In Argentina, as elsewhere in Latin Ameria, The History Channel has an exclusive distribution deal with NET, a Globo and Carlos Slim-controlled “triple play” broadband empire in expansion. This post is going out over a NET Virtua connection, in fact, which costs some 4x more, relative to the local wage scale, as it does in New York. If we are lucky, and lobishomem activity in the neighborhood permitting. Argentina is making some Mercosul-busting noises at the moment, by the way. On which more soon.
In Brazil, which speaks a kind of Portuguese, The History Channel is known as “The History Channel.”
In Portugal, which speaks another kind of Portuguese entirely — I was listening to an inteview the other day on the TV with a guy from the 1966 Burtoogaw World Cup team that took out Pele in the first round, and what the hell was that guy saying, anyway? — it is known as “O Canal de História.”
Why is that?
I was just arguing with the Enigmatic Mermaid about this last night — about whether the bill proposed a few years back by Aldo Rebelo, president of the federal legislature here — sort of a Communist Tip O’Neill, this guy –to require Portuguese (Br) translations of foreign brand names and technical terminology was frivolous or not.
I tend to the “not” side. Very strongly.
Why? I would guess EU trade policy has a lot to do with it.
I think it has everything to do with, and matters very much in the scheme of, some very fundamental trade and governance issues that are still up in the air around here, as well.
All of which has quite a bit to do with that Cardoso II-era Constitutional amendment that let operations like the History Channel into Brazil in the first place.
Cardoso II itself being the product of an eerily Chavista constitutional amendment, of course, permitting a second presidential term where this was explicitly barred before.
This is a country where, before this amendment, not even Roberto Marinho could sneak Time-Life into a country run by generals — not even after all he did for the generals, and not even after all the help Time-Life gave him in starting up the Rede Globo
All documented in BBC 4’s 1993 report — still banned in Brazil, by court order upon the application of Globo itself — “Beyond Citizen Kane.”
No, wait, I have been consistently wrong about this point, according to the Wikipedia article:
The Marinho family bought the national rights to the documentary, and, by refusing to license it to other broadcasters or release it on video, curtailed its distribution in Brazil.
I consider consuming a pirated version of this content an act of civil disobedience against the private ownership of public history.
So I did it.
So go ahead: sue me back to the Stone Age.
If I have to, I will cart bricks for $R5 a day and spend it in the local LAN house. Typing. Typing.
Another for the growing file of business and goverance. cases related to the Areopagitica tradition and the infamous Fox-Monsanto “it is not illegal to lie to the public” case in Florida.
On the History Canal, from the Wikiographers in the fina flor de Lácio:
The History Channel (Canal de História em Portugal) é um canal de televisão por assinatura. A sua programação é voltada principalmente para a exibição de documentários de teor histórico. No Brasil, algumas pessoas criticam o fato do canal centrar sua programação apenas em História do esporte, automobilística e de confrontos e guerras além de, por vezes, uma inclinação aos Estados Unidos.
I translate the highlighted passage: “In Brazil, some criticize the fact that the channel focuses its programming exclusively on the history of sports, the automobile industry, and wars and conflict, and that it sometimes betrays a bias toward the United States.”
To strictly adhere to the NPOV rule, so as not to assume facts not in evidence — which is not to say that they do not exist — one would write “critics allege that” rather than “some criticize the fact that ,,,”
But how many people on Wikipedia these days really care about that sort of picky detail, right?
So I come home from having a beer with the EM and the HH yesterday and Neuza is glued to the HC/CdoH on our Gradiente flatscreen TV (one minimum monthly salary, or a little more) which is showing a fascinating, beautifully produced two or three-hour block of programming on the wonders of whiskey.
On Brazilian conspicuous consumption of which see, recently, here.
The whole thing, however, it strikes me immediately, is essentially an advertorial for certain brands — most especially Suntory, with a long and hagiographical bio of the founder of that fine chain of distilleries — and not others.
We even see a bunch of connoisseurs ostentatiously turning up their noses at Canadian Club and Wild Turkey.
Sure, Wild Turkey and Yukon Jack are basically marketed as Drambuie for trailer trash, but surely they will do in a pinch?
Especially if your girlfriend just left you for your hound dog, and stole your pickup truck with the gun rack in the bargain.
Now of course, this is an interesting story, as far as I am concerned.
I am a huge whiskey fan myself, and it was interesting to hear the flights of poetic fancy involved in describing the delights of Ardbeg, which I would not and do not take money to endorse, but will tell you freely and of my own volition that I have consumed with pleasure.
And I am always complaining, just ask my wife, of the difficulties I have in getting a good Islay single-malt or two — I know some good off-brand cheap ones that really do the trick for me, even — into the country for my estimable father-in-law, the Latin American poet-lawyer.
On the other hand, a nice Romeo y Julieta or Dona Flor Corona with a shot of Sagitiba Envelhecida — for export only, but you can still get it domestically, though a jeitinho — or Nega Fulô is nothing to be sneezed at, either.
Sometimes one is required to make lemonade with the lemons life hands one.
But for crying out loud: This was one of the most baldfaced examples of advertorializing I have seen in a long while.
Why am I paying NET Virtua — the Marinho family and Carlos Slim, et al. — top dollar for the privilege of being advertised to without proper disclosure?
Our NET “double play” subscription — Internet that regularly fails to live up to its SLA + the most basic of basic cable — costs 50% of a minimum salary here in Sâo Paulo.
In New York, our Cablevision “triple play” — NET, basic cable + a few premium channels, with PPVs, and VoIP — usually runs about 12% of a minimum wage monthly income.
And to get Cablevision rather than Time-Warner, please note, we had to be lucky enough to move into a Cablevision fiefdom.
This is really, really dishonest, even by the standards of the Fox NEWS-Intel “fake news” Act of Journalistic Scumbaggery of the Year Runner-Up — which Richard Rocha of TV Azteca (Mexico) wins, hands down.
Continue reading →
You must be logged in to post a comment.