I FOUND THE CLOSING PLENARY session at the CAB Winnipeg convention interesting, but it left me somewhat unsatisfied.
I think the main reason was that the discussion seemed too narrowly focused, too much was left unsaid. The convention program said that the final session would, in part, “examine what changes are required if Canadian broadcasting is to continue to thrive in a rapidly evolving world."
I think perhaps my discontent stemmed from the fact that the panel talked around the Internet, but not about it. In my view the Internet is broadcasting just as much as conventional radio or television. Therefore, any discussion must include the Internet as a component of the Canadian broadcasting system – not as a threat to it. I don’t think the panel approached the issue with this framework in mind.
For example, moderator Allan Gregg remarked that the Broadcasting Act called for the Canadian broadcasting system and its programming to enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society. Programming, as we all know, should be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources, and so on. The usual litany of criteria jam-packed into the Act.
What struck me as profound, however, was that he rhymed off the criteria as if it were an impossible, daunting task, when it fact it is being done every day by hundreds and thousands of Canadian “web broadcasters”.
Government, regulators and our own industry must start thinking of broadcasting in the broadest possible terms. We really have to start thinking of the Internet as broadcasting, just as much as television and radio. The archaic regulatory definition which defines: "program" as sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, that are intended to inform, enlighten or entertain, but does not include visual images, whether or not combined with sounds, that consist predominantly of alphanumeric text, simply doesn’t cut it any more.
It’s like the buggy manufacturers defining a vehicle as a carriage drawn by a horse. How is a web site set up by a Hamilton, Ontario family documenting their family genealogy in Canada for the world to instantly see any less broadcasting Canadian content than a radio station in Vancouver playing 35% Canadian music? How is a blogger in B.C. ranting about the softwood trade dispute any less able to meet the requirements of Canadian expression than Lloyd Robertson on CTV? The 21st century broadcasting includes web sites and podcasts and any other content vehicle available simultaneously to the public.
So how do we help transition the 20th century broadcasters (radio, television, pay and specialty) into 21st century broadcasters, or in the language of the plenary panel, “examine what changes are required if Canadian broadcasting is to continue to thrive in a rapidly evolving world."
Once you accept the Internet as an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system, I think the opportunities for policy makers to make sure we have an effective Canadian system in the future are broadened. I’m not talking about regulation and protection – although there may be elements of both. Accepting the Internet as broadcasting does not implicitly mean it is to be regulated. But that does not mean public policy and regulation cannot promote and encourage 21st century Canadian broadcasters. All sorts of out-of-the-box ideas can be considered.
• Why can’t government policy promote and assist conventional broadcasters to also become web broadcasters?
• Should we give special credit towards Canadian content requirements by conventional broadcasters who web broadcast?
• What about directories promoting Canadian sites?
• What does it mean when a site has the suffix .ca? Is google.ca a Canadian web site? Should the .ca suffix be available only to “licensed” Canadian sites? Are we comfortable with Yahoo, Google and MSN telling us what should be listed as “Canadian” when we search for news or something as mundane as a recipe? Should we institute some other suffix to denote being Canadian as opposed to simply doing business in Canada?
• Should there be tax incentives (or disincentives) to Canadian advertisers who advertise on Canadian (or foreign) web sites?
I think this type of discussion would have made for a very interesting closing plenary and that these topics should be part of any discussion going forward.
Paul Temple is senior vice-president corporate development for Pelmorex (The Weather Network/Metéomédia)
_______________________
Would you like to write a COMMENTARY piece? If so, drop us a line at editorial@cartt.ca.
