Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 8 - Evidence for February 3, 2005, Morning meeting
REGINA, Thursday, February 3, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:14 a.m. to examine the current role of Canadian media industries; emerging trends and developments in these industries; the media's role, rights and responsibilities in Canadian society; and current and appropriate future policies relating thereto.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome senators, members of the public, to yet another in our series. For those of you who do not know, my name is Joan Fraser. I am the chair of the committee. Today we are in Saskatchewan, and we have the great good fortune of having as deputy chair of this committee Senator David Tkachuk, who is from Saskatchewan. I thought it would be entirely and wonderfully appropriate to have him chair the proceedings today.
Senator David Tkachuk (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman: I would like to welcome you to the fourth in the series this week. We started with two days in Vancouver, one day in Calgary and now in Regina. Tomorrow we will be in Winnipeg. We then join the politicians in Ottawa next Monday.
I would like to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. We are studying the appropriate role of public policy in helping to ensure that Canada's news media remain healthy and diverse in light of the tremendous changes that have occurred in recent years.
Today for our first witness we are privileged to have Patricia Bell, Director of Journalism from the University of Regina.
Ms. Patricia Bell, Director, School of Journalism, University of Regina, as an individual: Good morning. Welcome to Saskatchewan, or back to Saskatchewan for some of you.
In this, the twenty-fifth anniversary year of the School of Journalism at the University of Regina, I very much appreciate the opportunity to describe the contribution it has attempted to make to the discipline of journalism in the Province of Saskatchewan and, indeed, much further afield. I also welcome the opportunity to respond to questions pertaining to the media in Canada today.
The first university-based journalism program in Western Canada was established here in 1980. Through a program based on the principles of critical thinking and journalistic rigour, our goal is to provide our graduates with the skills they need to make a difference to the quality of newspapers and broadcast media. This balance between theory and practice draws outstanding students to the school, and it is our graduates who have made our reputation so strong for such a small school, over the last quarter century.
We owe a debt of gratitude to countless individuals in dozens of mainstream newsrooms across Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta who have supported the program from the beginning by providing full-semester, paid internships to all our students.
This experience in a television, radio station or a daily or weekly newspaper has been invaluable as an integral part of the curriculum. In many cases an internship has been the springboard to a most fulfilling career. In all cases it has given students the hands-on experience vital for a résumé and contacts within journalism who may be called on for references later.
Most of all, it has brought young people back into their last semester of academic work with a stronger appreciation of what it means to pursue news and current affairs with deadlines looming, how important it is to report accurately, fairly and in context, and how relentless is the appetite for stories well told.
It is greatly satisfying for professors when students return to tell them that their insights and directions were right on target. It is equally satisfying to work with students who are eager to use their final months at university analyzing and discussing the world of journalism that they remain eager to join.
Those who were wise enough more than two decades ago to plan a curriculum with such a substantial opportunity to experience the real world of mainstream journalism have guaranteed that no student will graduate with a frantic need to get out there right away to find out what it is like. They and their classmates have already formed a pretty clear idea.
Some have decided that mainstream media is where they want to be; they have proven they are prepared, and they have ideas of how they will work to make it better. Others want to travel, to try alternative forms of journalism first, or to continue working toward a graduate degree.
The School of Journalism at the University of Regina graduates an average of 23 students per year. A 2002 survey of alumni showed that approximately 65 per cent of graduates are working still in the field of journalism. Of those in radio and television most of have found employment with the CBC, and some have already risen to senior positions. Those employed in print are working in dailies and weeklies across Canada and in community newspapers. As well, graduates are increasingly seeking opportunities to travel, especially to developing countries, and to work independently in both broadcast and print; every year advances in technology are making this more feasible.
Journalism graduates from the University of Regina are prepared to work in print, radio and television. All of them are prepared to work in all of these media; however, few relish a future in which they could be expected to deliver the same story on the same day for the same company that owns both broadcast and newspaper outlets in the same town. It is not that they could not write it or videotape it or voice it, the delivery would be possible; it is just that most of them would agree that it takes time and resources and thought to research and develop each story.
Young people do not look at a current list of this country's 100 daily newspapers and lament the fact that more and more are gathered in corporate groupings and that fewer and fewer are proudly independent. The argument that it costs a lot of money to run a business is not lost on them, and they do not have the experience of seeing that variety of independent voices that many of us around the table remember.
They do understand that journalism has a responsibility to provide the information citizens need to have in a free society. They also understand that democracy begins in the community, and it is the community's own stories that readers, viewers and listeners require in order for that community to thrive.
Journalists who can tell these stories with accuracy, sensitivity and thoroughness, and who can defend them with clarity and reason if necessary, are the journalists who will be able to report the important stories from anywhere. Once they have established that they can do it, it is actually easier to report from away. That is why our school has come up with initiatives that strengthen community connections and provide students with experiences that emphasize the most basic elements of connection with their audience. These include opportunities to write for Saskatchewan weeklies as part of a credit course and participation in mini-internships at community radio and television as part of another course.
Another initiative has been to establish with the Speaker of the Saskatchewan Legislature an annual journalists institute to give our students an insight into reporting provincial political issues. That is where most of our students are today, unfortunately. It was scheduled last fall and we could not change it; otherwise many of them would he here. Some will come this afternoon.
At a time when the number of reporters in parliamentary and legislative press corps is dwindling this activity at the legislature here may awaken in fledgling journalists an interest that otherwise might not be kindled in the newsrooms awaiting them.
It is highly unusual for a throng of reporters to arrive in a village unless they are there to cover a tragedy. For the past two years we have taken a whole class on field trips to find big stories in small towns, an exercise that has introduced students to Saskatchewan communities and introduced the communities to our students. The result has been newspapers written and produced by journalism students to reflect the communities back to themselves.
The variety of people and issues has been fascinating, from Hutterite farmers to ranchers affected by the BSE crisis, to a feisty octogenarian mayor who led her small town's rebound from a devastating flood, to a Roman Catholic nun who has made the most of a secondhand store to bring together Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents of a small hamlet that proclaims ``Welcome to Paradise'' on the sign that greets visitors.
Students who know that it takes a little time and patience to find these stories will not be content with rewriting press releases and obediently attending press conferences. They will turn to the Internet for fuller, more varied takes on issues in the news, and they will search for outlets to practice journalism where they believe they can truly make a difference. Because they are strong and idealistic, many of them will do just that. They truly are our hope for a stronger, more responsive journalism in this country.
I welcome questions, and I would like to talk to you about our annual Minifie Lecture, which helps us take the pulse every year of how journalism is doing in Canada through guests who are respected journalists throughout the country.
We have been very fortunate to have a bequest from Global Television which allows us to have one professor each year to focus on Aboriginal issues and the reporting of those issues that really matter in Western Canada. Also, we recently have been given money by CTV that has been put toward entrance scholarships, scholarships for investigative journalism and scholarships that allow for travel within the province for projects that students are working on in their courses.
I do not know what time you will be leaving today, but I wish to extend a very hearty welcome to come by the school campus and have a tour if you have time.
Senator Fraser: Two questions, Ms. Bell, if I may. First, why is it easier to report from away? That was a tantalizing phrase.
Ms. Bell: Because you are reporting about things that most readers are not experts in, so you are the expert. Reporting from home, at home, about things that many people are already talking about or have some interest in and some experience of makes them a part of the experience, and they are very aware of how fair and complete your reporting is.
Senator Fraser: Yes. If you get the wrong intersection you get 50 phone calls before the ink is dry on the paper. I was not sure whether you were talking about that or whether you were talking about the oppressive structure of newsrooms from which all journalists want to escape.
