form of escaping from their everyday. Instead of instantly explaining to a heroin user that what they are engaging in is wrong, it’s best to take a step back and talk to the person, get to the root of the problem. Why are they in fact using heroin as a form of escape?
Now I can’t say that a TV watching addiction is on the same level as a heroin addiction but it helps to understand that both scenarios are derived from two different individuals who share different world experiences and different reasons as to why they need “escaping.”
Furthermore, through understanding cultural context and alleviating judgment we can begin to slowly alter forms of escapism to encompass a more positive outcome. The heroin user might gradually lower the dosage or switch to a less “harmful” substance. And I might be able to gradually lower my television intake.
Despite the severity of escapism, we all take part in this process in some form or another and I believe escapism can be used both negatively and positively.
What I believe to be most important, though, is understand why someone engages in a form of escapism in the first place and then reflecting on your individual interaction with escapism in order to decide what’s best for you.
Emma Suschkov
The Silhouette
Dear Favourite TV Show,
I love you. Truly, I do. The plot twists, the drama, the jokes, everything that makes you special – I love it all. Maybe, sometimes, I love you too much. Those are the times when my mind is consumed by thoughts of seeing you, when, despite an imperative 8:30 a.m. lecture, I stay up ‘til the wee hours telling myself, “Just one more episode.”
Every time I finish an episode, I ache for the next one. You know this, and yet you take no pity on me. As if it’s not bad enough that I have to wait a whole week – seven gruelling days, 168 dragging hours, 10,080 minutes that each seem to last a lifetime – to see my beloved characters.
But all of a sudden, you up and decide to go on extended vacation, cutting all ties for months at a time. Yes, those dreaded mid-season breaks. Perhaps they have some legitimate purpose, be it ‘writing’ or ‘casting’ or whatever the excuse, but I think that the true purpose of these breaks is just to torment your many admirers!
For most of the working world, a vacation lasts a mere one to two weeks. Not for you. Your vacations often last six entire months.
Months of waiting and wanting and wondering; of reading outlandish theories on fan forums online; of scouring the internet until my eyes hurt and my brain has turned to mush for trailers, leaked video clips, set photos, anything to keep me going. For a while, the pain of withdrawal is acute, all-consuming. It gradually fades to a slow, dull ache, no longer claiming all of my focus but always present in the back of my mind.
I love you, but these mid-season hiatuses are poisoning your perfection. Please, please, don’t put me through the pain again … though don’t we both know that even if you do, I’ll be there waiting for you when you return.
Yours as ever,
Impatient Emma
The summer months lead to a sudden influx of heat waves, unwelcome flooding, and most importantly, quality television. And if after four months of converter cruising you find yourself longing for the plains of Westeros, the halls of Sterling-Cooper-Draper-Pryce, or the methamphetamines of Walter White, look no further than Primetime television.
Although the AMC’s and HBO’s of the world may provide for high-class entertainment in the warmer months, there’s something to be said for cable TV’s mid-evening programming.
DRAMA
For Breaking Bad (AMC) fans, check out Blacklist (CityTV). Apparently, the show is about a notorious fugitive who turns himself in- but only under the condition that he gets to FBI alongside a babe-alicious agent. Oooh. Drama.
For fans of Mad Men (AMC), check out The Crazy Ones. Although theoretically a comedy, this advertising show has the same creds as MM - but sub Jon Hamm for Robin Williams.
COMEDY/REALITY
If you’re one of the five people who watch Wilfred (FX) and need a new comedy for the season, check out Gravity Falls (Disney). Don’t led Disney mislead you, equally obscure, this children’s show is full of quirks and irony.
For TLC-addicts, trade in your Breaking Amish habit for the last season of What Not to Wear or Duck Dynasty (A&E). To each their own.
MISC.
Shark Week (Discovery) came and went, but nature still thrives. And by that, I mean Nature, the documentary series on PBS. If you need a description, you shouldn’t be in university.
If loafting in front of The Food Network became a daily habit, but your student house does not cater to specialty networks, tune into Masterchef Junior (CTV) for a guaranteed young-in shit show, with food.
By: Miranda Babbit
The strangely unbreakable addiction to reality TV has swarmed television sets across the country since as early as the 1950s. These shows had stemmed from the seeds of innocent intrigue into the lives of policeman on the tails of petty thieves and middle aged couples competing to redecorate their suburban homes (that’s a nail-biter, I know).
