LESSONS FOR THE CBC
37
0 LESSONS FOR THE CBC: Public broadcasting funding models, challenges and successes in the 21 st century Prepared by Rachel Barsky for Professor Joseph Weiler Student Number: 50146091 Law 449C April 28, 2011
Transcript of LESSONS FOR THE CBC
0
LESSONS FOR THE CBC:
Public broadcasting funding models, challenges and successes in the 21st century
Prepared by Rachel Barsky for Professor Joseph Weiler
Student Number: 50146091
Law 449C
April 28, 2011
1
In this time of rapid technological change and economic hardship, television broadcasters
everywhere are hurting. Viewers can watch programs on their computers, on their phones, and at
whatever time is convenient for them. Advertising revenues are plummeting, networks are
cutting their budgets, shutting down stations and shrinking their staff.1 In Canada,
CTVglobemedia Inc., owner of CTV, forecast a $100 million loss in 2009 and took a $1.7 billion
writedown. It closed two stations in Ontario that year, cancelled its local newscasts on its A
channel in Ottawa, laid off employees across Canada, and offered its station in Brandon,
Manitoba, to the CBC for $1.2 In March 2011, CTVglobemedia was sold to BCE Inc. for $1.3
billion.3 Shaw Communications bought CanWest Global Communication Corp.‟s Global
television network and specialty channels out of bankruptcy in February 2010.4
The situation is just as tough—and maybe tougher—for public broadcasting. The
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, already in a precarious position prior to the industry‟s
upheaval, is dealing with a serious cash flow crisis. Recent cuts include the 800 jobs slashed in
2009, the sale of $125 million in CBC assets to make up for a shortfall of $171 million5, as well
as a $12.6 million reduction from the new Canadian Media Fund to finance independent
television productions6, to list just a few. However, the CBC‟s problems go deeper than the
private broadcasters‟, and that is because the CBC is facing an identity crisis. The CBC is meant
to be Canada‟s national public broadcaster, yet many argue the MotherCorp is just another
1 Craig Offman, “CBC tunes in to new reality,” National Post (13 March 2009), online:
<http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=1387536>. 2 L. Ian MacDonald, “The future of television in Canada,” National Post, (7 March 2009) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/7896>. 3 Ottawa Citizen, “$1.3-billion CTV sale wins approval,” (8 March 2011), online:
<http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/billion+sale+wins+approval/4400149/story.html>. 4 Dana Flavelle & John Spears, “Shaw buys control of Canwest Global,” Toronto Star, (12 February 2010), online:
<http://www.thestar.com/business/article/764426--shaw-buys-control-of-canwest-global>. 5 Travis Lupick, “CBC to lay off 800 employees,” straight.com, (25 March 2009), online:
<http://www.straight.com/article-209318/cbc-lay-800-employees>. 6 CBC News, “CBC sees $12.5M drop in program funding,” (7 April 2010), online:
<http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2010/04/07/cbc-media-fund.html>.
2
commercial broadcaster, funded largely by taxpayers‟ money. If the CBC wishes to fulfil its
mandate as a true public broadcaster—distinct from private broadcasters—it it will need to alter
its current path, which could include changes to its funding model. To aid the Corp in
determining what kind of broadcaster it wishes to be, it would be valuable to review its recent
challenges (focusing on its English television services) and those of other public broadcasters,
particularly the funding models of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Public
Broadcasting Service (PBS).
During the 1930s, American radio networks were rapidly invading Canada, and
Canadians were concerned about the influence that this U.S programming would have. To
maintain a distinct and separate Canadian cultural identity, the Government of Canada
established the CBC on November 2, 1936.7 The CBC‟s mandate has changed over the years, but
always proclaimed the network as a full-service broadcaster. Today, Canada‟s Broadcasting Act
states that the CBC‟s programming should:
i. be predominately and distinctively Canadian
ii. reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while
serving the special needs of those regions
iii. actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression
iv. be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and
circumstances of each official language community, including the
particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic
minorities
v. strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French
vi. contribute to shared national consciousness and identity
vii. be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and
efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
7 Leonard Brockington, “CBC Radio Takes to the Air,” CBC Digital Archives: On This Day, (2 November 1936), online:
<http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/11/02/12529/>.
3
viii. reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.8
With its current funding, many argue it is extremely difficult or even impossible for the
CBC to fulfill its broad mandate. Through the current model, the Corp receives approximately
$1.1 billion from Parliament to subsidize its 29 services, and makes approximately $600 million
in advertising revenue. Its English television division receives 38 per cent of the funding, except
for CBC News Network (formerly Newsworld) which is funded by advertising and subscriber
fees of 63 cents per month9). Its Francophone counterpart takes 25 per cent.
10Although $1.7
billion is certainly a large amount of money, broadcasting is extremely expensive. English
Canadian broadcasters have the lowest per capita TV ad revenue compared to other English
language networks‟, with advertisers spending an average of just $82 per capita, compared to
$103 in Australia, $112 in the U.K, and $246 in the U.S.11
Furthermore, Canada‟s level of public
broadcasting funding is the fourth-lowest of all 26 Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) countries. In Canada, government support for public broadcasting was
0.08 per cent of its GDP in 2003, meaning that for every $1,250 dollars generated each year in
Canada, approximately $1 is used to fund the CBC. The average in the OECD countries is one of
every $714.12
For the CBC English TV, this means that taxpayers contribute about $33 per capita
annually of its approximately $634 million budget. Funding for the Corp has not increased
in 30 years, save for salary increases.13
Government cuts to the CBC amounted to 20 per cent of
its budget over roughly the past 15 years have taken a toll.14
During the 1990s alone, $415
8 Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. 1991 s. 3(1), accessible online: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1991-c-
11/latest/sc-1991-c-11.html 9 Rachel Barsky, “On Trial,” Ryerson Review of Journalism, (Summer 2008), online: <http://www.rrj.ca/m4140/>.
10 Offman, supra.
11 Laura Bracken, “Canadian license fees don’t stack up,” Playback, (7 January 2004), online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/3320> 12
Ian Morrison, “Is Public Broadcasting Still Relevant for Canada in the 21st
Century?” Harry Somers Lecture, Stratford Summer Music, (4 August 2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/speech/9612>. 13
Barsky, supra.
4
million was chopped by both the Conservatives and especially (facing large deficits), the
Liberals.15
Though the CBC and its supporters have asked for increases in its annual license fee
(most recently a recommendation for $40 instead of $33 originated from the government‟s own
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage16
), no party has agreed to one.
Accusations of political bias have long been thrown at the CBC, and charges of
government apathy or even resentment towards the Corp has also been at issue. Being funded as
it is, the CBC is hugely dependant on the government of the day for revenue on a year to year
basis, and some argue this arrangement does not allow the CBC to have complete editorial
independence. The CBC‟s president and 12 member board of directors (who cannot fire the
president) are appointed by the Prime Minister. Ninety-two per cent of CBC board appointees
have been affiliated with the governing political party, and 83 per cent of the Canadian Radio-
television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)—which regulates the CBC—is similarly
affiliated.17
The CBC‟s current president, Hubert Lacroix was appointed by Prime Minister Harper in
2007. Lacroix, formerly a mergers and acquisitions lawyer, has been a supporter of the
Conservative Party,18
however this has not stopped the Conservatives from accusing the CBC of
Liberal bias. Harper‟s campaign director, Doug Finley, launched an anti-CBC fundraising
campaign in 2010, asking for donations to fight the Liberal “vested interests” at the public
broadcaster.19
Later that year, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
14
Knowlton Nash, “CBC on edge of its ‘biggest crisis,’” Inside the CBC.com, (23 April 2007), online: <http://www.insidethecbc.com/nashcrisis/>. 15
Barsky, supra. Also see Fraser Institute, “Lessons from Liberals’ 1995 budget offer Conservatives a blueprint for cutting spending and balancing budget,” (17 February 2011), online: <http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17270>. 16
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, “Re: Pre-Budget Consultation Submission,” (13 August 2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/brief/9653>. 17
Canadian Press, “End patronage at CBC, groups urge Martin,” (23 September 2004), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/5400>. 18
Ian Morrison, “Stephen Harper’s hidden agenda for the CBC,” The Georgia Straight (16 March 2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/7956>.