The Deputy Chairman: Is that why so many reporters want to go to Ottawa?
Ms. Bell: I do not think they do, actually.
Senator Fraser: That is really a great lead-in for my second question. I was intrigued by your program of taking the students out to small communities. Yesterday we heard a very interesting presentation from representatives of the Alberta community weeklies. One of the things they talked about was the difficulty of retaining journalists in a small community. They all — or large numbers of them — want to move to the big city lights. Do you think that is true with your students, and was this program designed to expose students to the concept that maybe there is work to be done in small communities?
Ms. Bell: I think it probably was true earlier. This is my sixth year in Regina. When I came here, Roy Bonisteel was the director at the school that year. He had been in touch with the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspaper Association, and he asked me if we could start writing for weeklies in the advanced print class. We began this in January of 2000, and we have been doing it now for five years.
I have found over the last five years, because of these contacts that students have made, they are far more interested in working at weeklies when they graduate. We have also been able to bring some of the weeklies into our group for internships. Students have gone to La Ronge. Last year at this time a student was in La Ronge in winter when it was cold. Another student was in Moosomin. After graduation, students have gone to Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, and Nipawin and Humboldt.
I think there is a growing interest among our students for gaining the experience in a smaller centre. I hear from editors that students who graduate from the University of Regina are more likely to stay than students who come to the province from Ontario or other places in the east.
A lot of young people leave Saskatchewan because they are looking for employment. I remember when I first moved here I met a woman who said, ``Like most mothers in Regina, I have a child working in Calgary.'' A lot of young people do leave, but there are many, many who do not want to. If they have an opportunity to stay and work here they will.
One of our students, as soon as he graduated, became managing editor of a new bi-weekly in Saskatoon called Planet S. He is actually from Alberta, but he has been there for three years now, keeping that one running. There is a strong desire to keep this province strong.
Senator Carney: This is about the first time in this road show that Senator Fraser has had an opportunity to ask a lot of questions, because as a very able chairman she usually lets the rest of us speak. It must feel good to actually get those questions out.
Can you tell us a little bit more about your students, because the training of journalists has been an issue throughout these hearings? You say you have about 22 students. Is it a bachelor program? Can you tell us the entry requirements, who the students are and what the gender mix is? Do you have Aboriginal or Chinese Canadians? Where do they come from? How much of your school is hands-on journalism, and how much of it is academic?
Ms. Bell: I am very glad to respond to this. We have a four-year bachelor of arts in journalism. Students take two years of pre-journalism liberal arts and then come into the school where it is totally journalism for two years. About one-third of the students come in with a previous degree, but they take the same two years as the others. We have students who already have a degree in political science or English or science or music, and they add to this mix of students. We take 26 students a year, so we have a total of 52 in the school at any time. Also, for any semester, one- quarter of the students — that is, half of one class — are out on internship.
Twenty-six students arrive in September and have their first semester altogether. In January, half of them are out on internships, either in radio, television or print.
Senator Carney: Paid?
Ms. Bell: Paid internships at CBC television and radio in Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg or at CTV in Regina, Global in Edmonton, the Leader-Post, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix or the Western Producer. This year for the first time one student is doing a dual internship where he is half time at Global television and half time at the Leader- Post, giving him an opportunity to work in both broadcast and print. We will see how that works out.
Half the class stays behind in January so we only have about 13 in that class. This gives them an opportunity to do a lot of work in a smaller group and to work very closely with professors, which works very well. They go out for their internships during the September to December semester and the other half come back. Then in January they are all back for their final semester and graduate in April of their second year.
Senator Carney: Talk about the gender and ethnic mix and how many come from out of province.
Ms. Bell: This year's and last year's groups were almost 50:50 men and women, which is unusual. We have had years where there has been 22 women and four men. It seems that more young men are coming back into journalism, at least in our school. We have students from Japan and Finland. This year we have our first student from China. His English is excellent and his curiosity is amazing. His mother is a journalist in Beijing. We have a student from Sudan this year as well.
We do not have as many First Nations students as we would like. We only have one right now. We have three applying for September. Our Global chair this year is Nelson Bird, who graduated from the School of Journalism about eight years ago, and he is back teaching specialized reporting on Aboriginal issues, our Friday morning course. He has 30 students filling up that room. It is an elective and they all want to be there, which is very, very good.
We have a link with First Nations University of Canada. In the summer, their Indian Communication Studies program uses our facilities, and some of our instructors have also taught in that program over the years, which is very helpful.
Senator Merchant: How many applicants do you get in relation to how many you can take? I will just ask you a couple of things so that it does not take up too much time. What does it cost Canadian and international students? Also, how many graduate or does everybody graduate? Do people drop out?
Ms. Bell: Those are good questions. We have about a three-to-one ratio for applicants to spaces. We usually take in 26, but occasionally something happens that people do not get their funding or something else happens in their lives so that we do not get that full 26. We have the highest graduation rate of any department in the faculty of arts at the university — bringing in 26 and graduating 23, which is a very high ratio.
It costs just under $5,000 a year for Canadian students, and double that for international students.
Senator Merchant: Is that just about the same as other colleges outside the province?
Ms. Bell: I believe that Ontario would be quite similar. Nova Scotia is much higher. I understand that theirs is more than double ours.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Professor Bell, it is wonderful to have you with us and to learn from you this morning.
Two things came to my mind particularly, among many others, as I listened to your account. I want to ask you about community newspapers, weeklies and bi-weeklies. Second, I want to ask you about reporting on family matters and health matters. I am very, very interested. I will try to get a copy of your book and read it. I have been involved with family issues for a long while in my previous lives.
First of all, I left the hearings yesterday worried about the future of weekly newspapers, that they might become the giveaways or freebies that focus much more on advertising than our traditional weeklies do, and much less on good editorial content, community content, covering city council, town council, et cetera. I want to hear your opinion on that.
I will put the two together, if I may. Second, we were told by one person further west that the quality of medical and health journalism was not good. I am a family doctor and I have found it very good. For instance, this morning in our national paper there are things about obesity. Yesterday it was about young people and vegetarianism. It is not perfect but I find it very good. What is your opinion of the coverage of family matters in your own province and nationally on health, raising children, parenting, et cetera?
Ms. Bell: I will answer the first question first, about the weeklies. There are 84 weekly newspapers in Saskatchewan. Many of them are just excellent, and they have been fiercely independent for years. However, we have been finding over the past five years that more of them are being bought up by groups. Thus far it does not seem to have hurt the content.
The difference is in those communities where a second weekly has come in that is basically an advertising giveaway. It may have one reporter but their emphasis is on advertising and some listing of events. They compete for the advertising dollar in the community, and that hurts the earlier established community paper because advertising is where these small businesses make their money.
Another thing that is really sad about larger groups buying these weeklies is that it is starting to erode some of the individuality of these papers.
I think it was in 2001 that the Canadian Community Newspaper Association had their annual meeting in Saskatoon. I had never been at such a conference before in my life. There were grandparents, parents, teenagers and small children just filling up the Hotel Bessborough. These were families from all over the country. The grandparents used to be the busy, busy publishers and editors of these papers, and they brought their children to these conferences for years and years and years. Now the children had grown up and were carrying on the tradition by bringing along their children who would be, hopefully, the next generation in these family papers.
It was amazing to watch because what they did — and still do — was choose a different place in Canada every year for this summer conference. They would make that their holiday and see a lot of the country. Working alone in your small business in your small community in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or Northern Ontario or Northern British Columbia is a very responsible task, and it can be a lonely task, but every year they have this sense of belonging to this much bigger organization.
