A Manifesto
“Now would be an excellent time to take the CBC out of advertising and out of the kind of programming (such as sports) that generates most of its advertising revenue. In return for a monopoly on TV advertising, the subsidies presently paid to private broadcasters should go to the public system.”
That is what Richard Nielsen, the president of Norflicks Productions, wrote in Monday’s Toronto Star. The subsidies of public money to which he refers are about the same as the public money now paid to the CBC.
On Tuesday, it was announced that Kirstine Stewart would succeed Richard Stursberg as Vice President of CBC English Services. She was quoted as saying that we now “have an opportunity to define what modern public broadcasting really is.”
Clearly, the CBC’s president and board have decided that Richard Stursberg’s definition – he had appointed Kirstine Stewart – is the right one: that success is to be measured by ratings, and that this criterion is entirely compatible with the Mandate of the CBC.
This is not true, and cannot be true. (CBC Radio is not under discussion.) While CBC-TV continues to carry many good shows of all kinds, the programs that matter most, the Canadian dramas, are chosen according to the same Hollywood standards as those of the private sector and – equally important – the News is increasingly filled with human interest stories, crimes and disasters, to attract larger audiences. Some of the best analysis and serious discussion appears on TVO.
Ratings as the primary criterion is the direct result of the disastrous cuts Canadian governments – starting with Trudeau, for reasons connected with Quebec politics – have inflicted on the Corporation. These cuts have forced it to depend for its survival on ever-increasing commercial revenues. As a result, it would be hard for a neutral outsider to see any substantial difference between CBC-TV and the private networks. It is true, however, that there is more Canadian content on the CBC.
While the dependence on commercial revenue continues, it is hard to challenge Richards Stursberg’s and Kirstine Stewart’s position. She can only define “what modern public broadcasting really is” by making the meaning of the word public meaningless. Stursberg used to say, “There is no public broadcasting without a public.” This week, Kirstine Stewart said, “We are not PBS,” adding that “such a comparison would be a myopic view of what Canadians are interested in.”
This observation goes to the heart of the matter. Public broadcasting, she implies, must not be elitist. In many people’s perception, PBS is. (PBS, of course, has a very different, and far more limited, function than the CBC.) No doubt she would say that the CBC’s Mandate as interpreted by a minority of high-minded, usually elderly consumers who are, she would say, out of touch with “what Canadians are really interested in,” is elitist. This minority demands higher intellectual standards and greater efforts to reflect Canada according to Canadian, rather than Hollywood, standards. She would be quite right to add that she is not aware of any vociferous public demand, or preponderance of editorial opinion, supporting such an approach. If there was a referendum today, she would no doubt add, asking “whether Canadians are satisfied with the system as it is,” the answer would be “On the whole, yes.” This includes the Internet, on which, everybody agrees, the CBC does excellent work. Everybody has some criticism, but few challenge the system as such.
But this minority maintains that, as far as public broadcasting is concerned, it is an immoral system and must be revised. It is based on a fundamentally wrong interpretation of the word “public.” The public money that is invested in the CBC is being used primarily to deliver audiences to advertisers. Public money should be spent on public purposes. Advertising serves different, non-public, purposes. Naturally, the criterion for success in a system based on advertising is ratings. The advertiser wants to get his money’s worth.
Developments in the private sector are at this time moving towards a new look at the system.
One hopes that the question will be asked – what are public purposes? The answer, this Manifesto suggests, is education and – please forgive the clumsy word – Canadian-ness. In Canada, education is a provincial matter, and one has to be careful how to used the word in connection with a federal institution like the CBC. Until a better word is coined it is fearlessly suggested that the word “enlightenment” is used.
In line with Nielsen’s financial formula, this Manifesto proposes a national network called CBC Enlightenment. It should be run in conjunction with the provincial educational networks, and asked to provide high-quality Canadian dramas and documentaries, produced in many parts of the country, substantial public affairs programs as well as a return to seriousness in the presentation of news. There should also be new efforts to build bridges with Quebec’s Radio Canada. First-class American and European – and other – programs should be added.
The effectiveness of CBC Enlightenment should be assessed not in terms of ratings but by other means that are not difficult to devise.
Further Reading: Richard Nielsen, CRTC Reality Show is a Disaster, Toronto Star, January 10, 2011.
I can’t imagine private broadcasters objecting to a word of your manifesto, and Canadians will be left with clear choices. Bravo!
“CBC Radio is not under discussion.” — pity!
CBC-TV “news” has become useless: “human interest stories, crimes and disasters” as you rightly note; a sprinkling of Canadian political stories; and virtually nothing international. Your proposal for a CBC-Enlightenment is perfect. Well, near-perfect; I would add two suggestions. First, its mandate should include a commitment (which I believe was once part of CBC philosophy) to preserve and protect the Queen’s English– no more atrocious syntax-mangling on the so-called “news” or elsewhere; and secondly, Eric Koch should be recruited to set it up, so we can be assured it’s done properly.
Your manifesto deserves a much wider audience. Can it not be submitted as an op-ed piece to a daily that is read nationally?
It is a dilemma: how to show the CBC’s political (and fiscal) masters that it is doing the job of serving all Canadians. But a wholesale dumbing down of programming to achieve this is not the usual role of a public broadcaster. The BBC seems to have avoided this and so has NPR. They have achieved high quality programming and mass audiences. Later this month, the new five year plan will be released. We will then see if the CBC is still committed to its mission to “inform, enlighten and entertain.” And in that order.
Just curious. How does the CBC compare with American talk shows, like CNN and MSNBC ? I like MSNBC, and, apparently, lots of people do since it has overtaken CNN.
No comparison. The CBC has (A) a full network, like CBS, NBC or ABC, an (B) a news network, but on a more modest scale than CNN or MSNBC (which is not carried in Canada). My Manifesto is about the full network, which is the one that matters.
“The public money that is invested in the CBC is being used primarily to deliver audiences to advertisers.” Such a clear statement of the core problem and a wonderful proposed solution. Bravo! Wider audience required.
Thank you for this encouraging response. A major effort is being undertaken to obtain important support. A more elaborate document is being prepared.