5
Dean Del Mastro publically discussed the possibility of killing the Corp altogether. Mused Del
Mastro: “Maybe it‟s time we get out of the broadcasting business...The $1.1 billion, plus a whole
bunch of other stuff that we‟re investing in the public broadcaster, should we look at
reorganizing that in some fashion?”20
Liberal governments have not been overly friendly to the CBC either. For instance,
Nicholas Campbell, the actor who played Dominic Da Vinci on the highly regarded CBC drama
Da Vinci’s Inquest from 1998 to 2006, reports that former Prime Minister Paul Martin used to
plan how he would “spread the savings once he got rid of CBC.” And Jean Chretien, who would
yell “CBC!” whenever he saw Campbell, would become so agitated talking about his belief that
the CBC had ambushed him at a press conference that Campbell would have to calm him
down.21
Because of the government patronage involved, the CBC needs enough Canadians
supporting it so that politicians will not actually go forward with killing the Corp. For Richard
Stursberg, head of CBC English TV from 2004 to 2010, proving that support was attempted
through gaining the most viewers. “My number one thing is audiences, audiences, audiences,”
said Stursberg, who arrived at the CBC from the cable industry, without programming
experience. “So I measure our success as to whether our shows are being watched.” The
controversial vice president was widely condemned for this eyeball chasing; for making the
CBC into a “second-rate commercial broadcaster,” and for “dumbing down” its programming.22
Under his direction, the CBC rearranged its prime-time schedule to increase its ratings and
revenue potential. It bought American programs such as Jeopardy!, Wheel of Fortune, and Ghost
19
Jane Taber,“Tory culture warriors target CBC ‘vested interests,’” Globe and Mail, (27 April 2010), online: <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-culture-warriors-target-cbc-vested-interests/article1547969/>. 20
Dean Del Mastro (23 November 2010), audio available online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9854>. 21
Ben Kaplan, “How to fix the CBC: Why the Ceeb needs to take heed,” National Post, (10 January 2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/7644>. 22
Barsky, supra.
6
Whisperer, for a significant price.23
It slashed acclaimed Canadian programs such as Intelligence
and This is Wonderland for failing to attain the targeted number of viewers, replacing them with
quickly-axed shows such as MVP: The Secret Lives of Hockey Wives and jPod, and more popular
“factual entertainment” programs including The Week the Women Went, Dragon’s Den, and
Battle of the Blades.
With its acquisition of U.S. shows, the CBC‟s fulfilment of its Canadian content
requirements faltered. From 1990 to 2000, the CBC had increased its Canadian content during
primetime from 80 per cent (22.5 hours out of 28 per week), to 96 per cent Canadian (27 of 28
hours). But currently, only 75 per cent of CBC‟s primetime hours are filled with Canadian
programming.24
All broadcasters in Canada must comply with the CRTC Policy Framework for
Canadian Television, which requires broadcasters‟ overall schedule to consist of 60 per cent
Canadian content25
from 6 a.m. to midnight.26
Nonetheless, the CBC is more scrupulously
criticized when it airs U.S. shows and Hollywood films.
Canadians expect such programming from CTV or Global, but many ask whether the
public broadcaster should be imitating the privates, either by airing movies such as Ratatouille,
or creating reality programs mimicking those already in existence (ie; weight loss shows, singing
and dancing competitions, or ice skating competitions). Why fund the CBC to watch another
knock-off of American Idol, or the Biggest Loser? Do Canadian versions of such programming
aid in fostering the promotion of Canadian identity and culture, as the CBC is mandated to do?
And if not, what kind of programming is Canadian? Does being Canadian simply mean not being
23
Trevor Cole,“Dragon Done,” The Walrus. (November 2010), online: <http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/articles/2010.11-media-dragon-done/>. 24
Morrison, “Is Public Broadcasting Still Relevant in Canada in the 21st
Century?” supra. 25
Factors which the CRTC uses to define Canadian content include whether key creative personnel are Canadian, if the program’s producer is Canadian, and if 75 per cent of service costs and post-production lab costs are paid to Canadians. See Fraser Institute, “Canadian Content Regulations,” (August 1998), online: <http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/1998/august/canadian.html>. 26
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, “Building on Success: A Policy Framework for Canadian Television,” (11 June 1999), online: <http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/PB99-97.HTM>.
7
American?
These are questions that the CBC is meant to be considering, however under Stursberg,
such considerations did not appear to be of issue. Said the vice president in 2007: “You want to
define Canadian identity? Can you identify French identity, British identity, German identity,
Chilean identity? The United States is fairly big too, have you noticed? Three hundred million
people in the United States, way bigger than we are. What does it matter? It‟s an irrelevant
question, why would we ask ourselves this question? If you want to know what Canada‟s like, go
to France. Seriously, it‟s like, uh, Canadians sometimes just can‟t see how unique they are
because they spend their time at home. It‟s like the fish can‟t see the water it swims in.”27
Whether Canadian culture-promoting or not, Stursberg‟s priority was entertainment, not
CBC News. However, he (and others, starting with ex-CBC news chief Tony Burman28
) believed
news needed to be revamped nonetheless. More controversial was how TV news should be
changed, not the notion that it had to be. The Corp brought in Frank N. Magid Associates, an
American consulting firm known for its “if it bleeds, it leads,” philosophy of short, crime-
oriented segments. For its efforts in overhauling CBC flagship show The National, ratings
dropped 27 per cent from September 2009 to May 2010.29
Viewers felt that the broadcast was
talking down to them, insulting their intelligence. They criticized the short, sensationalist
segments, out-of-place antics of the reporters (such as Wendy Mesley dressing up in a hazmat
suit asking for a book on swine flu at Chapters, or Peter Mansbridge awkwardly asking Mesley,
“What‟s up with that?” in an attempt to use more youthful language that fell flat30
). Perhaps most
annoyingly, the reporters, guests, and anchors now all stood up on The National (and other
programs such as the news at noon).
27
Richard Stursberg, “On Trial” interview transcripts, November 2007. 28
Tyler Harper, “Beyond Repair,” Ryerson Review of Journalism, (Summer 2010), online: <http://www.rrj.ca/m8458/>. 29
Cole, supra. 30
Harper, supra.
8
For better or worse, the changes may have come too late for the CBC, wrote Tyler Harper
in his Ryerson Review of Journalism piece “Beyond Repair.” As Globe and Mail TV critic John
Doyle opined, these changes should have come 20 years ago, with the rise of CNN in Canada, to
have been effective. Perhaps there would have been more opposition to the changes, but many of
those more likely to have spoken out were no longer at the Corp. CBC News lost numerous
experienced news-staffers such as Brian Stewart and Don Newman, who took voluntary
retirement packages offered by the CBC. Newsroom morale, still recovering from the two-month
2005 lockout, was damaged by layoffs, buyouts, and reassignments.31
Stursberg‟s vision for the CBC went against what many viewed the public broadcaster
should be: an alternative to the commercial networks; a broadcaster that airs distinctive, high-
quality Canadian programming unavailable elsewhere. Perhaps such programming—like the fifth
estate, for instance—would not receive the kind of ratings numbers those with Stursberg‟s view
would like, but the value of the shows‟ content would be superior. Ideally, proponents of this
view say, viewers should be regarded as citizens, not consumers—not just eyeballs being
delivered to advertisers.32
When government bodies have become involved in assessing the CBC,
such as in the 2006 Senate Report on the Canadian News Media, led by Liberal Senator Joan
Fraser, they have also recommended the latter, finding that CBC TV should be an advertising-
free zone.33
But currently, advertising is a major part of the CBC‟s funding model. The CBC earns a
substantial amount of its advertising revenue through its sports programming, particularly
Hockey Night in Canada. Although sports make up only 12 per cent of programming on the
31
Harper, ibid. Interestingly, Magid’s tactics have been found by the Committee of Concerned Journalists to be ineffective. Local TV news shows’ audiences grow when they do contextualized information and reflect community values (Jeffrey Dvorkin, “On Trial” interview transcripts, 2008). 32
Various sources; ie Rudy Buttignol, Norm Bolen, and Peter Herrndorf, “On Trial” interview transcripts, 2008). 33
CanWest News Service, “Get CBC back to roots, curb media concentration, Senate panel urges,” (22 June 2006), online: <http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ea1457c8-badd-4b36-a1ef-59c80759bffa&k=64632>.