Robert Fulford spoke and Pam Wallin spoke, and there were all kinds of good things happening. There were sessions on how to bring in more advertising, how to have contests so that you can get the small shopkeepers in your town to become involved. There were questions about whether or not you should have a subscription list and keep a circulation department running or whether you should give the papers away, because you would not have to spend so much money on circulation.
However, the Bowes chain and other chains owning some of these papers are saying, ``No, no, you do not need to go to that annual conference. You can go next year or in three years. We will do it on a rotation basis and the editor from this other paper is going;'' therefore, getting together once a year will not happen as much. It is already shrinking and it will shrink more. These annual opportunities to share ideas and to be proud of being weekly newspaper owners will shrink. I think that is sad.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Do you fear that the weekly as we know it will continue to decrease in publication?
Ms. Bell: I think that there will become a sameness in weeklies across the province or across the country. It is rare now for a daily newspaper to have its own local reviewer of movies that come to that town. Every paper within a group or chain seems to have the same reviewer because that is more efficient. It is the same thing with weeklies; there will be more filler features rather than the same number of local stories. All small weeklies manage with a very, very small skeleton staff, and they have put their emphasis on being the paper of record for that community for a long time.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: That is so important.
Ms. Bell: If it is not the paper of record, then what is it? I think that is something that needs to be recognized addressed.
In terms of coverage of health and family matters, again people look to the national newspapers for a lot of this. It used to be that many of the dailies across the country would have a dedicated health reporter and dedicated columnists who would address the issues that families were concerned with in that particular geographical area. Even though many of the national papers and the chains are doing good work, it is not necessarily what any particular community needs. I think that national newspapers have a place, but I still believe that with the shrinking number of people in newsrooms these days, the time and attention given to, for example, the rate of childhood asthma in Regina is just not happening to the same degree that it could have and would have before newsrooms were cut in half.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Would you say we are getting reasonably good coverage in the national papers, but much, much less than the dailies produced locally?
Ms. Bell: Yes, it is shrinking. The thing is that readers get used to it and they do not realize what is missing.
Senator Munson: I noted in your remarks this morning, professor, that the students were talking about media ownership in the sense of cross-media ownership and how it affects today's journalistic world. You had a line in there saying that it takes time to develop and research stories. I would like to get your personal view, and perhaps you can echo the students' views of how they feel about seeing these markets owned by one owner. I noticed here in Regina that CanWest Global owns the Leader-Post.
Ms. Bell: Yes.
Senator Munson: Is that kind of ownership good for the future of journalism?
Ms. Bell: Most of us teaching at the school remember days when ownership was not as concentrated, and I think our students get tired of hearing us talk about that. To them this is the reality and the work world they will be entering. They are not as critical as we are; however, they do believe that they could do more if they had more time.
When we sometimes talk about having two days to do one story and get it right, young people who are turning out three stories in one day really wonder what took us so long. They are getting into an environment where stories are supposed to be so long, and you can get that many stories done. What they have learned, and are continuing to learn, is that you can get a lot of good information into a well-written, 10-inch story; it does not have to be the whole world. You do that not by cutting but by selecting and creating a good story.
Our students are all individuals, and they have different approaches to things. Some of them actually like the idea that they can be in a print newsroom and report briefly, in a one-minute synopsis on television that evening, about what their story will say the next morning. For them this cross-ownership works just fine; however, that is a minority of students.
Senator Munson: I am just curious about that. When you have a relationship between, for example, The Globe and Mail and CTV, what good print journalist would give up his or her story the night before without just teasing an audience at 6:00 or at 11:00 by telling them it will be in the paper the next morning? There is proprietary there, ownership of the story. I just do not know how that works in merging media, so to speak.
Ms. Bell: Usually reporters who are covering news stories would really balk at doing such a thing. Reporters in entertainment and other areas might not because they want to draw attention to their story. The idea of having a scoop is still strong and to be forced to share that is not a comfortable thing.
Senator Munson: I have one other question, or perhaps two quick ones. What are your own views on cross- ownership? For example, in Vancouver the market is pretty well dominated by one group. Also, I have a question on foreign ownership. You have been a journalist for a long time. From your perspective, should rules be relaxed or restrictions be changed to allow foreign ownership?
Ms. Bell: I find this crossover has diminished the richness, variety and diversity of coverage and what we are getting is far too much sameness. I think that that does not serve citizens well. I think the sense of getting the story that the others do not get is what serves people well. I remember when the Ottawa Journal was closed down, the Ottawa Citizen was the only paper for a while. There had been other attempts, as well.
In a city where television and newspaper are interlinked, it gives a lot of power to ignore some stories because you know that the competition will not get them. As CBC has lost a lot of its regional, local strength, its leading by example has diminished as well. It has become so much the same and so bland and not as important.
I think that journalism is important, and I think having enough time to follow a beat and to get to really understand what is happening in different institutions in a city really matters. If you are running to press conferences because an organization has called one, rather than digging up the stories yourself, there is something missing and it will make a difference.
As for foreign ownership, I do not know. I know that others who have spoken to you have suggested that, obviously, the Canadian owners have not invested back into their newsrooms, and that is quite true. However, I am not really sure that foreign owners would invest any more; that is what I do not know.
Senator Merchant: First, I have a question about our First Nations coverage, because that is so important to us in this province. First Nations' issues are very important and those who are reporting on them really have to have an understanding of the issues. What are you doing to attract students and to keep them? What have you tried and is that working? Do you have to make some kind of a special effort, maybe have different standards for allowing people in? How have you handled it and is it working?
Ms. Bell: Are you asking about First Nations students, or are you asking about all our students learning how to write about these issues?
Senator Merchant: No, I am asking about First Nations students.
Ms. Bell: We do not have different standards of entrance for anybody; however, we are very, very happy when we have First Nations applicants, and we do everything we can to encourage them to come and to stay.
Unfortunately, there are not yet a lot of First Nations young people who want to be journalists. We have to really work harder on this. In the six years I have been here we have graduated three.
I should have brought some copies of our magazine, The Crow, because there is one excellent piece from two years ago written by one of our students. It is entitled Growing up Brown in Saskatchewan. She is very, very thoughtful in her presentation of what it is to grow up in Saskatchewan as a First Nations young person.
We have, I think, three applicants, perhaps four, for this September. That makes me happy because I think that it is very difficult to be one student at a time. It is good to have two or three friends together. I remember teaching in the INCA program a couple of years ago when there were 26 First Nations students for a six-week course. They used our school, but almost all their instructors were First Nations people. What was wonderful about that was that these 26 all supported each other, and they all stayed for the whole six weeks. They had two weeks of print and two weeks of radio and two weeks of television. There needs to be that extra support and a lot of students are getting that in the Indian Communications program at First Nations University and then they come to the School of Journalism after that. They are not actually learning to be journalists there, but they are getting a start and an introduction to it.
Senator Merchant: How does one prepare the students for the fact that they will be researching and writing stories but maybe people will not be reading them? Readership is decreasing; people do not seem to be as interested in news. How do they come to terms with that, and how do you prepare them for that?
Ms. Bell: That is a good question. I have not heard many students say, ``Well, I do not want to write because not that many people will be reading what I write.'' I have not heard that. They know that they are competing. Each story in a newspaper competes with the others on that page and the others in the paper that day, so they need to write in an engaging manner without sacrificing accuracy but writing the stories that matter.
It is quite amazing how many applicants to the school are not strong newspaper readers before they come. They certainly become strong newspaper readers and then they are amazed that their friends do not read the paper, because they become great consumers of news themselves. It may be that part of their role will be to try to engage others.
