TORONTO – CBC president and CEO Robert Rabinovitch said Thursday that if we, as Canadians, want to have a good public broadcaster, it needs better a better, stable funding model.
In a speech to the Empire Club in Toronto, Rabinovitch said he welcomed any governmental review of the CBC’s mandate (as has been alluded to by the new Conservative government) and said one is coming anyway by the end of 2006 when the Corp. faces the CRTC during its license renewal hearing.
The CEO says the broadcaster’s vision is to be "(t)he undisputed champion of compelling Canadian programming," and despite some successes, the CBC – especially English language TV – is not where it needs to be.
Despite finding recent savings of about $102 million – added to advertising sales and the near-$1 billion it gets from taxpayers every year, it’s not enough to make the CBC into the public broadcaster he’d like to see, said Rabinovitch.
"It is time we asked the question: Do we want public television in Canada? Do we want Canadian programming in Canada? If the answer is yes, then we have to come up with funding solutions that work," he explained. "Solutions that allow us to respond to the realities of today’s broadcasting universe.
"CBC Television needs a new funding formula that recognizes not just its unique circumstances, but also its unique role."
Rabinovitch quoted a recent study of public broadcasting systems in 26 OECD countries found that when you consider funding in terms of a percentage of GDP, Canada placed 22nd out of 26 countries. Places like Denmark, Finland, Norway, and the UK all had public funding expenditures that were three-to-four times greater than what is spent in Canada.
The BBC gets more than $7.3 billion from citizens and is often held up as the gold standard in broadcasting, world-wide. It works out to $122 per person. "For less than $1 billion in government money, Canadians get 27 national and international services, in English and French, and eight Aboriginal languages. And for that, each Canadian pays annually about $30," Rabinovitch continued.
"I am a realist about the future. I don’t really expect government to decide tomorrow to make good our commercial revenue plus top up our annual appropriation so that we can attack the challenge of television drama. But we need to reverse the trend towards more and more dependence on commercial revenue and we need to implement a concerted plan to take on Canada’s most pressing cultural challenge," he added.
"In return, if properly resourced, we can make CBC Television the cornerstone of Canadian dramatic programming, just like public broadcasters everywhere else in the world…
"What we are talking about is… shows that are not only produced in Canada, but made for Canadians and reflecting our unique sensibility," he says. "Canada hasn’t made the breakthrough in televised drama that we have in other sectors — like music and literature.
"If we look back almost two decades to Europe and Australia, we see that people there were watching very little homegrown programming — programming that spoke to them, their reality, that reflected their countries and their interests. Like Canada today, they were dominated by foreign programming, primarily from the U.S.
"That has now changed," he added. "If you look at Europe, at the UK or Australia today, their prime-time schedules are dominated by domestic programming.
"How did it happen? Broadcasters, governments and the independent production community focused their efforts on making domestic dramas that resonate with their audiences, that tell their stories. CBC Television should be taking risks and producing programs that innovate — Canadian equivalents to The Office from the UK or Six Feet Under from next door," said Rabinovitch.
"Why can’t the public broadcaster consistently broadcast high-quality Canadian programs that draw a million or more viewers? Our entertainment programming should be the place where big risks are expected, where there is occasional failure and where there is astounding success.
"What we need is a critical mass of Canadian-made drama. It is not enough to make one or two good shows," he continued, "we need to rehabilitate the entire genre. If it’s made accessible to Canadians, in sufficient quantity and of a high enough quality and shown at times when people are actually watching television, Canadian drama will attract audiences."
There’s a great home-grown example of what Rabinovitch means in Quebec. Retiring executive vice-president of télévision de Radio-Canada, Daniel Gourd, "made a few hard-nosed, difficult decisions that were unpopular (when he took the job in 2002) — reducing non-programming budgets and canceling some failing but iconic series. This freed up enough financing to allow a significant investment in new shows," remembered Rabinovitch. "He set out a few clear attributes for new programming: daring, with broad appeal and passion. Then he stuck to them, he took big risks and he launched successive seasons of new dramatic and entertainment series.
And while some of those new shows failed and were quickly taken off the air, others are still being watched by close to two million viewers a week in a market of just seven million. "Over three years, our prime-time audience share has moved from 16.5 to 22 per cent. Ratings are up, revenues are up, creativity is way up. In the same period the network increased its current affairs programming to over 40 hours a week," said Rabinovitch.
"Instead of attacking us for being irrelevant, our detractors now attack us for being too popular."
On the English TV side, some of those tough decisions have recently been made, with the cancellation of DaVinci’s City Hall, The Tournament and This is Wonderland last month.
But when it comes to money for the CBC, it can’t be all about government. The CBC itself must change its attitudes, said its CEO. "We need to be leaner, to have shorter lines of decision-making, to remove the bureaucracy that inhibits creativity. We need to open ourselves up to the broader creative community of Canada. We employ some of the best, most innovative broadcast artists in the world and they would tell you that we are too insular, too satisfied and too slow-moving," he said.
"Why does it take months to accept or reject a program? We must create a better environment for ourselves and for our partners in the independent production industry. In short, we are not as creative an organization as we need to be. We must become more nimble," Rabinovitch added.
Rabinovitch also discussed potential for changes on the radio side, as well. "If our Radio services are to retain their position (they are market leaders in many communities), their programming must change to reflect the evolving needs and interests of Canadians," he said. "This means that CBC Radio Two must preserve its valued past while also expanding its scope to give voice to more Canadian talent. It must reach out beyond its current comfort zone. CBC Radio’s success will be defined by the positive and measurable impact it has on the creative community across Canada."
Getting more local is a must, too. "For example, Hamilton — just 60 kilometres down the QEW — has a population of approximately 500,000. It receives no local CBC programming; only the Toronto signal — so does Kitchener/Waterloo, and what about Saskatoon? Our current broadcast footprint was conceived in the early 1970s. Today there are six million Canadians who do not receive appropriate local programming from CBC Radio One," said Rabinovitch.
– Greg O’Brien