9
Ceeb, it brings in 25 per cent of the network‟s overall audience34
--48 per cent of its primetime
audience. Forty per cent of the CBC‟s advertising revenue comes from sports.35
If the CBC lost
the NHL broadcast rights (which is a possibility: CBC was able to protect the rights from a Bell
Globemedia acquisition after a year of negotiations, but that deal will only last until 201436
), the
Corp would have to come up with 300 hours of different programming,37
and would most
definitely lose a significant chunk of its audience. The CBC has already lost the broadcast rights
to curling, the Canadian Football League, and the 2010 and 2012 Olympics to TSN and CTV.38
Private broadcasters are happy to have won these broadcast rights from the CBC, but
some think further measures must be taken to separate the Corp. For example, Jim Shaw, CEO of
cable giant Shaw Communications Inc., which owns CanWest, argues the Corp should not be
able to dip into money such as the Canadian Television Fund (now part of the Canada Media
Fund) as it does, because it has an unfair economic advantage in competing for ad revenue and
programming while also receiving government funding. The CBC receives 37 per cent of CTF‟s
funding (the basis of which was created by public money taken out of CBC English TV in the
mid-1990s39
). Shaw wrote directly to the Prime Minister to complain about such issues in 2008.40
The CRTC has not acquiesced to the CBC‟s desires either, recently. For instance, on
March 22, 2010, the CRTC left the CBC out of the new fee-for-carriage deal. The Corp, along
with private broadcasters, had fought to charge cable companies for their networks‟ local TV
signals. Previously, cable companies only had to pay to air speciality channels. The CRTC
34
Tim Lai, “CBC will swim without sports despite sinking profits,” Capital News Online (4 March 2005), online: <http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/04032005/n4.shtml>. 35
Barsky, supra. 36
CBC Sports, “New NHL deal keeps Hockey Night in Canada on CBC,” cbcsports.ca, (26 March 2007), online: <http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/03/26/hockey-night-in-canada.html>. 37
Lai, supra. 38
Ibid. 39
Phyllis Platt, “On Trial” interview transcripts, (2007). 40
John Doyle, “The Big Question: who benefits from battering the CBC?” Globe and Mail, (17 May 2010), online: <http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/the-big-question-who-benefits-from-battering-the-cbc/article1570549/?service=mobile>.
10
decided to allow private broadcasters to negotiate with satellite and cable companies for fees for
their local signals, but denied the CBC this right, saying that the process could result in
broadcasters pulling their signals off the air, which does not fit with the CBC‟s mandate. CBC
president Hubert Lacroix responded: “The CRTC‟s decision defies logic. The Commission wants
to save Canadian programming. CBC/Radio-Canada invests more in Canadian programming
than all of the other broadcasters combined.” Lacroix said the CRTC‟s decision will affect CBC
finances and operations, forcing the CBC to cut programs and services.”41
Clearly, the CBC is facing numerous challenges. However, changes may be on the way.
On August 6, 2010, Lacroix fired Richard Stursberg.42
Kirstine Stewart, his interim replacement,
took over his position permanently on January 10, 2011.43
Though Stewart was seen as
Stursberg‟s “faithful lieutenant,” while she was director of programming, repeatedly saying that
she agreed with his views on the CBC‟s direction, Stewart now says that she wants to get rid of
U.S. shows on the Ceeb such as Jeopardy! and acknowledges CBC‟s role as a public
broadcaster, stating: “It is the communal-meeting-place-as-public-broadcaster for Canadians.”44
How Stewart will go about making changes to the CBC is yet to be seen. But perhaps she
could get some ideas from the BBC. The BBC, “Beeb” or “Aunty,” as it is also known, was
established by a Royal Charter in 1922 as a radio network. Twenty years later, it introduced its
first television station.45
Today the BBC is the largest public broadcaster in the world. It runs
eight national TV channels, including the ad-free BBC 1 and 2 on terrestrial TV U.K, and BBC 3
41
Insidethecbc.com, “CBC Excluded from Fee-For-Carriage Decision: Programs and Service Cuts Likely: Lacroix,” (22 March 2010), online: < http://www.insidethecbc.com/cbc-excluded-from-fee-for-carriage-decision-programs-and-service-cuts-likely-lacroix/>. 42
Cole, supra. 43
Guy Dixon, “New CBC head to undo predecessor’s controversial legacy,” Globe and Mail, (18 January 2011) online: <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/new-cbc-head-to-undo-predecessors-controversial-legacy/article1874883/>. 44
Dixon, ibid, and Barsky, supra. 45
Sarah Lyall, “New Mandate for the BBC: Put Entertainment First,” New York Times, (16 March 2006), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/1787>.
11
and 4 on satellite.46
The BBC also has 10 national radio stations, 40 local radio stations47
and a
website with more than six million pages. There is also the BBC World Service, which provides
news and information in 32 languages on radio, TV and online, as well as a commercial arm,
BBC Worldwide.48
BBC World Service is funded by a government grant, and BBC Worldwide, which turned
a profit of £147 million ($238 million Canadian) in 2010, does not rely on government money.
The BBC‟s other channels are funded by an annual license fee which is imposed on all
televisions in Britain. The license fee costs £145.50 ($235) for colour televisions, and £49 for
black and white sets ($76),49
an amount that is frozen until 2017.50
This money gives the BBC an
operating expenditure of about £4.26 billion ($6.9 billion), equalling six times the funding of the
CBC for a population that is twice the size of Canada‟s,51
but which is 40 times smaller in
physical size and with just one official language.52
Though the British parliament determines the level of the fee, the BBC‟s financing
structure ensures its political independence. The Beeb is governed by an executive board which
runs the corporation, and a separate group called the BBC Trust, which represents the license-fee
payers and to which the executive answers.53
The trustees choose the director general of the
BBC, and can fire him or her; a process which is like all other public broadcasters in industrial
democracies, except for the CBC‟s.54
As well, there is a BBC Charter Review every 10 years to
46
MaxPower, “CBC v BBC,” Reading For New Times, (1 September 2005), online: <http://r4nt.com/article/cbc-vs-bbc/>. 47
BBC, “What is the BBC?”(2011) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/purpose/what.shtml>. 48
Ibid. 49
BBC, “About the BBC: The License Fee,”(2011), online: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/licencefee/>. 50
Brendan Christie, “Whither the CBC?” Playback, (20 October 2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9772>. 51
“Are there lessons for the CBC in the BBC?” Globe and Mail, (18 October 2005), online: <http://www.friends/ca/news-item/5808>. 52
Janet Bagnall, “Public broadcasting the way it should be,” Montreal Gazette, (26 August 2005), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/4897>. 53
Lyall, supra.
12
set out how the BBC will meet its general obligations, the services it will provide, and the
standards it will meet.55
Over the years, the BBC, which currently has more than 17,200 employees, developed a
reputation as one of the world‟s great media brands, commanding a level of respect that not even
British institutions such as the Church of England or the royal family can match. Every week, the
BBC‟s website is visited by approximately 27 million unique viewers. Every week, 27 million
adult Britons listen to BBC radio, and 85 per cent of the British population watches BBC
television.56
The BBC created beloved TV entertainment such as The Englishman’s Boy, Pennies from
Heaven, Coronation Street, and The Singing Detective; as well as Dr. Who, The Office, Sherlock,
Top Gear, and EastEnders. The Beeb‟s news and current affairs programming has also been top
quality, with shows such as The World Debate, HARDtalk, The Doha Debates, World: Have
Your Say, and so on.
The BBC has long-regarded its role as being far more than supplying broadcast services.
Like the CBC, it was mean to be a fundamental part of its country, with programming that
should reflect and define the national identity.57
However, the BBC has also faced difficult times
in recent years. Firstly, some have argued that its commercial activities conflict with its duty as a
public broadcaster. The BBC‟s brand, which is built on cultural attributes such as independence
and non-commerciality, is essentially being used to sell its commercial properties. This may end
up creating a circle where the brand will become less distinctive58
and BBC‟s non-commercial
54
Ian Morrison, “How to Fix the CBC,” Ottawa Citizen, (21 August 2010), online: http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9664. 55
Paul Smith, “The Politics of UK Television Policy: BBC Charter Renewal and the ‘Crisis’ of Public Service Broadcasting (Again),” De Montfort University, (October 2006), online: <http://yle.fi/ripe/Papers/Smith.pdf>. 56
Sarah Lyall, “BBC Agrees to Cut Spending and Freeze License Fee,” New York Times, (20 October 2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9770>. 57
Lucy Kung, “Exploring the link between culture and strategy in media organisations: The cases of the BBC and CNN,” International Journal on Media Management (2000), 2:2, at 100 to 109.
13
services will merge with its commercial activities.
Another major tension is the BBC‟s license fee. The collection process for the license fee
is expensive itself, costing the BBC over £120 million ($197 million) to oversee in 2008.59
And
although the license fee funding has allowed for innovative programming and high levels of
professionalism, the guaranteed revenue it offers puts pressure on the BBC to be all things to all
people.60
Further, technological changes have also influenced peoples‟ opinions on the Beeb‟s
license fee. The funding system worked well in the days when there was a limited number of
channels and people watched the same thing. But with fragmentation, the Internet, PVRs, and
hundreds of other cable and digital channels, the BBC‟s audience share has fallen.61
The question of why everyone must pay for the BBC has often been raised, as in Canada.