They do read on the Internet; that is a reading process, but a lot of students get their news from radio or television, not from newspapers. We do know that newspaper readership is declining. Although there still is a recognition that it is from the printed word in the newspaper that you get the background, and you can delve more deeply into stories that you are first attracted to through television or radio. That has been the same for years and years, and it has been proven again with the tsunami coverage. First of all people turn to television, but for a lot of the background they wanted the graphics and the maps and everything in front of them in a newspaper.
Senator Merchant: Are you aware of the recent study by the University of British Columbia concerning bias in reporting and the cynicism with which the public regard reporters and journalists?
Ms. Bell: The 2004 survey?
Senator Merchant: Yes.
Ms. Bell: Yes.
Senator Merchant: And have you talked about it with your students?
Ms. Bell: Yes.
Senator Merchant: What are their feelings about that? How do they feel about the growing public cynicism, that people do not believe what they read and they do not hold reporters or journalists in high regard? Is this of concern to them?
Ms. Bell: It is. However, they noticed that more Canadians than Americans actually feel that journalists are doing a decent job. There is less cynicism in Canada about the media, although there is still lots of room for improvement. Students share that; they look at what is happening now and they do not think it is wonderful. They want to be part of a change.
Senator Chaput: Does your school have a foundation that can give bursaries to the students?
Ms. Bell: We do not have one particular foundation, but we have a very generous legacy from the James M. Minifie family that pays for an award to the best graduating student. It also pays for the annual Minifie Lecture. It also pays for a scholarship for a graduating student each year to work outside Canada. It is a $7,000 travel scholarship, and this year the student who was awarded that is writing in Mozambique. She has a connection with community radio station Making the Links in Saskatoon. She is also doing broadcasts for CBC because she did her internship with CBC.
We also have been very fortunate at the school to have many, many scholarships for the students.
Senator Chaput: In the topics that are being taught to your students there must be a course on ethics?
Ms. Bell: Yes.
Senator Chaput: How is it defined, what is your view on it and what are the views of your students? What do they think about it?
Ms. Bell: We have a course called ``Rights and Responsibilities'' that is delivered in the first semester so all 26 students have completed that course before they go on their internships. It is the only course in the school for which we have an examination; 50 per cent of it is an examination. All the others are project based and the marks build up through the semester. We team-teach this course. There is one professor who is the coordinator, but we all contribute to the course.
Students work on presentations as a team of three. They look at many, many issues including censorship and confidentiality of sources. They are keenly aware of many of the issues that come up and not only talk about it in theory but actually look at particular things such as Juliet O'Neill and her coverage of the Maher Arar case and the RCMP going into her house.
This is a course that also has a textbook, The Canadian Journalist's Legal Guide, and it is pretty substantial. They learn not only the law but their own responsibility for accuracy and honesty and sensitivity to coverage. We talk about the use of images and community sensitivities.
The Deputy Chairman: What is the student-teacher ratio in your school?
Ms. Bell: We have a very small faculty. We never have a class bigger than 26, except for Nelson's this year, which is a fourth-year class, but some third-year students have been allowed to take Specialized Reporting on First Nation Issues.
Our largest class consists of one professor to 26 students, but many times there are only 13 in a class. We have caps of 15 for Magazine Writing, Documentary, Advanced Broadcasting and Advanced Print, so in their final year, the ratio is pretty good.
The Deputy Chairman: You mentioned earlier that there was a certain blandness in the writing and perhaps in coverage even though there is one more television station here than in the last generation. There is no Global, CTV and CBC; there is still the Leader-Post as there always has been, although there have been a lot of different owners. I think it is the same in Saskatoon. In other words there are more media. In your view, is the blandness the result of interconnected ownership?
Ms. Bell: There are more media outlets, perhaps.
The Deputy Chairman: Yes, more radio stations and open-line shows.
Ms. Bell: There are not more journalists. These newsrooms have fewer people actually employed to dig up the stories and bring the stories forward. There are more outlets to deliver, but there are not more journalists to actually do the reporting work.
The Deputy Chairman: So in the three television stations and the radio stations and the newspaper, there are actually fewer journalists than there were before when there was one less television station and fewer radio stations?
Ms. Bell: I believe so.
The Deputy Chairman: That is interesting.
Senator Carney: The record would indicate that you are the only instructor, but that is not the case?
Ms. Bell: No.
Senator Carney: How many professors or instructors do you have on your faculty?
Ms. Bell: I can tell you what we have on paper, and then I can tell you what we have. We have on paper four full- time faculty professors and one full-time broadcast lab instructor, tenure track. We also have a position for a visiting chair for one semester a year and a position of a Global chair for one semester a year. Some of our faculty positions are now vacant, and they are filled with one term position and many, many sessionals who are outstanding in their experience and their commitment, although they are not full-time faculty at the moment.
The Deputy Chairman: Our next presenter is Gillian Steward, a visiting professor at the University of Regina School of Journalism. She is a journalist who has worked at the Calgary Herald and numerous other newspapers in Western Canada and is also a freelance journalist for a number of newspapers in Canada and the United States.
Welcome, Ms. Steward.
Ms. Gillian Steward, Visiting Professor, School of Journalism, University of Regina, as an individual: It is a pleasure.
First of all, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak and for creating this public forum. Over the past few years it has become increasingly difficult to find forums where one can speak or write openly about what is happening in the various media corporations in this country. Each one has its own vested interest to protect and, as a consequence, we see a stifling of open discussion about the state of the media, the practice of journalism and how both these topics relate to democracy within our local and national communities.
That will be my main focus today — journalism and society, particularly civil society. I believe that while many of us who are concerned about the state of the news media talk about it in terms of media concentration, corporatization, centralization, convergence and censorship, we are really discussing the future of journalism and its role in a democratic society or societies that aspire to be liberal democracies where the rule of law, free expression, pluralism and individuality are valued.
We are discussing a threat to journalism as a fundamental pillar of the democratic process. The origins of journalism lie with civil culture and the power of communities, large and small, to shape their future through open discussion, debate and consideration of the forces that affect their lives. In the hurly-burly of mass media these days it is easy to forget that.
As we know, more contemporary journalism has long been wedded to corporate financial interests. Sometimes vigorous journalism flourishes in the corporate sector; sometimes it withers and dies. In my career I have witnessed and experienced both extremes. I concluded that in the long run the priorities set by owners and/or managers counted for an awful lot. If owners decided to provide adequate financial resources for their newsrooms, vigorous journalism was much more likely to occur. If they also encouraged intellectual freedom so journalists could pursue the truths about the community as they saw them, it was even more likely to occur.
This is just my personal experience. I have also talked to other journalists, managers, editors and media executives. I have read some really worthwhile Canadian books on the subject, but overall my conclusions are reached on the basis of personal experience and anecdotal evidence. This is not unusual, for in Canada we have very little hard evidence when it comes to assessing the undertakings of major journalistic endeavours or the influence of more grassroots journalistic efforts, whether they be weekly newspaper or web logs. It is only when an inquiry such as yours is mounted that the resources become available to do some of the investigating that needs to be done.
I can give you a really good example of that. Two years ago, I and two other journalism professors were asked by the Canadian Association of Journalists to do a survey in newsrooms across Canada to see how working journalists were being affected by convergence. Were print reporters being asked to take video cameras? Were they being asked to share stories? That kind of thing. Or, were stories being censored, because a couple of years ago there was a lot of publicity around censorship?
