CTV’s cuts hurt us all

Years ago, I contributed policy to the Green Party of Canada on media. In it, I stated (words to the effect of) “media is a business like no other, it has a responsibility to be profitable, but more importantly, it has the responsibility to hold our public offices to account.” The policy items were my rough attempt to discourage the rise of large media conglomerates, and to support regional media outlets.

Yesterday, one of CTV shut down evening newscasts in Ottawa, and did similar things in Barrie, London, and Victoria. In doing so, they have cost Ottawa yet another media outlet, and yet another avenue for paid journalists to keep our politicians, bureaucrats, and corporations honest. Coincidentally, kottke.org has linked to a story describing how the cuts to Baltimore’s daily newspaper has made the police force less accountable:

Half-truths, obfuscations and apparent deceit — these are the wages of a world in which newspapers, their staffs eviscerated, no longer battle at the frontiers of public information. And in a city where officials routinely plead with citizens to trust the police, where witnesses have for years been vulnerable to retaliatory violence, we now have a once-proud department’s officers hiding behind anonymity that is not only arguably illegal under existing public information laws, but hypocritical as well.

And this isn’t just an American problem. As the Dziekanski enquiry is proving, Canadian police reports can sometimes differ dramatically from reality. Without an engaged, and well funded press, there will be no one to hold these officers to account.

What solutions do we have? A CRTC-mandated carriage fee for cable broadcasters? Preferential tax treatment for smaller news organization? Increased funding to public broadcasters? There are solutions, but we, as an electorate have to wake up to the fact these cuts don’t just cost jobs, they are a danger to our public institutions.

8 Responses to “CTV’s cuts hurt us all”

  1. 2009.Mar.04 @ 14:15

    One could argue that it’s our responsibility as citizens to watch the newscasts, buy the newspapers and then yell and scream at the corporations when they cancel the shows. Taxing people and handing off to broadcasters doesn’t encourage them to create quality programing. People actually demanding it and supporting it does.

  • 2009.Mar.04 @ 17:23

    One of the idiots^Wexecutives hit the nail on the head in a quote I read yesterday, where he blamed their ad revenue troubles on the explosion of new channels we’ve seen since the advent of digital cable. There just aren’t enough advertisers to pay for it all, and no amount of fee-for-carriage will solve that.

    Unless, of course, we moved entirely to an a-la-carte cable/satellite system, where each channel was individually priced. That would create some interesting competition, and would probably lead to better-quality programming.

  • 2009.Mar.04 @ 23:47

    @MG: I’m not suggesting taxing people more. We could cut taxes to media organizations that produce more than n% of their content in house. We could up taxes on media groups that grow too large (say more than two outlets in overlapping areas). We could direct the CBC to provide an iTunes-like content-on-demand brokerage that would allow Canadian artists and producers to sell their stuff online for cheap. I’m not suggesting any one of these things would necessarily work, nor would any one of them be a silver bullet to stop or reverse consolidation, but they’re a few possibilities that may give smaller outlets a chance to get started.

    @dave0: Per-channel subscriptions sound like a neat idea. Isn’t that how HBO operates in the US?

  • 2009.Mar.05 @ 09:17

    “A CRTC-mandated carriage fee for cable broadcasters” is basically a tax, that will find it’s way on to cable/satellite subscribers bills.

  • 2009.Mar.05 @ 09:52

    @E: I believe HBO is just another specialty channel in the US, same as in Canada. The cable companies can then choose to bundle it in a package, sell it individually, etc. The difference used to be that HBO would not show any commercials, and instead was completely funded by subscriber fees. I’m not sure if this is still the case, though.

    What I want is the ability to build my own cable package, with out any bundling. Then I could choose to get only (for example) a local CTV, local CBC, Global, Space, Discovery, and History, and none of the other crap that never gets watched. As it stands now, you can’t really pick individual channels — you’re forced to choose from a set of bundles that group together channels you want with channels you don’t.

    If viewers were able to choose only the channels they wished to watch, content providers would be forced to actually make a case for the existence of each channel, by providing better programming to draw viewers and satisfy their advertisers. If viewers were unsatisfied, they could just unsubscribe.

    Now, there are two main external reasons why we’re stuck with bundling. First, the CRTC mandates it. This is supposedly to protect the smaller Canadian channels that don’t otherwise have a large enough market to support them. Second, analog cable doesn’t give the cable providers fine-grained control over channels given to individual subscribers, so they need to bundle so they can block channels in larger groups with line filters. That argument doesn’t fly with digital cable or satellite, though.

    The internal reasons can only be speculated at, but I suspect it’s to their financial advantage to charge $N dollars for a bundle of K channels and get money for things people don’t want than to charge $N/K for each channel and only provide what the customer desires.

  • 2009.Mar.05 @ 18:18

    @dave0: My brief read on Wikipedia about HBO is that it was a boutique channel that demanded high prices from consumers, that was presumably passed on to HBO itself. I was reading between the lines a tad.

    It would be neat if each channel could decide its cost, and subscribers could then opt in. I might subscribe to a channel that produced one or two shows a month that I want to watch. If the beeb ever mixes their world news with mud wrestling, that’d be worth $20/mo right there.

  • 2009.Mar.06 @ 13:47

    I checked the other day, apparently I have 290 channels. I’m sure there are ones that I’ve never even clicked on. Unfortunately to get the 4 specialty channels I watch plus the ctv, global and cbc I have to get a group pack.

    That being said, how much would you pay a month for A-Channel so you could have their local news?

  • 2009.Mar.11 @ 11:38

    I think a couple of distinct issues are being lumped together in this conversation: the fate of journalism and the fate of Canadian creative content.

    When it comes to news production, all outlets are not created equally. I wouldn’t exactly turn to A-Channel to shine light in the dark corners of civic life. Their news mandate was to community reporting.

    The problems within the news industry cannot simply be solved by more news outlets. The negative consequences of pack journalism are have been demonstrated frequently. At the same time, there is also research showing that large, corporate news organizations are better for quality, balanced, news. They have the funding to engage in in-depth reporting and are not as beholden to the local economy to keep them afloat. How does one criticize the factory that employs half the town when they can pull out at a moment’s notice?

    The solution is quality journalism in whatever form it takes. The economic reality is clear: the newscape is changing. Dave Poulson at the Knight Center for Environmental Journalism explores this nicely within the context of Great Lakes environmental reporting. See here and check out the links to the Great Lakes Townhall (and stick around and read his blog – it’s worth it).

    Turning to the other side of the conversation, around creative content, the CRTC has dabbled with enticing media outlets to create more homegrown material. The result? Canadian Idol et al. When forced to create Canadian content producers turn to something cheap, easy, and internationally saleable. Why create quality Canadian programming when it is so much cheaper to rebroadcast U.S. material?

  • Reply

    You can use these HTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    If your website is claim enabled, it will be notified that you have posted here.