A few weeks ago, through the power of the Internet, news arrived of deep cuts to the ranks of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in order to keep budgets balanced. At first, I tried to put my disappointment (bordering on outrage) into context: since its inception, every Canadian government has taken a kick at the CBC can by cutting its budget or by trying to reform its mandate. So much so, that much of what you see and hear on CBC these days is like any other commercial media outlet.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.
CBC is not properly commercial -- it can never be commercial because it can never compete in the same cutthroat manner as a private sector organization focussed solely on the bottom line. Unfortunately, for the last 25 or so years, that's what we've gotten from the CBC, a consequence of trying to draw the difficult balance between being accountable to Canadian taxpayers, and serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This has created a watered down, hybrid mash-up of a mandate and is a recipe for suicide in the 500-channel-satellite-radio-Internet-on-demand media universe.
Over holiday dinner last week, the topic of Billy Bob Thornton and his interview with Jian Ghomeshi on CBC Radio was mentioned. Three people around the table didn't know who Ghomeshi was (I did consider them relatively well-informed... not anymore) and the rest of us discussed what happened during the course of the interview and budget cuts to the CBC. It was my brother, in a moment of true lucidity, who asked: "why should we be funding the CBC when these are the types of people being interviewed?"
Well put. And, as much as I hate to admit it, he's right. Who honestly cares about Billy Bob Thornton?
His comment brought to mind another recent incident, when Ghomeshi interviewed Gene Simmons on the topic of "saving the Canadian music industry." Not only was Ghomeshi treated to full frontal arrogance by his guest, but how can Gene Simmons help Canada? The fact that he was given a taxpayer outlet legitimizes him as being informed and qualified to speak on the topic. After the interview, it was clear he was better qualified to save the KISS army than the Canadian music industry. We need made-in-Canada solutions, not excessive tongue flap from false prophets.
Sadly, my family's dinner table was a microcosm for where we stand in Canada right now. There are those who will listen to commercial radio and television, comfortable and satisfied with the prepackaged Mc-morning wake-up show or bubble-gum top 40 hits format. For them, public broadcasting is like offal -- it exists, some call it a delicacy, but let someone else appreciate it. These are the Canadians who should be challenged to engage, think and aspire to something higher, not just the latest Blackberry or trendy top from Old Navy. The Canadian government, for that reason alone, must step up to the plate to provide funding and regulatory guidance to the CBC, and at the same time strengthen regulations on private media outlets out of sheer fear that if this doesn't happen, we will stratify Canada into a tiny population of thinkers and a bloated population of mindless consumers.
Look to America for an existing model -- consumer zombie-ism is not a pretty sight. Public broadcasting is for the moneyed intelligentsia, as they're the only ones who can afford to cough up enough dough and use the donation on their taxes. Otherwise, mind-numbing Fox reality shows, such as Moment of Truth for example, are a staple.
Now, I don't purport to have an in-depth understanding of the regulatory framework for Canadian media, and I recognize that some of my arguments and examples are highly simplified. However, the gist and goals are clear -- it's time for the government to support Canadian media, and not the multinational for-profit corporations that answer to shareholders, that are currently operating our system. The government must use its power to re-localize highly-centralized media corporations in order to make them grassroots once again and therefore, relevant and informative to individual communities. The common "cost consolidation" excuse no longer applies thanks to technology -- the death knell for newspapers, for example, has already sounded. New, Internet iterations of media must be localized to create employment, inspire local newsgathering and story-telling, and ultimately, reinvigorate journalism in every nook and cranny across this country.
In that sense, my sentiments are slightly "back to the future"-esque. As in the past, the CBC should be restored to play its proper role as national voice and media "tie that binds." All Canadians should be encouraged to call upon the government to protect and fund it as such. On the other hand, Canadians should never have allowed local newspapers, radio stations and television stations to be swallowed up into faceless multinational corporations and then systematically watered down to the point where press releases are packaged as news stories (and don't be fooled, this happens all the time!) in the name of cost savings. Thanks to an incredible shift in technology, our government can be proactive and seize an opportunity to help local entrepreneurs and publishers make news local again through new media. In that sense, we can transform Can-Con from simply regulatory in nature, into Can-Do, a proactive approach to supporting Canadians and Canada.
Support the Canadian Labour Congress and its calls to restore CBC funding
Enjoy a blast from the past - 1982 CBC station identifier.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting that the Harper government is gutting the CBC at the same time that bailout rumours are flying around for the private broadcasters. Have you heard any news about it?
http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/7415/ctv-canwest-quebecor-ottawa-media-funding/
Anyways, I think there is simply a philisophical divide in the country. Some see public broadcasting as a national public service, while those in the government view it as a business with access to public funds that its competitors are denied. If you take the latter view, the government actions make sense.
It similar to the philisophical divide about the nature of culture. The US is the only industrialized country with no Minister of Culture. So a Trade Representative is sent to international meetings between ministers of culture. It depends on whether or not you view culture as a commodity like any other.
HI MD,
Thanks for sharing this link, which is of course, infuriating. You are absolutely correct about the philosophical divide - on all the levels you mentioned.
While there is merit in allowing all voices space to be heard, opinions and ideology cannot be allowed to trump facts. Thought leaders and political leaders must be the ones to see the historical significance of CBC and its important contributions to Canadian culture. My concern - I'm sure many peoples' concern - is the dearth of an intelligent and balanced approach in Ottawa when it comes preserving all things Canadian. Successive governments since the Mulroney era have whittled away the critical work of important Canadians like Lester Pearson or Tommy Douglas.
In the course of my blog post, I really wanted to touch upon the National Film Board as well. Recently, they allowed public access to a great number of documentaries from their archive. If you get a moment, watch Billy Crane Moves Away (http://www.nfb.ca/film/billy_crane_moves_away/) or
Speak It! From the Heart of Black Nova Scotia (http://www.nfb.ca/film/speak_it_from_heart_of_black_nova_scotia/). No one else is going to document these stories and give a voice to the fringe or disenfranchised. These stories, and so many more, can only be gathered, understood, and preserved through the great work done by the CBC and NFB. Of course, some may argue that these are not stories worth preserving - but ask that question of the subjects of such films. They are absolutely worth preserving if we are to understand ourselves as a nation.
Is there room for improvement in the CBC or NFB? Sure. But the approach cannot be to gut the budget and watch the organization atrophy, all the while thrashing it for not doing good work.
Post a Comment