We did survey to a certain extent, and it was all done anonymously; however, we only had approximately 75 to 100 replies. We found some really interesting information and some data in that sample but, obviously, it was not really enough to determine what we were looking for. We could not really do any other surveying or sampling because we could not raise the money to do it. The project just simply stopped.
We did approach several sources to see if we could get funding. We were not looking for huge amounts of money. But it basically stopped. Therefore, we never could conclude the survey and it really struck me that in regard to a lot of these issues that we talk about we have only anecdotal evidence most of the time about what is really occurring, which I think makes it really frustrating.
Following on that I will now make a suggestion that you have probably heard before in your travels. I would really advocate for an independent institute or think tank of some kind that would have the resources to conduct this kind of research. It would be very helpful in creating standards and goals that would enhance the practice of journalism in communities across the country.
In all the talk about media and news media, it is so easy for media and journalism to be confused. Many people now talk about them as if they were the same thing. People talk about the media when they really mean to talk about journalists; and they talk about journalism when they really mean to talk about the media. I think the whole thing has become completely confused to the point where many people talk with contempt about journalism and journalists because they are actually thinking of the information overload that they get all the time through various media.
Some research has been done into journalistic endeavours and the influence of journalism on civil society and the interaction between civil society and journalism; however, much of the research that is done in this country is done by media corporations. It is done in the form of marketing surveys, and marketing surveys certainly provide useful information, but in general these surveys are conducted by pollsters who talk to individuals as consumers, as people who buy products and must be satisfied they are making a worthwhile purchase. Rarely do pollsters talk to people as citizens looking for ways in which the media and journalists can help them more fully participate in the direction of society.
A research centre that focused on the craft of journalism and its important role in creating and sustaining democratic societies could be useful to many different people and organizations. Working journalists could look to it for professional development. Editors and producers could assess new ideas and trends. Citizens and journalists could discuss ways of working with each other on important issues. Research could be conducted to find out if convergence and all the other things we talk about really are affecting newsroom operations in a negative way.
I envision such a centre as a place where journalism is given a higher priority than the medium which conveys journalism. I envision a centre where aspiring and seasoned journalists from developing countries could learn and contribute their ideas about what works for them. Canada is recognized around the world as a country where plurality and individuality thrive. Let us make the most of it.
I see a centre that could work in concert with organizations such as the International Federation of Journalists, Journalists for Free Expression and the Canadian Association of Journalists. Of course, funding would be of utmost importance because something like this does not happen without serious money behind it.
I think if it is to be taken seriously by everyone who has a stake in vigorous journalism, funding would have to come from government, the private sector, professional organizations, industry organizations, charitable foundations and individuals. Funding would have to be at arm's length to ensure the independence of the organization.
The federal government has stepped forward recently with increased funding for all sorts of university-based research, and it is making a huge difference in many, many areas. The same sort of process could also be used in funding an institute of this sort. There are already examples of these sorts of research consortiums that we could look to. The Project for Excellence in Journalism in the United States is one example, as is the International Council on Human Rights that recently produced a detailed report, ``Journalism, Media and the Challenges of Human Rights Reporting.'' It is a fabulous report, and I would to use it used as the basis for a course because there is so much information in it, so much hard evidence about what actually happens.
I am not suggesting that the government take the lead in organizing such an institute. I think that would defeat the purpose, but certainly your committee could be instrumental in creating the crucible and then bringing together the players that could make such an institute or think tank a reality.
Senator Fraser: For transparency, I have known Ms. Steward for 20 years and have had occasion to work with her on the odd project, although not recently.
Is it realistic to think that the private sector would be interested in putting up large sums of money for the kind of institute you are describing that would, in essence, be turning a searching eye on the practices of the people putting up the money?
Ms. Steward: If the lead were taken by other groups and organizations first, I think the private sector — particularly people who hire journalists — would look foolish if they did not. I think that is one of the points of an institute like this; it actually provides some transparency about what is actually happening.
Senator Fraser: And in your mind would it have to be sited in one specific location, a physical institute, or could it be a network of centres of excellence — that model?
Ms. Steward: I did envision it being in one place, but it does not necessarily have to be. It certainly has to be centred, and it would have to be an organized thing, not just something that kind of comes together.
Senator Fraser: Separately, you spoke with an academic's true disdain for anecdotal evidence, but you are a senior journalist of vast experience and anecdotal evidence can be very useful.
Ms. Steward: Yes, for sure.
Senator Fraser: In your experience, which is wide and senior, what has been happening to the way journalism is done in Canada over the past 10 or 15 years? I pick that period because that is the period when, from the point of view of structures, the business has been through round after round of turmoil, changes in ownership, changes in technology, changes of many kinds. What has been the effect on journalism as it actually is done and serves the public?
Ms. Steward: It is probably much less noticeable in a centre like Toronto or even Montreal or Ottawa, where there is much more of a density of media outlets, coverage and journalists. When you get outside Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, I think what you have seen over the past, I would say 10 to 15 years, is a real flattening of journalism in communities across Canada. I live in Calgary, and I come here to teach for the winter semester.
What I have noticed the most is the loss of expertise in our newsrooms. Certainly, when I started out in journalism and as I moved through various phases and then into management, newsrooms — particularly newspaper newsrooms but not exclusively — had people on their staff who were experts in their field. The education reporter knew as much as the school board or the trustees and the administration. The city hall reporters knew city hall inside out. They were considered local experts on subjects. I think in many ways we have lost that now. I certainly do not see that in the Calgary media. I see reporters who basically run from one assignment to another. They are not given the time, and they do not have the kind of salaries that would encourage them to become experts in a certain area. I think when that happens it is so much easier for those in authority to spin, because the journalists do not have the expertise and they do not have the background, nor do they have the time to actually counter that overload and spinning they get.
Senator Fraser: Is all this the result of downsizing, the reduction in numbers, or is it a different managerial approach that says we do not want specialists?
Ms. Steward: I think it is both; I think it is the downsizing, and I also think it is a managerial approach. Basically, it is a bottom-line attitude of not wanting to spend a lot of money in the newsroom and younger, more inexperienced journalists actually cost less than older, experienced journalists. Many, many senior journalists have been let go over the past few years and replaced by very keen, very bright and very ambitious reporters. I am not saying it is their fault, but in the main the young people are not given the time and the resources to do what they need to do. At the same time, there is not the senior people in the newsroom to whom they can look for mentorship.
I certainly remember as a young journalist that having senior reporters and editors in the newsroom who could mentor was a really important thing for me. That is not happening as much at all.
Senator Fraser: I have one more question, if I may. We hear often about reporters having to multi-task, so to speak, across media. They would cover the story for the newspaper and, as Senator Munson was suggesting, do a synopsis of it for the television news and maybe for the radio as well, and probably, while they are at it, fling something onto the website — theoretically, at least. What does that do to the quality of the work?
Ms. Steward: I could not even count how many video journalists there are with CBC or with CTV who carry the camera around and then have to do the shooting, do the interviewing, come back and do the editing. Basically, they do not have time to do the research they should do before they go out and shoot. They are busy trying to handle the camera and do the interview at the same time, so it is not as thorough as they would like it to be. Again, it is another way of losing expertise.
Senator Fraser: Losing depth, losing context.
Ms. Steward: They are being asked to do too many things. Interviewing somebody is really important, and if you cannot really focus on it and think about it and prepare for it, then you will not be asking the kinds of questions that perhaps need to be asked.
Senator Carney: On this western tour we have had limited opportunity to talk to real journalists, because they have not come forward, as you can appreciate, except in Vancouver.
Ms. Steward: I do know some who wanted to come forward and were told that they could not.
