Diversifying Our Canadian Media Landscape

Posted By: Paul Boin
Professor of Media and Communication Studies
University of Windsor, pboin@uwindsor.ca

[Note: What follows is a slightly revised version of the CRTC document I submitted to the CRTC "Diversity of Voices" proceedings (Submitted July 18, 2007)]

The following are 9 very brief points that I would like to make for this vitally important "Diversity of Voices" CRTC proceeding.

POINT 1: CANADA'S MEDIA LANDSCAPE IS ALREADY TOO CONCENTRATED

Our present Canadian media landscape (Television, Radio, Cable, Satellite, New Media, Telecommunications, Newspapers) is already one of the most concentrated media systems (too few owning too many voices) in the developed world. This broad-based Diversity of Voices review is an opportunity for preventing further horizontal and vertical integration from occurring in Canadian media.

POINT 2: DE-REGULATION EQUALS RE-REGULATION BY BIG CORPORATE INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF SMALL BUSINESSES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The term "De-regulation" is simply a euphemism for re-regulation by big corporate interests at the expense of both the public interest, and smaller business interests. Followed to its 'logical' conclusion, 'de-regulation' will allow the biggest players to control the key media markets in a manner that resembles a cartel more so than anything remotely competitive.

Our present Minister of Industry, Maxime Bernier's [since replaced by Jim Prentice], and our present CRTC Chairman, Konrad von Finkenstein, have recently echoed sentiments along the following lines: "we need a lighter hand when it comes to regulating the [broadcasting or telecommunications] industry;" and that market forces should be allowed to dominate over regulation. Just look at what's happening with our present situation in the Canadian telecommunications industry. Just a precious few months after Minster Bernier started deregulating the telecommunications industry for the purpose of allowing "market forces" to supposedly "increase competition," we saw that big market forces have no interest in true competition. Telus has since proposed to buy BCE, thereby attempting to form an unrivaled monopoly in home, business, mobile, and residential telephone service at the expense of smaller business interests, consumer interests, and the public interest.

This market fundamentalist approach of allowing market forces to run roughshod over government regulations and the public interest was already employed as a flawed 19th century social experiment. Anyone recall the Robber-Barron Era?

While in B.C., our present CRTC head also stated that, "We have a [Conservative] government that is very keen on less regulation, and that has directed us to accept market forces as the default and regulation as the exception." When one hears such talk from a so-called "public servant" we must remind him that our broadcast system belongs to the public, not just the whims of industry, and that this is not simply de-regulation but re-regulation (re-regulation by private interests with no concern or possible input from the public interest). The central organizing principle and highest priority of any for profit corporation is to, well, make a profit. Serving the public interest is an expendable "priority" which will inevitably fall to second or third fiddle in the pursuit of profit maximization. Governments, and government agencies and regulators like the CRTC, are supposed to have serving the public interest as their central organizing principle.

Further, our present federal government has no mandate to "direct us [the CRTC]" into abandoning the legal regulatory responsibilities, as detailed by the operating Broadcasting Act of the land, of the CRTC. The CRTC is supposed to be an independent arms-length regulatory body beholden to the public interest and the existing Broadcasting Act and CRTC policies, not simply the potentially dangerous wishes of any temporary government, let alone the wishes of minority government.

POINT 3: ONLY A DIVERSITY OF OWNERS CAN ENSURE A DIVERSITY OF VOICES

The only way we can truly hope to ensure a diversity of voices in the Canadian mediascape is to ensure that there are a diversity of owners. Over the last many years the CRTC has not even shown the will to get Canadian media operators to meet their existing Broadcasting Act, Canadian content, and conditions of license obligations. Time and time again we have seen both our media operators and the CRTC failing when it comes to protecting Canadian public interest and cultural obligations. The only thing that has been proven to work for the purpose of ensuring a diversity of voices and perspectives is having a diversity of owners. Leibling's dictum "Freedom of the press [or channel] is guaranteed only to those who own one" has never been more relevant. Thinking that having stricter content requirements on the books, or separated newsroom arrangements (as proposed by the CBSC), is foolhardy at best, as the buck always stops with ownership.

The faint hope of Canadian and diverse content protection has become even more faint by the state of cross media (horizontal) and cross industry (vertical) ownership. Cable companies are owning more and more content channels and platforms, as are satellite companies. A true diversity of voices can and will only occur if our media system has a diversity of owners.

POINT 4: NEW MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC ISSUES JUSTIFY CANADIAN CONTENT REQUIREMENTS (& other Policies) MORE THAN EVER

Developments in new media and communication technologies (or global economic issues) should have no bearing on existing Canadian content or common ownership regulations and policies. Each time a new techno-gadget plays or podcasts some media content we hear the whine of our wealthy broadcasters stating how they are at a regulatory disadvantage when compared to their newer media counterparts. To these whines I respond, "then run all the cheap American programming and advertising you want via your corporate websites, and give us back your publicly owned broadcast frequencies and designated spots on the cable and satellite dial." Canadian media companies presently operating at a healthy profit on Canadian airwaves, and on privileged positions on the Canadian cable and satellite dials, have an obligation to ensure that the content they provide Canadians meets their existing conditions of license and the spirit of the Broadcasting Act. If Canadian media companies no longer wish to meet these more than reasonable and culturally beneficial conditions of license then they should relinquish their broadcast licenses (and privileged spots on the cable/satellite dial) and the CRTC can then reallocate these back to any number of conscientious media providers (corporate, nonprofit, smaller independent, government/public service etc..) who will be more than proud to meet the goals of the broadcasting act - that "the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians," provide "public service," while "providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity…" - while earning a healthy profit.