Viewers of reality television in the 21st century, however, are offered shows with so much more substance, like the critically acclaimed Real Housewives of Atlanta. (The critics may or may not be my mother and me on particularly rowdy Sunday nights.) Now these women, I sadly assure you, are, in fact, real housewives.
Dwelling in the swankier streets of Atlanta resides a collection of the sassiest ladies you will likely ever encounter, if you are somehow given the chance to end up in their presence. I do warn you, though, that if you are in the presence of these women, keep any and all opinions to yourself. The definition of a personal opinion is greatly altered in this world of perms and manicures. An opinion is no longer yours to have at your own liberty. Oh, no. An opinion has been reformatted to entail the beginning of a catfight, table flipping, finger snapping and/or throwing of wine in one’s face.
After watching an hour of the screaming, the eye rolling and, of course, the dirty gossip that goes down in those confession rooms, you may find yourself feeling as if your pores have been filled with grease and that any word more than three syllables will be difficult to register.
During the show, though? Whole other experience. Suddenly you are one of the sassiest, wealthiest ladies in Atlanta. Sitting in front of the television in a Canadian city, where yes, we enjoy the pleasure of hearing please and thank you on a regular basis, your fingers may start joining in on the snapping and incessant hand waving in the midst of a catfight. You may find yourself saying, “Oh, girl, no” a lot more often when discussing the drama that has ensued, and you may feel the urge to pick up your phone and throw an enormous party while strategically excluding the one person who has snubbed you most recently.
Real Housewives of Atlanta instills a sense of irresistible sass in everyone, and it can be hard to turn off. You can step away into a world where the laws of high school cat fights still govern all the ladies’ happiness, and that is just too wondrous to look away from. Essentially, it’s akin to a family-size bag of potato chips. Total junk, addictive, but nearly impossible to draw yourself away from.
The boost of sassiness doesn’t hurt either.
By: Paulina Prazmo
Finding true love is difficult nowadays, what with hard-to-please boys and girls wanting an airbrushed prince charming. The Bachelor Canada is about finding true love on a reality TV. From first dates to first kisses to meeting the family, all of these relationship milestones are documented on national television.
The aim to find true love within the span of two months between complete strangers is known to be downright crazy, so why are we hooked? Episode after episode, the suspense, the drama and the potential romance keep us on our toes. Each beautiful (and staged, might I mention) date and the every catty move a girl makes is a topic of conversation for the viewers.
However, I do not believe that we entirely realize how much of such a reality show is actually scripted. Mr. Brad-Hunky-Chiseled-Body Smith has to stand on a balcony, overlooking the beautiful scenery (shirtless, thank goodness) and reflect on his feelings (which, let’s face it, aren’t genuine or real to begin with) out loud.
A little FYI for diehard fans: out of 24 seasons of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, only four couples remain together. So much for the extravagant proposals at the end with the stunning ring. Apart from Canada catching on to this hopeless “find love” reality show and its extreme oozing of cheesiness, The Bachelor Canada is one among the many reality TV shows that manage to capture our attention, even if just for a second.
By: Ronald Leung
In today’s competitive rat race, what better opportunity would there be than to immediately land a plush executive job in a multi-million dollar company?
This was the exact opportunity NBC’s The Apprentice gave contestants. Sixteen to eighteen qualified business people compete in various challenges each week and are slowly weeded out until business mogul Donald Trump crowns his “apprentice.”
In grade 5, still armed with childhood innocence, I would watch in awe as the first season of The Apprentice aired with Trump dishing out criticisms and catchphrase “You’re fired” left and right. Part of what was so fascinating was the backroom drama with surprise backstabs and schisms in the boardroom when the losing team is grilled for the cause of their loss. Excuses fly all over the room and the blame game is played to the extremely, but eventually, Trump loses his patience and generally fires someone.
What initially really drew me into the show was the passion with which the candidates fought. They were fighting for a great opportunity to get some business experience and put their name out there.
However, I can say now that starting from season seven onwards, my interest has faded so quickly it resembles some sort of negative exponential curve. I’m not sure why Trump decided to switch the show to Celebrity Apprentice, where b-list (for the most part) celebrities are recruited instead of businessmen and women to compete, with the main prize being a large sum of money for the winner’s charity of choice. Don’t get me wrong, giving to charity is definitely not a bad act, but it defeats the purpose of The Apprentice.