Senator Carney: By whom were they told they couldn't go?
Ms. Steward: By their managers.
Senator Carney: This is by the manager of the newspaper or the television station or the broadcast station? Could you identify the medium?
Ms. Steward: No. I do not think I should. Yes, I can identify the medium — television.
Senator Carney: Television. They were told not to come. Was there a convergence owner involved?
Ms. Steward: Yes.
Senator Carney: I think we can draw our own conclusions. Thank you for that. Some of us have wondered why more journalists have not shown up; the ones who have are either specialized columnists or retired journalists or someone of your stature. It is interesting; we need to know that people who wanted to participate were told not to.
If we could sum up what we have been told by journalists about journalism on this road show, we have been told that there is more diversity of outlets. We are looking at the question of diversity: Do Canadians have a variety of diverse news sources? We have been told that there is more diversity of outlets but fewer journalists; that it is an aging workforce with fewer regional viewpoints, which of course means less opportunity for ethnic participation if your newsrooms are shrinking. We have also been told that if the journalists involved do not like this atmosphere, they are told they can walk, that they do not have to stay; they can leave.
Since journalists are very inventive they turn to freelancing; they turn to the Internet; they turn to other areas such as weekly newspapers, which means less money, less of a safety net and more precarious earnings.
So in your view where are the opportunities for journalists today in a shrinking world? For all these optimistic graduates of journalism schools — all the younger people in the profession — where do you see the opportunities? That is the first of my two questions.
Ms. Steward: That is a question I get asked all the time. When I tell people I am teaching journalism, they ask, ``What on earth are you telling them? Why would they ever want to go out there?'' What I am finding with many of the students is that they are not as enamoured with what we would call the mainstream media as students would have been 15 or 20 years ago. They often come back from their internships very disillusioned. They are just not as enamoured with that as an opportunity; some are for that is what some want to do.
Many of them are looking at international opportunities, working with NGOs outside the country in a journalistic sort of way, dealing with human rights or dealing with journalism as part of civil society. As Pat said earlier, what you tell young journalists is that this is the landscape and this is what they will have to deal with. The landscape is, as you say, diverse in some ways but very restrictive in other ways.
I think for journalists who really want to do heavy-duty investigative work there are fewer and fewer opportunities. If you are not in the Toronto/Montreal sort of circuit you will not be working at publications where they will be investing resources in investigative journalism.
As you said, a journalist can leave a newsroom and go out on their own and do things, but you need resources to do really good investigative work. It is very difficult to do that on your own, and as a result a lot of it is not getting done.
Senator Carney: Not getting done, yes. Of course, the consumers, the readers, are suffering from the lack of information that they otherwise would be receiving. There are a lot of great stories out there that are not being told to readers.
Ms. Steward: I can give you a good example. In Calgary a huge voting scandal came out of the municipal election. I will not go into all the details of it, but it is essentially a story ripe for a good journalist to go in and do on-the-ground investigating of what actually happened, who is behind it, what the party politics are, all those kinds of things. It has not been done. People have known since October that something is wrong.
Senator Carney: On that point, I would like to say for the record that the newsrooms have been doing more joint projects. I will give you an example. In the Vancouver-Victoria area where you have one owner, CanWest, they have been joining newsrooms between the Victoria Times Colonist and The Vancouver Sun to do heavy-duty investigation of issues — for instance, bikers, Hell's Angels and things like that.
They have spread their resources through two newspapers in two different areas and two different markets with two different leads on the story. They are getting some of the investigative reporting done, but it is in a way that is quite foreign to us. There are more joint efforts between newspapers in different markets, which is interesting.
The buzzword for this multi-tasking of journalists where they do the print story, then the on-air story and then they run the camera is ``repurposing,'' which you will be familiar with. They used to call it ``rewriting'' in the old days when I started on the rewrite desk, but it is now ``repurposing.''
One of the problems is that, as you say, it is bland. Pat Bell says you cannot do a good job if you are repurposing for a lot of media outlets in the same deadline time frame. As a result you get bland, less informative reporting. Of course, you get a lot of decline in newspaper readership and a lot of television viewers who then click off and go some place else.
In your view, what will happen to the readership? What will happen to the mainstream media if there is more emphasis on news-on-demand? You go to the Internet to get news-on-demand, if you want to know the sports or about the Gulf War, but you do not necessarily want to see everything else that is happening.
What do you think will happen to the mainstream media? Will it decline, and will the Internet and blogs and other innovative media outlets take its place? What, in your experience, will happen?
Ms. Steward: I think there is no question that the whole field is becoming more and more fragmented. I am sure I do not need to tell you this, but in the sense of where people in a community used to read one newspaper and watch one television station and have a general sense, now people get their information from all kinds of places. There is not that sort of commonness any more about where people get their information or their views or their analysis.
I do think that the Internet is, obviously, already important and will become more important. Certainly, some of the better newspapers, such as The Globe and Mail for example, have excellent Web sites, and they are using their resources as a newspaper to produce a product on the Web site. I would not call that a superficial product. I believe we will increasingly turn to that. I think young people are much more adept at using that medium and getting what they need out of it. People such as I — and possibly you — do both. We look at the newspaper and also use the Web site during the day.
In a sense I suppose what I am saying is that there will always be the central focus, although it is still becoming much more fragmented.
A website like The Globe and Mail's and a newspaper like The Globe and Mail do what I would call ``quality journalism,'' if I go to the Leader-Post's website or to any CanWest newspaper website, they are basically all the same. If you go onto the Internet, they have the same front page no matter what paper you are looking at. If the product itself is superficial, it will be superficial on the Internet.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Professor, you have a most interesting biography. In 2000 you wrote a book Clear Answers: The Economics and Politics of For-Profit Medicine. I gather you are not doing writing at the moment; you are concentrating on teaching?
Ms. Steward: For this particular semester, but for a good part of the year I do write.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I wondered if you would comment on the quality of coverage of issues such as our health care system? When we do pre-election or other surveys, quite often it is the number one issue of importance to Canadians. That has been the case in some recent surveys. I wonder how you see the coverage and the information that Canadians are receiving?
Ms. Steward: It is a good question. One of the things I really noticed when I was doing research for that book, and in research I have done since then on that particular topic, was that there are hardly any journalists in this country who are experts in what I would call the public health care system. Even though, as you say, it is number one on almost everybody's list whenever they are asked what they are most interested in.
Even at CBC, particularly during the Romanow commission when all that was occurring and it was in the public eye, there was no person who was actually an expert in public health care policy. CBC kept reinventing the wheel on this issue. I would say there are people at The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail; I do not know about Montreal. In the rest of the newspapers when this issue comes up — when we have the next Romanow commission — everybody will be starting at square one again, because there is no expertise in the media on this particular issue.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Have you been able to look at the Alberta newspapers versus newspapers in other provinces to see what the tone of the reporting is on the health care system? Is it different?
Ms. Steward: Certainly, the Calgary Herald, has time and time again in its editorials, come out in favour of privatizing health care. One of the principals in a company in Calgary that has been pushing for private health care for years and years and has succeeded to a certain extent, is on the board of CanWest. I have no idea if that has anything to do with their editorial position, but there is an association there.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You say that there are very few journalists with a public health background. In British Columbia it was mentioned that there has been hope that more people with science backgrounds would take up journalism. Do you see any hope in that? Is that a need that should be brought to the attention of schools of journalism — that you need to diversify the backgrounds of people? Of course I am talking from the point of view of post- graduate school.