Why not have the people who wish to tune into the BBC pay for it? Barry Cox, the deputy
chairman of Channel 4 (an alternative UK public broadcaster) and a policy advisor for the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), took this position, arguing in his report for
the 2004 BBC Charter Review that the BBC should be subscription-funded and primarily
commercial driven. BBC programs representing Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) should be
funded by the “broadcasting equivalent of the Arts Council.” The second 2004 report was
produced by the Broadcasting Policy Group, which was organized by the Conservative Party and
chaired by David Elstein, a former executive at Thames Television, BSkyB (a public satellite
broadcasting company in the UK and Ireland), and Channel Five. The BPG also recommended
that the BBC should move to subscription funding and that a Public Broadcasting Authority
should be established to which any broadcaster could apply for funds.
However, these proposals were not given much weight by the DCMS. Government
58
Kung, ibid. 59
Mimi Turner, “Greg Dyke: ‘Ditch BBC license fee,’” Hollywood Reporter, (2 November 2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8864>. 60
Kung, ibid. 61
Lyall, “New Mandate for the BBC,” supra.
14
officials dismissed the Broadcasting Policy Group‟s report as “a prescription for a weak and
small BBC.”62
Previous governments (Thatcher and Major) had tried to come up with alternatives
to the license fee, and could not find anything better to replace the system either. They
considered a direct Treasury grant, but found it would bring the BBC into a closer and more
dependant relationship with the government of the day (as the CBC deals with). The license fee
seemed preferable to this set-up, which would compromise the BBC‟s independence.63
The BBC appears to have a more support from the British government than the CBC has
from the Canadian government, then. But their relationship is not perfect. One major incident in
the past decade complicated the BBC-government relationship in particular. In September 2002,
the Blair government published a dossier claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) and could launch them against British forces within 45 minutes of the order
being given. The 45 minute claim was immediately seized upon by government supporters in the
press (such as the Evening Standard and The Sun), whereas the BBC was more cautious. Then-
Director General Greg Dyke later recalled of the BBC‟s coverage on the government‟s case for
the Iraq war: “Our job was to report the events leading up to the war, and the war itself, as fairly
as we could. It was certainly not the job of the BBC to be the Government‟s propaganda
machine, but nor was it our job disproportionately to represent the views of those protesting
against the war.”64
However, the BBC‟s approach brought it into conflict with the government. Alistair
Campbell (Blair‟s Director of Communication and Strategy) complained to the BBC, and so did
Tony Blair himself. On the eve of war, Blair wrote in a letter to Dyke that the BBC had “not got
the balance right between support and dissent.” There were continued government protests
62
Smith, supra. 63
Allan Massie, “This is the BBC, an institution worth defending,” The Scotsman,( November 2004), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/6089>. 64
Smith, supra.
15
during the conflict, with letters from Campbell often arriving on BBC head of news Richard
Sambrook‟s desk.
When it became clear that Iraq had not possessed WMDs, tensions between the
government and the BBC intensified. In May 2003, BBC correspondent Andrew Gilligan
claimed on the Today programme that the government had misleadingly “sexed up” its
September dossier to increase its case for war. Campbell denied this accusation and attacked the
BBC during a meeting of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee for broadcasting
this “lie.”Campbell also attacked the BBC on Channel 4 News.65
Soon after, Dr. David Kelly, a weapons expert working for the Ministry of Defence was
revealed to be Gilligan‟s source for his WMD accusation. Two days after being cross-examined
aggressively66
about his contact with Gilligan by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on July
15, 2003, Kelly was found dead.67
Prime Minister Blair established an in independent judicial
inquiry, headed by Lord Hutton, to investigate the circumstances surrounding Kelly‟s death. In
January 2004, Hutton delivered his report. He found that Kelly had committed suicide, that Blair
had not lied about the WMD threat when he made the case for war in 2002, and his government
had not “sexed up” intelligence information about this threat.
Lord Hutton found that Gilligan‟s story was unfounded, and that the BBC had failed to
ensure proper editorial procedures to prevent such a wrongful report from being broadcast. Even
though it never fact-checked the story, the BBC‟s management refused to back down from
supporting Gilligan‟s piece even though some of its editorial staff had quietly expressed concern
about its reliability.68
Within 20 hours of the Hutton Report‟s publication, BBC Chairman Gavyn
65
Ibid. 66
David Hencke, “David Kelly killed himself and Blair must share the blame,” The Guardian, (22 October 2010), online: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/22/david-kelly-suicide>. 67
MediaGuardian, “Timeline: David Kelly’s final days,” The Guardian, (1 September 2003), online: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/sep/01/huttoninquiry.hutton2?intcmp=239>.
16
Davies and Director General Greg Dyke resigned, while the BBC‟s new Acting Chairman Lord
Ryder apologized “unreservedly” for the network‟s errors.69
The Kelly incident was not an isolated event of BBC failings. Other recent BBC botches
include its broadcasting an interview with a bogus Dow Chemical official who claimed the
company admitted responsibility for the 1984 Bhopal disaster, in 2004.70
As well, the BBC was
fined £400,000 by Ofcom for deceiving viewers and listeners in 2008. Viewers and listeners had
been invited to enter phone-in competitions on eight different TV and radio shows, but actually
had no chance of winning. BBC production staff breached Ofcom‟s broadcasting code by
making up the names of winners or posing as contestants themselves. The BBC had been fined
£50,000 the year before for faking a competition winner on Blue Peter (a children‟s TV show).71
But it is the Kelly incident that caused the most uproar in Britain—an event so
outrageous that it emoted an outpouring of grief not seen since the death of Princess Diana. As
Gerard Baker (former BBC journalist and now Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Wall Street
Journal) wrote in 2004, the Kelly affair gave credence to critics‟ allegations that the almighty
BBC had lost its way. The BBC has faltered, argued Baker—and taking into account its position,
this is a very serious matter. “Imagine the influence of the main American TV networks, PBS,
CNN, Fox News, National Public Radio, the New York Times, and the newsweekly magazines all
rolled into one and you have some inkling of the reach of this giant,” he wrote. Baker concluded
that the BBC‟s reputation for objective and fair news coverage is “sinking rapidly,” tinged by a
liberal bias and the problems of massive bureaucracy.72
68
Gerard Baker, “The Wreck of the BBC,” Weekly Standard, (16 February 2004), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/1213>. 69
BBC News, “BBC apologises as Dyke quits,” (29 January 2004), online: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3441181.stm>. 70
Matt Holder, “BBC caught out in Bhopal hoax,” BBC Newswatch, (3 December 2004), online: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4060000/newsid_4065600/4065673.stm>. 71
Nicole Martin, “BBC fined £400,000 by Ofcom for deceiving viewers and listeners,” The Telegraph, (30 July 2008), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/7090>.
17
There has also been recent criticism that the BBC has become too frivolous, airing “vapid
reality-TV about competitive blubber-shedding or has-beens on ice or wannabes in musical
theatre.”73
This criticism is at a much lesser level than that launched towards the CBC, though.
Moreover, BBC management has acknowledged this issue, with BBC‟s director Mark Thompson
arguing for “a more focused BBC doing fewer things better and leaving space for others.”74
It‟s the “leaving space for others” part that has some especially up in arms. Competitors
such as James Murdoch—News Corporation‟s chairman-CEO, Europe and Asia (and Rupert
Murdoch‟s son)—have accused the BBC of becoming too bloated, too dominant; so much so that
it is a cause of market failure, inhibiting the development of private sector companies.75
In a
speech to media executives at the 2009 Edinburgh Television Festival, James Murdoch stated:
“The scope of [the BBC‟s] current activities and future ambitions is chilling.”76
He said: “The
news operation is creating enormous problems for the independent news business, and it has to
be dealt with.” Murdoch advocated that the BBC must become “much, much smaller.” Ed
Richards, head of U.K media regulator Ofcom, agreed with the CEO.77
However, others came to the BBC‟s defense, noting that pay TV in Britain is dominated
by British Sky Broadcasting, of which Murdoch‟s News Corp. is the largest shareholder.
BBCers themselves argued that BBC News is (still) “hugely trusted” by the public, which
Murdoch did not give the Beeb any credit for. As well, BBC supporters observed that Murdoch
was calling for a U.S.-style free-market approach to U.K media, when Britain‟s mixed economy
72
Baker, supra. 73
Elizabeth Renzetti, “Fearing a knife, the BBC wields a scalpel,” Globe and Mail, (5 March 2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9291>. 74
Ibid. 75
Will Hutton, “Will the BBC go the way of BR?” The Guardian, (13 December 2003), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/6717>. 76
Eric Pfanner, “European Broadcasters Argue About Public Aid,” New York Times, (6 September 2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8645>. 77
Steve Clarke, “Murdoch bashes BBC at TV fest,” Variety, (31 August 2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8622>.
