THE MILLIONS OF dollars collected from cable/satellite/ IPTV customers’ subscription TV fees for the production of local Canadian content seems certain to be reallocated when the CRTC announces its decision on how to prop up traditional television stations.
When one independent station is making ends meet thanks to the payout of a life insurance policy on its recently deceased founder (as Thunder Bay's Dougall Media told the hearing), another just fired half of its staff (CHCH prior to Christmas) and dozens of others – whether independent or owned by vertically integrated companies – continue to lose millions of dollars (Bell Media says 25 of its 30 local stations lose money), well, it seemed everyone who spoke – from either side of the table, agreed something needs to be done.
While we believe something will be done, which will see changes to traditional cable community channels, there are many harsh truths CRTC staff and commissioners will have to confront as they to decide how to reallocate the approximately $150 million which is directed to local expression from the 5% of all of our subscription TV bills which goes towards the overall funding of Canadian content.
For example, how is it even possible to make homogenous national policy when there are different challenges in different communities, coast to coast (and we’ll get into what “community” means below). For example, why should any new funding formula direct cash away from Brandon cable co-op Westman Communications’ community TV operations, given that it is the only TV news source in town since the old CTVglobemedia pulled the plug on CKX-TV, the former over-the-air station.
We could say the same about Seaside Communication’s community channel in Cape Breton, another region with no other local TV newsroom. There are many other examples.
However, should the larger cable companies, who all told commissioners their community channels are competitive advantages, put their money where their mouths are and be forced to self-fund those channels in regions where there are local OTA broadcasters, with the Commission redirecting millions of dollars in places like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal to traditional local news stations instead? Or, heeding the warning of Eastlink’s Lee Bragg, would those channels then suffer or disappear, losing the internal funding wars to the need to expand network capacity and other important priorities?
"Should the larger cable companies, who all told commissioners their community channels are competitive advantages, put their money where their mouths are and be forced to self-fund those channels?"
“If we had to fund it on a standalone basis… maybe we would, maybe we wouldn’t. It has to be more valuable than a lot of other activities that we’ve been unable to spend money on. So if I had an extra $3 million, the most value to the customers might be putting up a cell tower somewhere in that area. It might be spending more money on training for technical service representatives. It might be buying a new bucket truck. I don’t know. It has to go in and be measured against everything else that we do that’s a value to the customers,” said Bragg during his appearance.
Then again, Rogers Colette Watson said viewership of the Rogers Television channels have “gone precipitously off a cliff in the last five years”, so should money still be diverted to their channels? As well, if the rules were changed so that community channels could air more regular advertising, would that even help, given that advertisers are increasingly saying “no” to the much more popular traditional local stations?
The Commission also spent considerable time trying to determine if cable companies were too liberally counting expenditures in the form of corporate salaries and other expenses against their community channels. There may well be new regs there, too.
IS THERE AN ACCESS problem at all? Community groups of all sorts came forward with proposals for new funding mechanisms which would take the money completely out of the hands of the system, handing it over to local or regional community groups to build studios and other media learning centres, perhaps in libraries, in order to produce local content. They complained people aren’t able to have their voices heard and have been denied access to cable channels (something the cable companies refute).
"In the age of digital photography, smartphones and YouTube, is access really an issue?"
In the age of digital photography, smartphones and YouTube, is access really an issue? Back in the day when there was no way to get messages out to a community other than the system, we needed community channels. With a blog and Twitter account and Facebook page for every interest and community and community of interests imaginable, do we still need full-on TV studios for groups to have access to the viewing public, especially if the public is largely not watching any more?
Further, to tie re-jigged funding to anything other than the number of local hours being produced is foolish. Some proposed making new funding contingent on doing only certain kinds of news, such as civic coverage or investigative reporting versus sports or entertainment news. That might sound like a lofty goal, but it would insert Commission regulation into the newsrooms of Canada, which is just completely anathema to all of the journalistic DNA in my body.
Commission chairman Jean-Pierre Blais seemed at several points during the hearing to be worried of having a the CRTC (an arms-length government body) directing cash for local news production. “I’m a bit surprised that we’re going down a path where, if not government and an agency of government, part of the executive arm of government, would suddenly be financing news and nobody seems to be saying, ‘Wait a minute; is that a good idea?” he said while questioning the owners of CHCH, who proposed a new news fund.
For the record, we don’t have a problem with a new fund as long as qualifying for it is hours-based and does not have call for any fingers in the newsrooms themselves.
We also thought during the hearing though that if we’re going to start to reallocate millions of dollars for local news, can outfits like the Public Record petition for some? The Public Record is an independent local news outlet serving Hamilton, Ont. which does video, too. Would it be allowed to seek funding? Under these proposals, why couldn’t any civic-minded person with a smartphone, Persicope account and YouTube channel who is committed to doing news as they see it ask for funding? Should they get it?
Finally, what is “community”? The CRTC chairman asked Vice Media to appear at this hearing and slotted them first. We heard from its Canadian executives that “community” doesn’t really mean the geographic place you live, but more the mind space in which we all live – the stuff that is important to us. There are all sorts of common communities out there (millennials and music, fashion, sports, technology, travel, politics) and around the world that Vice is serving – and will serve even more with the launch of its linear TV channel Viceland. Vice will take stories that happen locally to a larger community of like-minded viewers.
"There are still substantial numbers of Canadians who get their news from TV, who make their shopping decisions from what they see on TV and make their voting decisions based on what they see on TV."
Look, those of us who work in traditional media can see a decline all around us. That doesn’t mean everything is headed for death, only that the days of a TV license also being “a license to print money” is over and we’re in the middle of a massive forced overhaul of the business. The decline we’re in, however, has to be managed because there are still substantial numbers of Canadians who get their news from TV, who make their shopping decisions from what they see on TV and make their voting decisions based on what they see on TV, provided by their local broadcasters and conscientious, hard-working journalists. Just because those viewers are not millennials or because some think they should get with the program and get online doesn’t mean they should be abandoned.
There’s still a future for local TV because even though the word community can and does mean so many things, we all need to know what’s going on around us and why – and local TV still does an excellent job of that – especially when there is great big good news – and big, bad news. It is still vital for our democracy.
So, watch for new policies that take money away from the big guys and their community channels, while those independent channels serving places where there are no other TV stations will hopefully keep their funding. Some cash will be re-directed to independent and small market broadcasters and perhaps look for some local pilot projects in some places where resources are shared.
Coming up with a flexible, adaptable new funding formula will cause some pain, because local and community TV will have to make do with the amount of money already produced by the system, but if drama and comedy producers can get funding from the system’s 5% in order to make their business plans work, so should local TV producers.
Otherwise they will soon go dark.