Ms. Steward: Certainly, I prefer journalists to have a background in some area, be it science or some other area, before they learn journalism. I think that can be really helpful to society in general. Some people who have a background in science get frustrated with journalism because they see it as too simplified, so that is part of the problem. I think we live in such a complex world now that anyone who is able to make all these complexities understandable, without over-simplifying them, can do great work.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Were you here this morning, and did you hear my question about the weekly newspapers?
Ms. Steward: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I wonder if you would care to comment about your own prognosis and your own concerns regarding weekly newspapers?
Ms. Steward: I think that in many ways some weekly newspapers are doing better than city dailies; they seem to have a stronger readership. I think that in many places the city dailies, in terms of newspapers anyway, are losing readers much faster than some of the weeklies are.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes, it has been brought to our attention that the readership is very high, and some surveys have shown that it is higher than the dailies.
Senator Phalen: I would like to return to your comment about flatness in journalism. I am sure you explained this, but I would just like to run through it again. Are you saying that journalists are not doing a thorough job because they do not have the time or resources?
Ms. Steward: Yes.
Senator Phalen: And that is because newspapers are not supporting that kind of thing?
Ms. Steward: I would say, certainly in my experience, resources have been steadily drained out of newsrooms, particularly newspaper newsrooms.
Senator Phalen: Why?
Ms. Steward: Because they want to make a bigger profit.
Senator Phalen: It is like an assembly line kind of management.
Ms. Steward: I do not know if you have the authority to do this, but it would be very interesting to actually do some comparisons on profit margins in the newspapers over the past 20 years.
I know when I was in management at Southam, none of the newspapers revealed their profit margins in their annual reports. Those of us who worked at the individual papers in management knew what the profit margin was, of course, but it was never made public.
I think it would be very interesting to know what the profit margin is and how much of the profit margin is being reinvested in newsrooms.
Senator Phalen: It has been suggested to this committee that we should allow foreign owners into the Canadian newspaper market. In view of what you are saying, is it time we did or would that still be a threat?
Ms. Steward: What would worry me about foreign ownership is that we would probably be talking about U.S. ownership.
Senator Phalen: Yes.
Ms. Steward: At this particular time in our history I just cannot see how that would work since there are so many differences between Canada and the United States right now. There is some hostility on both sides. I suppose it would depend on who it was, but I think there would be an incredible amount of distrust and cynicism if we were to invite U.S. newspaper chains or television networks or others to take over some of our media.
Senator Munson: You said that we live in a complex world, but there are fewer reporters covering complex issues. Has that day gone forever where you have specialty reporters covering issues, or are owners just getting away with it because of the profit margin, et cetera? It seems to me that the owners have a moral or social responsibility to viewers, listeners and readers to cover issues extensively, in either a small town or big town, , but they are getting away with not doing that any more.
Ms. Steward: I agree with you. Certainly in the past there was an understanding that that was part of their responsibility. They were in a business, but it was a business like no other in the sense that it did have a responsibility to the community.
What worries me is that even if a significant number of people were to realize that we are not getting the kind of journalism that a democratic society actually needs to thrive, an enormous amount of money would have to be put into many of these newsrooms and media organizations to build up the newsrooms to where they were, plus to rebuild circulation. To be honest with you, I do not know if it can be done.
Senator Munson: It seems you share the same sentiments as Professor Waddell who appeared before us. I remember my earlier days in Ottawa when CEP, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, was the second Hansard of the Hill. They had reporters covering every beat, which we do not have any more.
Just very briefly, this says, ``Among other publications, Ms. Steward has contributed a chapter entitled Klein the Chameleon (a study of Premier Klein's use of the media to achieve power)...''
We will buy the book, but can you give us an executive summary, so to speak, of how Mr. Klein did this, how he influences the media and how you sit as reporters in provincial legislatures and are held hostage by the charm of a politician?
Ms. Steward: There are a couple of aspects. One is that Ralph Klein was a television reporter himself for many years before he was elected Mayor of Calgary, before he went into politics. He was very comfortable in front of the camera; he was used to expressing his thoughts and ideas in a concise way and at the same time conveying a certain kind of emotion.
I think that really allowed him to speak when he was running for mayor. For one thing, people already knew who he was because they had seen him on television. He was on the six o'clock news every night. He was comfortable in that medium, and it made a huge difference, particularly when he was elected mayor because that is when people were starting to get all their news and information about elections from television. That was important for him.
The other important aspect is that because he had been a television reporter he knew all the main players in the media. He knew how to talk to them; he knew how to make deals with them. As he moved along in politics from being mayor to being a cabinet minister to being the premier, those same people he had started out with in the media also moved along and up. They became managers and producers and executive producers, et cetera. He knew them all, and it makes a huge difference in Alberta.
He has been able to use that knowledge and that experience to his advantage. I do not want to suggest that he is being completely manipulative and that all people in Alberta are really stupid, because I also happen to believe that Ralph Klein is very smart and really does know what he is doing and has found a way to make his persona fit with what Albertans want; however, his experience in the media is very important.
Senator Munson: I have an observation, and this is why I bring it up. There are not enough reporters; therefore, you do have a tendency to get very close. There is no change, as news organizations do not put other people into that beat and change them around a bit, so you do not get that close.
Ms. Steward: When you get a small circle like that and you have publishers and executive producers who are afraid of losing advertising if they hit hard on the government, then it is not difficult to send that word out to your journalists in the newsroom.
Senator Merchant: Because of all your insights and experience, with all the changes that are inevitable in the way that life proceeds, I would like to explore how people in Saskatchewan are being served by the media. In this province I believe we have always taken pride in being very engaged in the political process, in issues. For instance we have had very high turnouts in elections in the past. Now we are also becoming part of the stream. In the last election our turnout was not as good as it had been in the past. We have an aging population, and we have a young First Nations population. In order for us to be informed, it seems to me that we have to spend a lot of time these days going through all the different sources to get our information.
In a province like this what do you see happening? You are saying that young, aspiring reporters have to move to larger areas to get good-quality work. If we have someone here on television doing a good job, we suddenly see them on national television. For instance, it seems to me that CBC takes all our good people. I do not blame our people; they want to go there, of course, because there are more opportunities for them. What has happened, then, across the country to smaller places like this?
Ms. Steward: I have to say that I think the CBC really let down provinces like Saskatchewan, places like Regina and Saskatoon, when they pulled so many resources from regional reporting to focus on national reporting. I never understood that decision. I do not understand how you think you will get all this information at the national level if you do not have strong regional bases. I think that was a real copout on the part of the CBC and a real misunderstanding of what this country is all about and the role that an organization like CBC can play.
For starters, they need to put resources back in, which they can do if they wish to.
Senator Merchant: You think they can do that if they want to? They are constantly saying they have to do these things because of funding.
Ms. Steward: Funding is a matter of setting priorities. You set your priorities about what is important, and then you use the money that you have.
Senator Merchant: How can someone get quality information then? Sometimes older people are not quite as adept with this new technology, and young First Nations people may or may not be into that kind of stream of research. What do we do to inform our own citizens?
Ms. Steward: That is a good question.
Senator Merchant: Are you saying it is entirely the responsibility of the CBC?
Ms. Steward: No, I do not think it is. In many ways it is the responsibility of individual citizens and people. If they are not getting what they need to make good decisions then they should be storming the newspaper office to tell them that they are not getting what they want; they should be telling CBC.
Unfortunately, I think many people become apathetic about what is happening and do not do anything. It is certainly not simply the responsibility of media organizations or journalists; I think citizens also have to demand more, because it is their society too.
Senator Merchant: There is no press council in Saskatchewan. Do you think they serve a purpose, and should we have one here?