18
is what nurtured an internationally-envied thriving TV industry.78
But private broadcasters were not the only ones to express concern over the BBC‟s size.
In its 2009 report on the future of public service programming, the House of Lords
Communications Committee recommended setting up a limited “contestible” fund which
commercial broadcasters and independent producers could apply for production financing. The
money for the fund should come from a portion of the BBC‟s license fee, leftover money from
the government‟s digital switchover spending program, and revenue from the sale of the analog
broadcast spectrum. The Committee called for more public service alternatives to the BBC, and
said that intervention would be justified to prevent the pubcaster from becoming the monopoly
supplier of programming that private broadcasters can no longer afford to make.79
The BBC has slimmed down somewhat in recent years, though. Even with its almost $7
billion annual budget, the Beeb has not been immune to economic constraints. To save £320
million ($750 million) per year, the BBC cut 3,000 staff (mostly in finance and human resources)
in 2004, accounting for about 10 per cent of its workforce.80
The money was needed partially to
acquire the new technology the network would need to participate in the conversion of the whole
British broadcasting system to digital signals by the year 2012. The BBC also moved 1,800 other
employees to Manchester.81
Another large package of cuts was unveiled in March 2010, with up to 600 job cuts
planned, the new BBC 6 music station and the Asian network shut down; the number of web
pages produced cut by half, BBC magazines such as Top Gear sold, and a 25 per cent cut in
senior management pay by 2013. Spending on imported TV programs would be reduced by 20
78
Pfanner, supra. 79
Mimi Turner, “House of Lords issues warning about BBC,” Hollywood Reporter, (7 April 2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8086>. 80
Elizabeth Renzetti, “BBC shakeup targets 4800 jobs,” Globe and Mail, (8 December 2004), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/6649>. 81
“Are there lessons for the CBC in the BBC?” supra.
19
per cent, and investments on sports would be capped at £300 million annually. Through this
package the BBC aimed to cut operating costs by £100 million ($156 million) per year. The BBC
Trust‟s strategic review estimated these changes could free up $940 million for the BBC to
reinvest on content. It also recommended that at least $78 million more per year should be going
to children‟s programming, while youth and teen programming should be left to the commercial
networks. Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, said the purpose of these changes is so
that the BBC would do fewer things, but create higher-quality content, for a “more disciplined
and sharply focused BBC.”82
One public broadcaster that some would say is already “sharply focused” is the United
States‟ Public Service Broadcasting (PBS). Public broadcasting was significantly slower to
develop in the U.S. than in Europe or Canada. By the 1930s, the private sector had already seized
most of the information infrastructure, assuring the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
that they would provide programming that satisfied the public‟s desire for entertainment but also
their need for accurate news. Plans for a public broadcasting system did not begin until 1965,
when the Lyndon Johnson-supported Carnegie Commission on Educational Television came up
with the foundation for the Public Broadcasting Act. They articulated that “Public media would
be a non-commercial, non-profit and independent enterprise for providing the news, educational
and children‟s programming that enriches and informs a democratic citizenry.” The Commission
continued: “The goal we seek is an instrument for the free communication of ideas in a free
society.”83
Private broadcasters were happy to see the responsibility for “public sphere programs” be
taken at the expense of the American taxpayers rather than themselves, since these programs
82
CBC News, “BBC confirms cuts to web, radio,” (2 March 2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9268>. 83
Shawn Power, “Public Policy and Funding the News: A Project of the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy,” online: <http://fundingthenews.usc.edu/related_research/3_Carnegie_PublicServiceBroadcasting.pdf>.
20
were not as profitable for the privates than commercial entertainment programs. On November
11, 1967, then-President Johnson introduced the public broadcasting initiative to the American
people: “In 1862, the Morrill Act set aside lands in every state—lands which belonged to the
people—and it set them aside in order to build the land-grant colleges of the nation. So today we
rededicate a part of the airwaves—which belong to all the people—and we dedicate them for the
enlightenment of all the people. I believe the time has come to stake another claim in the name of
all the people, stake a claim based on the combined resources of communications. I believe the
time has come to enlist the computer and the satellite, as well as television and radio, and to
enlist them in the cause of education...So I think we must consider new ways to build a great
network for knowledge—not just a broadcast system, but one that employs every means of
sending and story information that the individual can use.” 84
With this, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was born. The CPB oversees
PBS and National Public Radio (NPR), which both launched in 1970.85
Eighty-nine percent of
CPB‟s federally-funded $409 million budget is distributed to local TV and radio stations for
programming, license fees, purchasing and subscribing to programs produced by NPR and PBS.
But the vast majority of PBS‟s funding comes from private donors—about 60 per cent of its US
$2.85 billion revenues in 2008.86
That year, PBS won more than 30 Emmy awards, including 10
for news and documentaries. In 2009, Americans ranked PBS among their most valued national
institutions, second only to the military. They ranked PBS as their most trusted institution, ahead
of commercial broadcasters, newspapers, the judicial system and the federal government.87
Indeed, PBS creates high-quality, valued programming such as Frontline, Charlie Rose,
Nova, Nature, Antiques Roadshow, Live from Lincoln Center, and American Experience. Recent
84
Power, ibid. 85
Steve Behrens, “Timeline: 1970s,” Current.org, (2001), online: <http://www.current.org/history/timeline/histime3.html>. 86
Christie, supra. 87
Powers, supra.
21
special series have included Henry Louis Gates‟s Faces of America, The Jewish Americans,
David Foster: Hit Man Returns, Finding Billy, and Harry Connick Jr.: In Concert on
Broadway. It puts considerable emphasis on children‟s programming, having produced shows
such as Arthur, Curious George, The Magic School Bus, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and Maya &
Miguel.88
However, PBS faces difficulties too. Its hard news and business-news divisions produce
fine work to fill the spaces created by cable and network news, but they are tiny, and the amount
of programming they can produce is restricted. For instance, only in 2010 did Frontline finally
reach the point where it could make 26 programs a year. Twenty-six programs is only half a
year‟s worth (and several of those shows are made with help from the fifth estate).89
Thus, PBS
imports a number of its programs,90
especially from the BBC. As well, because it is funded
mostly from private donations, PBS constantly has to fundraise from its loyal and growing
audience. It may not have commercials, but it does have “pledge-breaks,” which some find more
annoying than ads.91
The reality is that if the CBC reverted to a PBS-model of private funds supplemented by
government money, its budget would be far less than it is now. PBS raises a substantial amount
of money each year, but it does so from a base of 300 million Americans (and some Canadians
donate to the pubcaster too). The CBC could not raise the billions that PBS does because it
simply does not have the population to support it. Still, if the CBC could keep its billion dollar
government subsidy, retain access to the CMF and other applicable organizations, and bring in a
little extra from private funding, it could rid itself of its dependence on advertising too. It would
88
PBS.org, “PBS programs,” (2011), online: <http://www.pbs.org/programs/#d>. 89
John Doyle, “PBS is what CBC could be: marginal and obscure,” Globe and Mail, (8 August 2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9631>. 90
Robert Cushman, “We need the ceeb,” National Post, (16 October 2009), <http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/16/robert-cushman-we-need-the-ceeb.aspx>. 91
Cushman, supra.
22
have to narrow its mandate, certainly, but this might not be a bad thing, as will be discussed
further.
There are lessons from other international broadcasters and different media forms for the
CBC to draw on as well. For instance, in 2009, French President Nicholas Sarkozy moved to
phase out advertising on his country‟s public broadcaster, France Televisions. Sarkozy wants the
network to “rival the quality of the BBC.” To accomplish this, the French government scrapped
prime-time advertising on their public channels, and introduced new taxes on commercial TV
advertising revenue, Internet and telephone providers. Altogether these measures should raise
about $1 billion for the network.92
Private broadcasters in Canada would almost certainly protest
the government taxing them at a high rate to fund the CBC if the CBC were also to keep its tax-
payer funded $1.1 billion in order to boost its funding. However, if the CBC stopped advertising,
perhaps the commercial broadcasters would find that the reduced ad competition would be worth
being taxed at a low rate to add to the CBC‟s government subsidy.
If the CBC had sufficient funding to scrap advertising, it would have to come up with
programming to fill the airtime during breaks in live sports coverage. This would present a new
challenge, but it would not be an impossible task. For instance, the CBC could feature audience
interviews, CBC news breaks, and music videos of up and coming Canadian artists. All of these
measures would increase Canadian content. More importantly, they are an example of small
things the CBC could do to make Canadians connect with other Canadians through broadcasting.
