COVERING THIS INDUSTRY for as long as we have has meant that on a few occasions, folks we know have asked us to please send a letter to the CRTC to support this or that application.
Each time, we’ve said no. Not because certain applications don’t have merit, but because it’s not Cartt.ca’s role to file an official letter of intervention on something we are also trying to objectively cover.
That said, we do of course publish opinion or commentary pieces (like this one) that most definitely take a stand, whether ours or another’s (some of which we may not even agree with!), but we’ve never consented to become part of the official process because it then irrevocably places us on one side of an issue or another, when segments of our readers often fall on opposite sides.
As an industry publication, we do our best to represent and reflect all of our readership. Doing so sometimes angers some of you, but that’s okay. That’s part of our role. However, going on the official CRTC record to cement such a stand? We believe that’s a step too far. We belong in the press box, not on the field.
On Wednesday, University of Ottawa professor (and industry irritant) Michael Geist published a blog post outlining exactly what we have had happen to us – something we are well aware happens all the time in this industry: The cajoling of contacts to file letters of support to the Commission, this time in support of the FairPlay Coalition application to the CRTC.
Such emails or phone calls will begin with something like “as you know, we have been long-time supporters of (insert company name here)…” as a way to coax the receiver into filing a letter of support for the sender’s cause with the Commission. Sometimes those emails also come along with suggested wording.
I don’t see what professor Geist has found here as a big deal because this stuff is a pretty regular occurrence in business circles, mostly beyond regulatory filings. “Well, Mrs. Supplier, we’ve supported you in the past doing/buying ABC, so we would love it if you would support us buying/doing XYZ.” This is part of how the world works. I’ve scratched your back, please scratch mine. It’s not evil or nefarious, it’s business – and yes, there’s risk in saying no but business is about risks large and small. At Cartt.ca we’ve chosen to take whatever risk there might be to ignore or directly say no to the few requests we’ve fielded for Commission support. (For the record, no one asked us to file anything on the FairPlay Coalition submission.)
Here’s the thing though. These form letters to the CRTC, on any side of an issue, do not sway the Regulator and while they’d likely never say it on the record, the commissioners don’t read them. A few of the more junior members of staff have to skim them, but that’s it.
Organizations like Open Media do the same thing in encouraging their followers to blanket the CRTC with supplied rote missives in support of its causes, but boring, obvious form letters don’t make much difference and after 20-plus years of covering this industry and reading WAY more than a few of these things, they’re a waste of resources.
We love the submissions that come in organically from people who truly want to take part in a proceeding and have something interesting to say. The cogent submissions or interventions from any side, be they from a company or consumer group or any other organization or association or person which are well researched and documented and actually drive debate and knowledge forward are the important ones. These ones make a difference. These are the ones upon which decisions are based.
So, for the forced letters from business associates or astroturfing campaigns from some consumer groups – can we please just say no?
