Goodbye and good luck, Jillian Harris. Now engaged to that guy Ed. Though I doubt we have seen the last of you. After two turns on reality-TV shows and clearly being really, really excited about that, I suspect that you might not resist a third outing. Wedding special anyone? Stand by, Canada.
Now then: What do we want? News! And when do want it? Now! That's pretty much the way it is. We expect television to deliver the news and expect it to be up-to-date. But, I ask you, what package of news do we want? News that there's been a coup in some country thousands of miles away? News that a guy two streets away won the lottery and bought a new car for his mom? News that some skinny actress wore a red mini-dress to the premiere of some movie you'll never watch? News that some professional athlete has a new contract and will earn more next year than all the people you know, combined?
Well it depends. If you're Canadian you want more international news. That and sports stuff. No, I'm not just idly speculating and making it up.
Angus Reid Strategies recently conducted a unique poll that asked people in Canada, the United States and Britain to "design" their own nightly newscast. It turns out that, as we've always surmised, American viewers aren't all that interested in the world outside the United States. In fact, congratulations Canada - we truly are worldly, wide in our outlook, not merely stuck on the local.
It's just that we're kind of hung up on sports. Worldy jocks, that's us. The survey indicated that viewers in Canada would devote 10.1 per cent of their "ideal nightly television newscast" to sports, compared to just 8.6 per cent in the U.K. and 8.5 per cent in the U.S. Also, Canadians would allocate 20.4 per cent of their nightly television newscast to international news, slightly ahead of people in Britain (18.7 per cent) and way, way more than the Americans (14.5 per cent).
These are interesting figures. By "sports" maybe most Canadians mean hockey, so it seems many viewers want, like, stuff about the NHL on the news every darn night. As if there wasn't enough punditry and breaking news about some guy's groin injury already.
The Brits are, of course, also deeply interested in sports. Soccer, cricket, rugby, horse racing and some rich dorks riding around on horses trying to hit a small, round ball with an instrument totally unsuited to the purpose. Polo, that's it. And yet they want less sports on the nightly news than we do. Everything in its place, I suspect, is the attitude. Or they have less tolerance for highly paid athletes announcing that they plan to give "110 per cent" in the next game.
I also note that respondents in the U.S. are ahead of the others when it comes to business news, suggesting that 10.7 per cent of a nightly television newscast deal with financial news (compared to 9.7 per cent in the U.K. and 8.9 per cent in Canada). Also, it's interesting that Americans are, apparently, weather-obsessed, asking for more weather coverage, 9.5 per cent, compared to 6.7 per cent in Canada and 6.5 per cent in Britain.
That seems odd, as Canadians are perceived to be weather fanatics. Maybe the Canadian fear is that if there were more weather information, there would be less time for the all-important sports coverage. The hell with the weather, just look out the window. But, is that new signing going to give "110 per cent" or merely the standard 100 per cent?
The upshot, one suspects, is that U.S. viewers are deeply concerned about the economy, that's why they want more business news. And, well, if the weather is going to be awful, best know about it in advance. There's only so much fear and loathing that Americans can take right now.
In Britain, also, they want more arts and entertainment coverage, suggesting that 9.6 per cent of their nightly TV news be devoted to this topic, compared to 7.9 per cent of Canadians and 7.5 per cent of Americans. In Britain, too, they have a huge appetite for celebrity news, 5.5 per cent, compared to 4.9 per cent in the U.S. and 3.5 per cent in Canada.
In that case, Canadians probably aren't interested in the engagement ring that Ed gave Jillian Harris. I'll tell you anyway. It is "a $60,000 (U.S.) platinum ring set with a 2.05-carat pear-shaped centre diamond with six baguette-cut diamonds to accent the centre stone and 94 round-cut diamonds to give it a contemporary look." I'll bet you're glad you know. But now you want the sports news.…
Also airing
Wide Angle: Contestant No. 2 (PBS, 9 p.m.) is a heartbreaking doc about Duah Fares, an Arab-Israeli teenager and member of the Druze minority, who wants to be in showbiz. Her idol is Angelina Jolie. Made by Barak Heymann and Timna Goldstein-Hattav, the doc chronicles Duah's attempt to enter and win the Miss Israel pageant. Her entire Druze community balks. She'd have to wear a bathing suit in public and that would disgrace her family. Also it could put her in grave danger. What we see is a profoundly bitter confrontation between the individual and the community.
Don't Cry Now (W, 10 p.m.) is a TV movie based on a Joy Fielding novel, made in Calgary and directed by Jason Priestley, who also stars. In the main, it's a women-in-jeopardy story. See, Bonnie (Leslie Hope) was dubious when her husband's ex, Joan (Jann Arden), issues a warning that something terrible is going to happen. Then Joan is killed. Whodunit?