Even if the CBC‟s funding model were to remain the same, the broadcaster could
implement such small changes. The CBC should perhaps look to social media such as YouTube
and Facebook for ideas. YouTube and Facebook are so popular because of our love of
voyeurism, ability to exchange ideas and video clips. The CBC should welcome more citizen-
92
Offman, supra.
23
produced broadcasting—not to replace its professional journalists‟ work, of course, but as an
addition. The network already invites civic journalism on its website, through which Canadians
can upload photos or video of news events. But perhaps it could introduce more civic
contributions on air. For instance, why not give Canadian high school students around the
country video cameras to capture a week in their lives, then turn that footage into a weekly
program? Different groups of Canadians would be featured—a week in the lives of Canadian
nurses, fishermen, or RCMP trainees, for instance. Programs could be set up through schools in
conjunction with the CBC so that journalists from the CBC could appear as guest lecturers to
teach students about broadcasting. The CBC could call for Canadian-made short videos, and air
them. Such programming would use amateur footage, but so does YouTube, and it is extremely
popular. Featuring every-day people and their creations more often would increase Canadians‟
accessibility to the CBC. It would give Canadians a sense of the connection public broadcasting
should facilitate, and make them feel that the CBC is truly their network.
Part of the reason the BBC is so successful is because Britons are so dedicated to it, and
because their British culture is much more clearly identifiable than Canada‟s. While they too
enjoy Hollywood imports, Britons‟ identity is distinct from Americans‟; the two are not
confused. The U.S. continues to exert a great deal of media influence in Canada, and our
cultures, though not completely similar, are not sufficiently dissimilar so as to easily stop the
“Canada is America Junior” comparisons. Thus, Canada is at higher risk of overly strong US
media influence. Indeed, no other foreign country consumes as much American television
programming as Canada.93
Eighty-eight per cent of Canadians believe that as Canada‟s economic
ties increase, it is becoming more important to strengthen Canadian culture and identity.94
Eighty-
93
Jeffrey Simpson, “Television’s cultural colony,” The Globe and Mail, (20 May 2003), online: <https://www.friends.ca/news-item/3158>. 94
Ian Morrison, “POLLARA public opinion survey on Canadians’ views on the CBC: KEY FINDINGS,” Friends of Canadian Broadcasting,” (18 May 2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/fact-sheet/8287>.
24
three per cent believe the CBC is important in protecting Canadian culture and identity, and 80
per cent believe that the Corp is best-suited to provide Canadian programming on TV.95
Thus, the CBC is supported by the majority of Canadians, but it does not seem to be as
strongly supported by the Canadian government to the extent that the BBC is supported by the
British government. The British Parliament cares that the BBC is editorially independent, even if
British politicians‟ standpoints are not always reflected by the BBC as they would like (or as
they should; clearly the Kelly incident was a result of poor journalism). Still, Britain‟s
government continued the license fee to ensure this independence, while the CBC model is still
that of patronage. The CBC also lacks financial flexibility and receives its budget on a year-to-
year basis, while the BBC‟s model ensures it a stable long-term budget with 10-year reviews.
Though a majority of Canadians support the CBC, it appears Britons support their public
broadcaster more strongly. During the 2005 CBC lockout, a Decima survey found that 61 per
cent of Canadian respondents found the lockout had “no impact at all” on their lives. Only 10 per
cent said the labour dispute was a “major inconvenience.”96
The BBC has never had its
broadcasting shut down for two months, but considering the number of Britons utilizing its
services each week, it seems unlikely that 61 per cent of British people would say that such a
lockout would have “no impact at all” on their lives. Further, Britons are likely more dedicated to
the BBC than Canadians are to the CBC because the Beeb is so ubiquitous. Over the years, the
BBC was permitted to expand into the massive media force it is today, while the CBC‟s growth
was restrained by the CRTC. For instance, in 2000, the CRTC ignored the CBC‟s request for
permission to operate services such as new specialty channels. The regulator stated that the CBC
should concentrate exclusively on improving its existing services, and placed stringent
conditions on the network‟s license renewals.97
95
Ibid. 96
Rondi Adamson, “Let the 10 per cent of Canadians who say they miss CBC pay for it, argues Rondi Adamson,” Toronto Star, (2 October 2005), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/5559>.
25
While the BBC is making efforts to lessen its ubiquitousness, the CBC is again trying to
expand. On February 1, 2011, Hubert Lacroix announced a five-year strategy for the CBC
entitled “Everyone, Every Way,” through which the CBC promises to air at least 10 signature
events per year in English and French. It also plans double its investment in digital services and
new platforms; to launch 10 new radio stations,98
websites increase local and regional news
services. The Corp believes it can grow advertising revenue by 2.8 per cent annually to fund the
new programming.99
As well, the CBC plans to develop several more speciality TV channels: a
children‟s channel and an arts and entertainment channel in English, a science-based channel in
French, plus an all-sports channel to compete with TSN and RDS.100
The plan is ambitious, and probably overly so. The CBC is already spread thinly—is
such growth really a good idea? Perhaps, had the CBC been granted the increase in its license fee
to $40, such a plan would have been more feasible. The $40 license fee is supported by 54 per
cent of Canadians,101
but it will be impossible to obtain without greater political support for the
network. Neither will multi-year funding and long-term review plans, which the CBC should
certainly be allotted. Without stable, multi-year funding like the BBC has, the CBC can only
make tentative long-term strategies based on revenue they can only hope to have from year to
year. As well, the CBC‟s governance should be at arm‟s-length from the government like
the BBC‟s, with its president being hired and responsible to its Board, not the Prime Minister.
It is too late for the CBC to adopt the BBC‟s license fee model. It seems unlikely that
Canadians would be willing to pay $235 per year for the CBC‟s services now, when they have so
97
Chris Cobb, “Angry CBC boss: ‘Just watch me’ defy CRTC order,” Ottawa Citizen, (7 January 2000), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/578>. 98
Brian Lilley, “CBC cash cow,” Toronto Sun, (6 March 2011), online: <http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/04/17503761.html>. 99
Bruce DeMara, “CBC promises 10 annual ‘signature’ events in 5-year plan,” Toronto Star, (1 February 2011), online: <http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/article/931589--cbc-promises-10-annual-signature-events-in-5-year-plan>. 100
Lilley, “CBC cash cow,” supra. 101
Morrison, “POLLARA”, supra.
26
many other options. As well, the technological changes occurring would complicate such a
license-fee collection—would the CBC tax TV sets, laptops, iPads, iPhones and whichever other
new inventions are developed?
If the CBC‟s funding model were to change, it would likely evolve through a
combination of models; perhaps by dropping advertising revenue and gaining tax funds from
private broadcasters, like the French model. Perhaps the CBC will eventually move to a
subscriber fee system. Perhaps it will cease advertising, retain its government subsidy and
fundraise from private donors. This would create a smaller CBC, but a smaller CBC may not be
a bad thing. Further, the CBC‟s decision to become smaller may be made for it if it loses the
broadcast rights to NHL hockey after 2014.
If the CBC‟s funding model were not to change at all, it should take one lesson from the
BBC and PBS: to be a provider of distinctive, high-quality programming. Public broadcasters
should not strive to copy commercial broadcasters, yet in recent years this is what the CBC has
done too much of. By regarding viewers as eyeballs rather than citizens, the CBC failed in what
its goals should be as a national public broadcaster. Some of the criticism launched at the CBC
has been too heavy—for instance, though the Ceeb should rid itself of the U.S. shows Jeopardy!
and Wheel of Fortune, it may not be so detrimental to Canadians when the CBC airs Hollywood
movies on Sunday evenings. These films are only played once a week, and are movies which
families can enjoy together. They also provide the lead-in to the original CBC family program
Heartland. Of course, Canadian television movies would be preferable (and the Corp should
produce more; though it does air some, such as the Booky films based on Canadian children‟s
author Bernice Thurman Hunter‟s books). However, a slate of purely Canadian films each week
seems financially unviable for the CBC to create at this time.
Other criticisms launched at the CBC are well-founded, though. Currently, the CBC
27
is trying to do too much, with the result that it is not doing as much extremely well. Even if its
funding model were to stay the same, CBC Television should create programs that educate and
entertain, and provide an alternative to commercial broadcasters‟ shows. This does not mean that
the CBC cannot make any populist programming, but its focus should be on shows not offered
by the private broadcasters, and on what it does well. If the CBC narrows its mandate, it
should return to its strength—news and current affairs. It should not offer programming adopting
Frank Magid‟s “if it bleeds, it leads” method, but long-form, in-depth shows such as the fifth
estate, Doc Zone, The Nature of Things, and The Passionate Eye. It may be wise for the CBC to
invest more into creating documentaries and international news coverage than to try to
reinvigorate and expand local news. Local news is important, but it is already well done by
Global and CTV.