At the end of the day, there is no big personal loss or win for these celebrities, compared to real contestants, who would be missing out on a great opportunity. It almost seems like a modern-day gladiator arena for these celebrities who duke it out more for the sake of their egos than for their charity while the rest of the world watches. If Trump was so willing to give money to charity, he could just directly donate to them.
I do occasionally indulge in an episode of The Apprentice – sorry, Celebrity Apprentice, that is – when I’m feeling particularly brain-dead or nostalgic about my childhood. At the end of the day, it can be quite amusing to watch a “reality” TV show with all the bickering and backstabbing.
By: Ronald Leung
What’s the first thought that pops into your mind when someone mentions “mental illness”? A balding creature cackling to himself about his precious, an eerily-calm psychiatrist with a cannibalistic streak, or leather-faced chainsaw-wielding inbreds? These images come from the media that surrounds us and, as unfortunate as this result, is where we get most of our perceptions – quite often subconsciously. We see something on our screen or in our pages and it marinates in our mind before it becomes a part of what we see and how we think. It’s not surprising that media portrayals of mental illness are not only false but also excessively negative. It’s difficult not to whip up the drama and details of the most gruesome murder of the year – that’s how you get more viewership. What’s worse is that news stories rarely ever contain the opinion of a person with a mental illness. It’s often only law enforcement or a health professional speaking on behalf of them, which leads to the perception that people with mental illness are unable of developing opinions or speaking on their own behalf.
Mental illness is often used as a weapon in the entertainment industry. It’s quite sad that a true and devastating sickness can be battered and manipulated into becoming not only a social stigma, but a grotesque or villainous character. A recent study showed that 72.1% of adult characters on television who were depicted as mentally ill, injured or killed others. In general, characters that were mentally ill were 10 times more violent than their co-stars. It’s not surprising that the reality is completely different. The majority of crime, about 95-97%, is committed by people with no mental illness. This huge difference between fiction and fact is feeding the negative rap that mental illness receives.
Not only is the problem located in the frequency that mental illness is displayed in the media, but also the method of portrayal. The most common stereotypical depictions of people with mental illnesses are rebellious free spirit, violent seductress, narcissistic parasite, mad scientist, sly manipulator, helpless/depressed female and comedic relief. The problem here is that these characters often have no identity outside of their “crazy” behavior – their mental illness becomes their one and only label. It becomes the point where the mental illness is the character’s main personality traits and the illness is the only way that character can be possibly defined.
There is also the tendency to automatically associate mental illness with simple-mindedness. In prime-time TV drama, more than 43% of mentally ill characters did not understand everyday adult roles and were often portrayed as lost and confused. These characters also spoke in very simple terms and grammar, and were also often shown to be helpless and dishevelled. Almost always they were poor and homeless in addition to being held by police for crimes that had little understanding or remembrance about.
The reality is that mental illness can strike anywhere and anyone – whether you are a student, professional, or retiree. However, the media depicts mental illness as something separate from general society. People who are mentally ill are often shown to be unemployed without family, friends or unrelated personal history. Mental illness does not discriminate against class, age, or popularity. The continued depiction of people with mental illnesses as separate from general society is just a continuation in describing them as almost subhuman. The fact that homelessness is commonly associated with mental illness perpetuates the impression that people with mental illness are dependent on others or that mental illness causes homelessness, especially since a discussion of the broader systemic issues that lead to homelessness is lacking. This view contributes to the picture that individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis are incapable of being productive members of society.
Not only is the perception of individuals who are mentally ill warped and twisted but the depiction of treatments and patient facilities is also often untrue. How many movies have you seen with the cold empty asylums filled with screaming patients and nurses wearing white starch-stiff uniforms? The inaccurate and unflattering stereotypes of the psychiatric profession misinforms the public and undermines the credibility of mental health care practitioners. In the media, mental health professionals were often show to be neurotic, ineffectual, mentally ill themselves, comically inept, self-absorbed, drug-addicted, foolish or outright idiotic. These portrayals reinforce the idea that helping others requires little skill or expertise. It’s not surprising that less than 33% of mentally ill patients in Canada seek professional health – depictions of mentally health practitioners as exploitative and mentally unstable do irreparable harm to people who are already hesitant to seek treatment.
Mental illness is not a violent death sentence, nor is it an outlier that only occurs to the homeless and people on the fringe of society. It is a common occurrence that is nothing to be ashamed of – despite what the media thinks. Ignoring the elephant in the room will not make it go away. Only by admitting to it will any true change happen.