Point 5: CRTC MUST STOP THE TAIL FROM WAGGING THE DOG

This practice of merging companies (in clear violation of common ownership or other existing laws and policies) in the hope that the governments (and their regulators) will look the other way or provide a special exemption, needs to stop. It's analogous to an alcoholic driver who knows that the existing law of the land holds that he can't drive a car while having a blood/alcohol ratio above .08. Yet he drives his car, even though he knows that he is above this existing limit, with the naïve hope that his irresponsible action will somehow cause the existing limit to be raised to a 1.5 blood/alcohol ratio.

Therefore, the CRTC should adopt a firm approach when reviewing all future media-mergers. Existing laws and policies must be enforced with no exceptions granted. This will not only protect the public interest but will also provide would-be merging companies with the regulatory certainty they claim to want.

These are not anti-business arguments, these are pro-responsible business and pro authentic competition arguments.

POINT 6: THE CRTC MUST FOLLOW THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE EXISTING BROADCASTING ACT

The CRTC (from staffers to commissioners to its Chairman) must take its public service responsibilities and legal obligations - as detailed by the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Act - seriously and begin re-doubling all efforts in this regard.

The CRTC, and our present Conservative Federal Government, has no Mandate to get our CRTC out regulating all key aspects of our Canadian media system. Section 5.1 of our operating Broadcasting Act of 1991 specifically states that the "Commission shall regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system." This Broadcasting Act is the operating law of the land, and both our present government and CRTC employees are obligated to operate within both the spirit and letter of this law.

POINT 7: CBC DESPERATELY NEEDS INCREASED & STABLE FUNDING SO THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO BE CANADA'S MOST PROLIFIC CONTRIBUTOR TO OUR DIVERSITY OF VOICES

Canada ranks as the 22nd worst out of 24 OECD Countries in funding public broadcasting (based on per capita GNP). Further, the CBC annual parliamentary appropriation is not indexed to inflation, which effectively means that the CBC budget is getting cut more and more each year, as wages, equipment, energy costs keep climbing. The percentage of revenue that the CBC gets from advertising is now creeping over 50 per cent. As this over-dependence on advertising occurs the content that our only national public broadcaster delivers to Canadians will become less and less distinguishable from private and American broadcasters (e.g., recent rise in CBC Reality TV programming). The CBC is the only broadcaster that has consistently exceeded its conditions of license in terms of creating and broadcasting Canadian programming, and has contributed immensely our diversity of voices. The way that our most recent Liberal and current Conservative government has under funded our CBC is a national and international disgrace that must be reversed immediately, if Canadians hope to be exposed to a diversity of voices.

POINT 8: EXTEND THE COMMON OWNERSHIP POLICY

As The CRTC states in its terms of reference for this preceding, the commission presently has "no common ownership policy in place with respect to specialty, pay, pay-per-view and video-on-demand (VOD) undertakings. In aggregate, these services now account for more viewing in Canada than OTA [over the air] services." All the more reason for the CRTC to expand the existing common ownership policy to include all Canadian non-OTA undertakings mentioned above, in order to protect and enhance our diversity of voices.

POINT 9: THE CRTC MUST REVERSE ITS WRONG-HEADED/DIVERSITY KILLING DECISION TO GET OUT OF REGULATING ADVERTISING

The recent CRTC decision (May 2007) to allow networks, not the CRTC, determine how much advertising Canadian viewers can stomach per program hour (the current limit is 12 minutes), will kill our existing diversity of voices and will limit future diversity.

In a Playback Magazine interview our present CRTC Chair, Konrad von Finckenstein, stated, "We [CRTC] are getting out of the business of regulating advertising. First of all, regulating advertising is not a "business" but a public interest responsibility that our CRTC has (hopefully) temporarily forgotten. He further stated that "We don't think it's necessary for us to restrict something Canadians can do themselves with their remote control." Anyone with any foresight can see that this false "what the public will bear" argument holds no serious weight, as it will be a foregone conclusion that advertising time on all networks will start increasing per programming hour, each month and each year, leaving less and less time for vital public affairs, a diversity of perspectives and voices, news and other uplifting programming (i.e., Canadian Drama) at a time when our democracy and society have never been so impacted by media. As for the viewer-choice point he makes, I ask the following: if all networks do the same (as they will all likely be doing as extra Ad-time = extra Ad-dollars) then where is a person with a remote control to switch to?

By attempting to get our CRTC "out of the business" of regulating advertising time, not only has von Finkenstein gone against 75 years of broadcasting precedent and well-developed and proven public policy, but it seems as though he hasn't even read our existing Broadcasting Act. Section 5.1 of our act states that the "Commission shall regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system." Section 10.1 of our act states that the CRTC shall "make regulations…respecting the character of advertising and the amount of broadcasting time that may be devoted to advertising… respecting the proportion of time that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, including advertisements or announcements."

In this recent advertising decision the CRTC' has (hopefully) temporarily forgotten and abdicated its legal responsibilities and betrayed the public interest. This decision must be reversed to ensure that Canadians have a diversity of voices and any semblance of meaningful content in the coming years.

Dr. Paul D. Boin
Assistant Professor, Communication Studies
University of Windsor, 4105 Lambton Tower
Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
(Email) pboin@uwindsor.ca (Tel.) 519-253-3000 ext. 2893