As well, Canadians should not have to look to the Bravo! channel to watch programs
featuring Canadian artists and authors, such as At the Concert Hall, Writing Life, or Live at the
Rehearsal Hall. It was Bravo! and CTV that aired the Stratford Festival‟s recent production of
Caesar and Cleopatra on television,102
not the CBC. Such programming may be deemed
“elitist,” but just as some reality shows such as Dragon’s Den can be a part of public
broadcasting, so should this more classical programming. Besides, a number of Canadians do
want to see opera and theatre—they have been paying for tickets to see such productions at
Cineplex movie theatres.
Some may wonder why the CBC should show such programming if Bravo! already does.
It is true that Bravo! will not stop showing arts programming if CBC does. It is extraordinarily
difficult for a network to be truly original, and impossible for channels not to overlap in some
ways nowadays. Even so, the CBC should not choose to forgo certain programming because
102
Channel Canada, “CTV and Bravo! bring Christopher Plummer in Stratford Festival’s ‘Caesar and Cleopatra’ to the small screen,” (3 November 2008), online: <http://www.channelcanada.com/Article2536.html>.
28
there is already a speciality arts channel, for instance. Providing in-depth quality arts coverage is
still something not very many channels currently do, and as Canada‟s national public
broadcaster, such programming belongs on the CBC.
In addition, the CBC should invest in more co-productions with foreign broadcasters, as
it did to air The Pillars of the Earth. Though this miniseries does not focus on a strictly Canadian
story, it features Canadian talent such as Gordon Pinsent and Donald Sutherland,103
and is high-
quality and different. It is a program that, at a production cost of $40 million,104
would be far too
expensive for the CBC to produce on its own.
Ultimately, the CBC must accept that it cannot be all things to all people, whether its
funding model changes or not. The BBC has enormous funding compared to the CBC, and it has
already realized this conclusion. Refocusing and narrowing the CBC‟s mandate is what will
make it better, and what will allow itself to connect with Canadians as a national public
broadcaster should.
103
Bill Brioux, “Pillars of the Earth brings 12 century to CBC,” Toronto Star, (30 December 2010), online: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/article/914053--pillars-of-the-earth-brings-12th-century-to-cbc 104
Ibid.
29
Bibliography
Adamson, Rondi. “Let the 10 per cent of Canadians who say they miss CBC pay for it, argues
Rondi Adamson,” Toronto Star, (2 October 2005), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-
item/5559>.
Anderson, Steve, “Let‟s Re-Imagine Journalism,” The Tyee, (1 April 2009) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8095>.
Baker, Gerard. “The Wreck of the BBC,” Weekly Standard, (16 February 2004), online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/1213>.
Bagnall, Janet. “Public broadcasting the way it should be,” Montreal Gazette, (26 August 2005),
online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/4897>.
Barsky, Rachel. “On Trial,” Ryerson Review of Journalism, (Summer 2008), online:
<http://www.rrj.ca/m4140/>.
BBC News, “BBC apologises as Dyke quits,” (29 January 2004), online:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3441181.stm>.
BBC, “What is the BBC?”(2011) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/purpose/what.shtml>.
BBC, “About the BBC: The License Fee,”(2011), online:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/licencefee/>.
Behrens, Steve. “Timeline: 1970s,” Current.org, (2001), online:
<http://www.current.org/history/timeline/histime3.html>.
Bracken, Laura. “Canadian license fees don‟t stack up,” Playback, (7 January 2004), online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/3320>
Brioux, Bill. “Pillars of the Earth brings 12 century to CBC,” Toronto Star, (30 December 2010),
online: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/article/914053--pillars-of-the-earth-
brings-12th-century-to-cbc
Brockington, Leonard. “CBC Radio Takes to the Air,” CBC Digital Archives: On This Day, (2
November 1936), online: <http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/11/02/12529/>.
Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. 1991 s. 3(1), accessible online:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1991-c-11/latest/sc-1991-c-11.html
Buttignol, Rudy & Norm Bolen, & Peter Herrndorf, “On Trial” interview transcripts (2008).
30
Canadian Press, “End patronage at CBC, groups urge Martin,” (23 September 2004), online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/5400>.
CanWest News Service, “Get CBC back to roots, curb media concentration, Senate panel urges,”
(22 June 2006), online: <http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ea1457c8-
badd-4b36-a1ef-59c80759bffa&k=64632>.
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, “Building on Success: A
Policy Framework for Canadian Television,” (11 June 1999), online:
<http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/PB99-97.HTM>.
CBC News, “BBC journalists begin 2-day strike,” (5 November 2010), online:
<http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2010/11/05/bbc-2-day-strike.html>.
CBC News, “BBC confirms cuts to web, radio,” (2 March 2010), online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9268>.
CBC News, “CBC sees $12.5M drop in program funding,” (7 April 2010), online:
<http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2010/04/07/cbc-media-fund.html>.
CBC Sports, “New NHL deal keeps Hockey Night in Canada on CBC,” cbcsports.ca, (26 March
2007), online: <http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/03/26/hockey-night-in-
canada.html>.
Channel Canada, “CTV and Bravo! bring Christopher Plummer in Stratford Festival‟s „Caesar
and Cleopatra‟ to the small screen,” (3 November 2008), online:
<http://www.channelcanada.com/Article2536.html>.
Christie, Brendan.“Whither the CBC?” Playback, (20 October 2010), online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9772>.
Clarke, Steve. “BBC fears political interference,” Variety, (19 May 2009) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8292>.
Clarke, Steve. “BBC braces for funding cuts,” Reel Business Information, (19 June 2009) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8447>.
Clarke, Steve. “Murdoch bashes BBC at TV fest,” Variety, (31 August 2009), online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8622>.
Cobb, Chris.“Angry CBC boss: „Just watch me‟ defy CRTC order,” Ottawa Citizen, (7 January
2000), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/578>.
Cole, Susan G. “How to Save the CBC,” online:
<http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/news/story.cfm?content=168692>.
31
Cole, Trevor. “Dragon Done,” The Walrus. (November 2010), online:
<http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/articles/2010.11-media-dragon-done/>.
Cox, Bob. “$1.1 billion is enough for CBC,” Winnipeg Free Press, (19 December 2009) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9047>.
Coyne, Andrew. “A future for the CBC: multi-channel, subscription-based,” Macleans, (20
March 2009, online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/7991.>.
Cushman, Robert. “We need the ceeb,” National Post, (16 October 2009),
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/16/robert-cushman-we-
need-the-ceeb.aspx>.
Dean, David. “What price the CBC?” Brantford Expositor, (3 April 2009) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8066%202009>.
DeMara, Bruce. “CBC promises 10 annual „signature‟ events in 5-year plan,” Toronto Star, (1
February 2011), online: <http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/article/931589--cbc-
promises-10-annual-signature-events-in-5-year-plan>.
Del Mastro, Dean. (23 November 2010), audio available online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-
item/9854>.
Dixon, Guy. “New CBC head to undo predecessor‟s controversial legacy,” Globe and Mail, (18
January 2011), online: <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/new-cbc-head-to-
undo-predecessors-controversial-legacy/article1874883/>.
Doyle, John. “What Makes Canadian TV So Different?” Television Quarterly, (27 July 2007)
online: <http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles07270701>.
Doyle, John. “The Big Question: who benefits from battering the CBC?” Globe and Mail, (17
May 2010), online: <http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/the-big-
question-who-benefits-from-battering-the-cbc/article1570549/?service=mobile>.
Doyle, John. “PBS is what CBC could be: marginal and obscure,” Globe and Mail, (8 August
2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9631>.
Dvorkin, Jeffrey, “On Trial” interview transcripts, (2008).
Dvorkin, Jeffrey, “Canadian Regulator Leaves Out Pubcaster in Cable-B‟caster Spat,” Now the
Details, (23 March 2010) online: <http://nowthedetails.blogspot.com/search?updated-max-2010-
04-04T12%3A00&max-results-7>.
32
Dvorkin, Jeffrey, “The CBC‟s „New‟ Regional Strategy,” Now the Details (2 February 2011)
online:<http://nowthedetails.blogspot.com/>.
Fenton, Ben. “BBC reveals plan to scale back operations,” Globe and Mail, (2 March 2010)
online:<http//www.friends.ca/news-item/9270>.
Flavelle, Dana & John Spears, “Shaw buys control of Canwest Global,” Toronto Star, (12
February 2010), online: <http://www.thestar.com/business/article/764426--shaw-buys-control-
of-canwest-global>.
Fraser Institute, “Canadian Content Regulations,” (August 1998), online:
<http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/1998/august/canadian.html>.