Ms. Steward: I think press councils and those sorts of institutions serve a purpose in the sense that they do allow for a public forum. As I said when I began speaking, so many of these issues never get talked about because the organizations that control the forum where it gets talked about have a vested interest, and they do not want certain things to be said. The CBC does not want certain things said, so they will not be discussed on CBC. The same applies to CanWest and Bell Globe Media.
I know from working inside, everyone keeps their information close to their chest. They do not want to start to actually discuss a lot of things about others, because then they will have to open up their own can of worms.
We really need more public forums where not just journalists but everybody in society who is concerned about these issues can talk about it openly.
Senator Chaput: Surely there are lessons that can be learned from what has been happening in the past 10 to 15 years. What would you do if you had the ability to make changes? What would you do, and where would you begin?
Ms. Steward: What would I do? If I were running a newspaper in places like Regina, Saskatoon or Calgary, I would hire really good, strong investigative reporters, and I would start doing what is not being done. There are certain things you cannot do in the supper-hour news on television; there is not enough time and in many ways the medium does not lend itself to it. However, there are certain investigative matters that are really important to the community that can be done with a newspaper and work well on the Internet, as well.
That is where I would start putting resources. I would stop trying to do all the things that newspapers and television and, to a certain extent, radio are doing now, which is trying to keep everybody happy all the time by doing entertainment and sports and just repeating all the same things. I would really focus on things that really good journalists can do. You do not need really good journalists to do the entertainment listings in the newspapers, but it actually costs a lot of money.
Senator Chaput: How do you see the role of the government in all of that, if there is one?
Ms. Steward: That is the big question. I go back and forth on this because I think in many ways you can set a certain environment, but I am not sure how much the government can coerce particularly private sector media organizations to do certain things. I am not sure that would not make it worse. I do not know.
I had a publisher once — some of you may know him, Pat O'Callaghan. He was a wonderful publisher, a dedicated journalist and a fiery man who was concerned about everything. He hated the Kent commission. He was at war with it because he thought it was such an interference in the freedom and independence of the press. At the time I thought he may be going a bit overboard over all of it, but there are some problems with forcing so-called independent media to do certain things. It would have to be done very carefully, which is why I think setting standards and goals in forums can become a public way for people to understand what can be done and how journalism and civil society actually need each other. In the long run, it may extend further than trying to set fences and incentives. I do not know.
The Deputy Chairman: Should we have more or less regulation for, specifically, the broadcast media through CRTC? Should we make it easier for new entrants, or should we have regulations relating to cross-ownership, et cetera, or should we just say that if someone has the money to open a radio station, and he or she is half sane, they can proceed to do it?
Ms. Steward: It is a good question. I do not necessarily agree that just because you have the money to open a radio station that you should be able to do it.
The Deputy Chairman: Why not?
Ms. Steward: Because I do believe that the airwaves are important, and it is not simply a matter of being a medium to put commercials on all the time.
The Deputy Chairman: But if people do not like to listen to it will they not just tune into something else?
Ms. Steward: That is the marketplace of ideas where people say, ``I do not like it so I will move to something else.'' What actually happens is the people with the most money end up with the most airtime.
The Deputy Chairman: Let us talk about what is happening in our province, so that we can have a little discussion. CBC was the first to centralize their news operations in this province. I remember that and I could not believe they were doing that. They closed down Saskatoon to go to Regina and they were planning to broadcast everything out of Regina. They had the most money of anybody. No one locally was watching CBC so they centralized to Regina and no one is watching them at all now. CTV then did the same thing.
Global saw it as an opportunity and said, ``You know what? We should have local news in Saskatoon and Regina.'' Guess what? They are number one and it is not because of money; it is coverage, right?
Ms. Steward: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman: Because they are better than the other two. My view is that it is quality and content that people are interested in. We met with CBC people in Ottawa, and they just do not get it about CBC news — at least not in Ottawa and Toronto. We would say we think it is biased, and they would say, ``Oh, no, it is not.'' They will say that until nobody in the country watches them, because they just do not get it. How do we change that?
Ms. Steward: How do we change what?
The Deputy Chairman: How do we change that without allowing many new entrants into the market and letting the marketplace of ideas take over?
Ms. Steward: How do you change CBC's dominance?
The Deputy Chairman: How do we get CBC to produce programs that people actually watch?
Ms. Steward: Then you come down to the old question: Are you producing programs simply so you will have a mass audience, or are you producing material that actually enhances society? I do not know; it is an age-old question. You could put on a football game and a lot of people will watch it. It is worth watching but is that the role of the public broadcaster?
The Deputy Chairman: I do not know. All I know is that people are not watching CBC because they do not think they are producing the kind of news that is watchable; they watch CTV and they watch Global.
Ms. Steward: It is because CBC pulled money out of places like Regina and Saskatoon and Calgary. The CBC local newscast in Calgary is basically somebody sitting there and reading it.
The Deputy Chairman: I know that is the same all across the country.
Ms. Steward: Of course nobody watches. That was an active decision that they made.
The Deputy Chairman: They have a great big building here too, do they not?
Ms. Steward: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman: In this town and Toronto and Ottawa.
Ms. Steward: They have a huge building here, but I understand most of it is now actually leased out to other organizations; CBC does not use it. It was a CBC decision to pull out of the regions.
The Deputy Chairman: I know that it was. I think it was a bad decision. Thank you. You have been very stimulating, Ms. Steward. It was very, very good and we have enjoyed it thoroughly.
Senator Carney: I am not sure we have had a chance to ask this, except in passing: What is your view of the service to ethnic communities, Aboriginal communities, the non-mainstream, white middle-aged audience? How do you feel they are being served in the areas that you know, Alberta and Saskatchewan?
In Vancouver we have a huge population of Asians, and we have a very active ethnic press, television, radio and print media. How do you see that in Alberta and Saskatchewan?
Ms. Steward: I think in general the so-called mainstream media are still way behind in terms of servicing those communities. I think what is happening is that those communities themselves are actually coming up with some pretty innovative ways to talk to each other. We do have the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. In Saskatchewan there are a couple of weekly newspapers put out by Aboriginal people. There is more and more of it and it is actually being done by them for them. I think it is coming along.
The First Nations University here will have a tremendous impact on all that kind of thing. I believe they will really stimulate a lot of different ideas and projects and people to do them.
Senator Fraser: That is terrific for the various minorities themselves. However, what about telling the various majorities about the minorities? In Vancouver I said my impression was that mainstream media still covered minorities like tourists. They will take a picture of a dragon for Chinese New Year and you have covered the Chinese community. Do you see any trend toward more thoughtful, sophisticated, ongoing coverage of minorities just as part of the Canadian fabric?
Ms. Steward: I think the Leader-Post here has actually started to do much more of that and has undertaken a long- term project where they are consulting with the Aboriginal community in terms of ongoing coverage. However, you and I both know from our experience that a lot of those innovative projects get thrown away when newsrooms downsize and budgets and bottom line become the main issue. All those innovative projects, whether they be to actually get more women on staff, whether it is more minorities, whatever it is, they all go by the board; they are gone.
The bottom line becomes important and taking the trouble and the money to do innovative and risky things does not happen any more. We had that experience with the women's committee.
Senator Fraser: I will be glad to fill in the committee members on that at some time.
Senator Chaput: There is a French language newspaper here in Saskatchewan, L'Eau Vive. How are they doing? Do you know?
Ms. Steward: I do not know.
The Deputy Chairman: For the second time, Ms. Steward, thank you very much for appearing before us.
The committee adjourned.