Fraser Institute, “Lessons from Liberals‟ 1995 budget offer Conservatives a blueprint for cutting
spending and balancing budget,” (17 February 2011), online:
<http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17270>.
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, “Re: Pre-Budget Consultation Submission,” (13 August
2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/brief/9653>.
Geist, Michael. “Time to rethink CBC as public broadcaster,” Toronto Star, (10 July 2006)
online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/4125>.
Geist, Michael. “Content rules, not Canadian ownership, protect our culture,” Toronto Star, (5
March 2011) online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/10061>.
Globe and Mail. “Are there lessons for the CBC in the BBC?” (18 October 2005), online:
<http://www.friends/ca/news-item/5808>.
Harper, Tyler. “Beyond Repair,” Ryerson Review of Journalism, (Summer 2010), online:
<http://www.rrj.ca/m8458/>.
Hassanpour, Amir. “Silencing the CBC,” The Mark, (6 March 2009) online:
<http://www.friends/ca/news=item/8236>.
Hencke, David. “David Kelly killed himself and Blair must share the blame,” The Guardian, (22
October 2010), online: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/22/david-kelly-
suicide>.
Hewlett, Steve. “Why Ofcom should regulate the BBC,” The Guardian, (24 January 2005)
online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/849%20Regulating%20BBC%202005>.
Holder, Matt. “BBC caught out in Bhopal hoax,” BBC Newswatch, (3 December 2004), online:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4060000/newsid_4065600/4065673.stm>.
33
Hutton, Will. “Will the BBC go the way of BR?” The Guardian, (13 December 2003), online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/6717>.
Insidethecbc.com, “CBC Excluded from Fee-For-Carriage Decision: Programs and Service Cuts
Likely: Lacroix,” (22 March 2010), online: < http://www.insidethecbc.com/cbc-excluded-from-
fee-for-carriage-decision-programs-and-service-cuts-likely-lacroix/>.
Kaplan, Ben. “How to fix the CBC: Why the Ceeb needs to take heed,” National Post, (10
January 2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/7644>.
Korski, Tom. “CBC displays keen sense of self-preservation,” The Hill Times, (15 March 2010)
online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9330>.
Kung, Lucy. “Exploring the link between culture and strategy in media organisations: The cases
of the BBC and CNN,” International Journal on Media Management (2000), 2:2, at 100 to 109.
Lai, Tim. “CBC will swim without sports despite sinking profits,” Capital News Online (4
March 2005), online: <http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/04032005/n4.shtml>.
Lankhof, Bill. “Canadian Broadcast Crisis,” Toronto Sun, (13 March 2005) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/1703>.
Layfield, Kirstine. “The CBC provides a service Canadians want,” National Post, (21 March
2009) online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/7996>.
Lilley, Brian. “CBC cash cow,” Toronto Sun, (6 March 2011), online:
<http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/04/17503761.html>.
Lupick, Travis. “CBC to lay off 800 employees,” straight.com, (25 March 2009), online:
<http://www.straight.com/article-209318/cbc-lay-800-employees>.
Lyall, Sarah. “New Mandate for the BBC: Put Entertainment First,” New York Times, (16 March
2006), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/1787>.
Lyall, Sarah. “BBC Agrees to Cut Spending and Freeze License Fee,” New York Times, (20
October 2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9770>.
MacDonald, L. Ian. “The future of television in Canada,” National Post, (7 March 2009) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/7896>.
Martin, Nicole. “BBC fined £400,000 by Ofcom for deceiving viewers and listeners,” The
Telegraph, (30 July 2008), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/7090>.
Massie, Allan. “This is the BBC, an institution worth defending,” The Scotsman, (November
2004), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/6089>.
34
MaxPower, “CBC v BBC,” Reading For New Times, (1 September 2005), online:
<http://r4nt.com/article/cbc-vs-bbc/>.
MediaGuardian, “Timeline: David Kelly‟s final days,” The Guardian, (1 September 2003),
online: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/sep/01/huttoninquiry.hutton2?intcmp=239>.
Morrison, Ian. “Stephen Harper‟s hidden agenda for the CBC,” The Georgia Straight (16 March
2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/7956>.
Morrison, Ian. “POLLARA public opinion survey on Canadians‟ views on the CBC: KEY
FINDINGS,” Friends of Canadian Broadcasting,” (18 May 2009), online:
<http://www.friends.ca/fact-sheet/8287>.
Morrison, Ian. “Is Public Broadcasting Still Relevant for Canada in the 21st Century?” Harry
Somers Lecture, Stratford Summer Music, (4 August 2010) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/speech/9612>.
Morrison, Ian. “How to Fix the CBC,” Ottawa Citizen, (21 August 2010) online:
http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9664.
Morrison, Ian. “The Conservatives‟ Hidden Agenda For Public Broadcasting and Cultural
Sovereignty,” Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, (4 March 2011), online:
<http://www.friends.ca/fact-sheet/252>.
Nash, Knowlton. “CBC on edge of its „biggest crisis,‟” Inside the CBC.com, (23 April 2007
online: <http://www.insidethecbc.com/nashcrisis/>.
National Post. “CBC watching—from a different angle,” (8 September 2003) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/5125>.
Offman, Craig. “CBC tunes in to new reality,” National Post (13 March 2009), online:
<http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=1387536>.
Ottawa Citizen, “$1.3-billion CTV sale wins approval,” (8 March 2011), online:
<http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/billion+sale+wins+approval/4400149/story.html>.
PBS.org, “PBS programs,” (2011), online: <http://www.pbs.org/programs/#d>.
Peers, Frank W. “Broadcasting, Radio and Television,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, (2011)
online:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001011
Pfanner, Eric. “European Broadcasters Argue About Public Aid,” New York Times, (6 September
2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8645>.
35
Platt, Phyllis. “On Trial” interview transcripts, (2007).
Rabinovitch, Robert. “A CBC contract with Canadians,” National Post, (24 November 2006)
online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/6417>.
Renzetti, Elizabeth. “BBC shakeup targets 4800 jobs,” Globe and Mail, (8 December 2004),
online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/6649>.
Renzetti, Elizabeth. “Fearing a knife, the BBC wields a scalpel,” Globe and Mail, (5 March
2010), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9291>.
Singapore Straits Times, “End of state-funded broadcasting?” (19 January 2008) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-item/773>.
Shawn Power, “Public Policy and Funding the News: A Project of the USC Annenberg Center
on Communication Leadership & Policy,” online:
<http://fundingthenews.usc.edu/related_research/3_Carnegie_PublicServiceBroadcasting.pdf>.
Simpson, Jeffrey. “Television‟s cultural colony,” The Globe and Mail, (20 May 2003), online:
<https://www.friends.ca/news-item/3158>.
Smith, Paul. “The Politics of UK Television Policy: BBC Charter Renewal and the „Crisis‟ of
Public Service Broadcasting (Again),” De Montfort University, (October 2006), online:
<http://yle.fi/ripe/Papers/Smith.pdf>.
Smith, Chris. “The BBC deserves better than this,” The London Independent, (18 January 2007)
online: <http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/chris-smith-the-bbc-deserves-
better-than-this-432743.html>.
Stursberg, Richard. “On Trial” interview transcripts, (November 2007).
Taber, Jane. “Tory culture warriors target CBC „vested interests,‟” Globe and Mail, (27 April
2010), online: <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-culture-
warriors-target-cbc-vested-interests/article1547969/>.
Taylor, Carole. “Public Broadcasting: Why Bother?” CBC/Radio Canada, (22 October 2003)
online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-items/5870>.
Taylor, Kate. “‟How to make the CBC viable in the digital age,” Toronto Star, (24 September
2010) online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9717>.
The Guardian. “BBC hunts for commercial breaks,” (25 January 2005) online:
<http://www.friends.ca/news-ite/862>.
Turner, Mimi. “Greg Dyke: „Ditch BBC license fee,‟” Hollywood Reporter, (2 November 2009)
online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8864>.
36
Turner, Mimi. “House of Lords issues warning about BBC,” Hollywood Reporter, (7 April
2009), online: <http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8086>.
Wray, Richard. “BBC big guns to counter licence fee threat: Shakeup plan for public service
programmes: Part of BBC subsidy could go to commercial rivals,” The Guardian, (11 April
2008) online: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/11/bbc.television>.
![CBC公式ホームページ | CBCテレビ[JOGX-DTV] / CBCラジオ ...CBC公式ホームページ | CBCテレビ[JOGX-DTV] / CBCラジオ ...](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/6075b4954ec3c56938370b69/cbcfffff-cbcfffjogx-dtv-cbcf-cbcfffff.jpg)
