Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 22 - Evidence - October 19, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:20 p.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 David Tkachuk (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, I would like to welcome our witnesses and the members of the public who are with us today. We are continuing our hearings into the state of the Canadian news media and the appropriate role of public policy in helping to ensure that they remain healthy, independent and diverse.
I am pleased to welcome representatives of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. The council is an independent non-governmental organization created by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to administer standards established by its members, Canada's private broadcasters. The council's membership includes more than 530 private sector radio and television stations, specialty services and networks from across Canada, with programming in English, French and third languages.
Welcome to the committee. We look forward to your introductory remarks.
Ronald I. Cohen, National Chair, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.
[Translation]
It is my intention to provide you with a brief overview of the history, mandate, structure and modus operandi of the CBSC and its record, and to reply to any questions you may have.
[English]
There is, however, no better way to begin than by reporting to you that, in world terms, Canada's private broadcasters have established a particularly effective, responsive and advanced set of broadcast content standards and a self-regulatory process for ensuring their respect. The standards reflect Canadian values. The enforcement tools are Canadian. That is to say, they are effective without being heavy-handed.
The council reaches out into all corners of Canada's great multicultural environment by publicizing those standards and audience entitlements in English, French and 38 other languages, both in print and on the CBSC website. The adjudicating panels, about which I will say more shortly, reflect that diversity as well.
I have brought with me a set of the brochures that exist in the 38 other languages, as well as the English and French copies that have already been deposited with the clerk. These will be deposited with the committee.
May I add that the 38 languages of comfort reflect Canada's American hemispheric communities, that is, Spanish and Portuguese; Canada's indigenous communities, including Inuktitut, Cree, Ojibwa and Mohawk; Canada's Eastern and Western European communities, including Ukrainian, Polish, Italian and many other languages; Canada's African communities, including Arabic, Somali and Amharic; Canada's Near Eastern communities, including Farsi, Dari and Pashtu; Canada's Far Eastern communities, including Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Tagalog; and Canada's South Asian communities, including Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi. Of course, I have not treated you to the full list of 38 languages.
[Translation]
Let me now tell you something about the Council and how it works. Originally conceived in 1986 by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to encourage high standards and professional conduct, a concrete proposal was presented to, and accepted by, the CRTC, which noted in Public Notice CRTC 1988-159 that:
This voluntary action on the part of the CAB and its members reflects the sense of responsibility and maturity of the broadcasting industry in regard to social issues of public concern.
[English]
Then, in August 1991, in Public Notice CRTC 1991-90, the CRTC advised broadcast licensees and members of the public of their endorsement of the CBSC to receive and adjudicate complaints regarding programming on it member stations.
The council's mandate is to oversee the administration of the Canadian private broadcaster codes. These currently include the CAB Sex Role Portrayal Code and CAB Violence Code, both of which are conditions of licence for all broadcasters in Canada, the latter only for television broadcasters; the CAB Code of Ethics; and the Radio and Television News Directors Association of Canada Code of Journalistic Ethics.
In the exercise of that mandate, the CBSC receives complaints, encourages their resolution by broadcaster dialogue with the complainants and, when this does not lead to complainant satisfaction, adjudicates those complaints via adjudicating panels made up of equal numbers of public and industry representatives.
There are five regional panels: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairie and British Columbia, and two national panels for specialty services and conventional television broadcasters. Biographies of every adjudicator are publicly posted on the CBSC website. They are an extraordinary example of the quality of individuals who participate in the adjudication process.
The private broadcasters' self-regulatory process is predicated on full disclosure and the publication of all decisions, whether rendered for or against broadcasters. Consequently, the press release announcing every decision is forwarded to the print media, the broadcasters and every person in Canada or elsewhere in the world wishing to be on the recipient list.
More than 360 decisions rendered since 1991, with their full written reasons, are posted on our website. They form an extensive and thorough body of jurisprudence dealing with the widest possible range of content issues.
[Translation]
There are, as of today, 581 broadcaster members, covering the radio, television and specialty service areas. Of these, 425 represent radio broadcasters, 88 conventional television broadcasters and 68 specialty services.
[English]
In its origins, the censor was one of two magistrates in ancient Rome who were charged with the supervision of public morals. More recently, as the Oxford English Dictionary says, the censor is the "official whose duty it is to inspect books, journals, plays, et cetera, before publication to secure that they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive or injurious to the State."
In order to avoid any whiff of censorship, the CBSC does not initiate complaints or monitor programming in the absence of a complaint. It is complaints driven, reactive and responsive to public concerns. It does not presume them.
In dealing with the question of freedom of expression, the CBSC, by its nature, faces challenges on two ideological sides. There are those who believe that the principle of freedom of expression as enshrined in the Charter should be viewed as absolute. On the other hand, there are those who believe that expression on the airwaves should be restricted so that all matters unpleasant and distasteful, and worse, should be prohibited.
The CBSC takes an intermediate position. It is, first, that the underlying principle that should govern broadcast speech is that it should be free. The private broadcasters have, however, agreed that the interests of their audiences are better served by the creation of professional standards to which all of their members will adhere.
Second, the CBSC considers that the codified standards created by the broadcasters should balance freedom of expression with other important societal values.
Third, matters involving taste alone, but no breach of actual code provisions, are considered to be best regulated by the marketplace; that is, the intervention of the viewer or listener via the channel or station changer or the on/off switch.
Fourth, there are extensive special provisions regarding programming intended for young children, defined as being under the age of 12.
Fifth, in order to assist television viewers, and in accordance with the broadcaster codes, there is a watershed hour, running from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., before which no programming intended for adults, whether by reason of violent, sexual or other mature content, can be shown.
Viewer advisories and classification icons are also required, even after the watershed, so that audiences may avoid programming that they do not consider appropriate for themselves and their families.
Sixth, there is a prohibition against gratuitous or glamorized violence on the airwaves at any hour of the day.
Since there are 363 decisions posted on the CBSC website, the CBSC jurisprudence has the effect of constituting a definition of what broadcasters can and cannot air. While decisions relating to one-off programs or newscasts are as important as those relating to entire series, the latter tend to attract more attention both within Canada and internationally.
Examples of CBSC decisions include those relating to the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, the Dr. Laura Schlessinger Show, the Howard Stern Show, the Jerry Springer Show and so on.
[Translation]
On a day-to-day basis, the over 35 formal decisions rendered every year help to shape the parameters of acceptable content on an ongoing basis, whether in the talk show, news, drama or other areas.
The CBSC works very hard to ensure that the results of its decisions are know to all those who are affected by them. Its volunteer adjudicators on both the public and industry side are dedicated to the emergence of a set of principles that will fairly circumscribe public expectations. It is a mark of the thoughtfulness and impartiality of the adjudicators, both public and industry that, with the exception of four of the 363 decisions, they have rendered unanimously, whether in favour of, or against, the broadcasters.
[English]
It is a mark of the success of the Canadian private broadcasters' self-regulatory system that it does not require the huge financial penalties of the American regulatory process to work. The system works because the broadcasters have committed themselves to the process. They created it. They support it financially. More importantly, they support it morally. After all, they live in the communities in which they broadcast. It makes good Canadian sense.
Thank you for your time and attention. We are available to answer your questions.
Senator Phalen: Your organization has been in existence for 15 years. This committee has heard numerous witnesses on the subject of concentration of ownership in recent years.
Can you tell us if there is any correlation between the complaints you receive and the ownership situation?
Mr. Cohen: There is no correlation. To date, right up to this afternoon, there have been no complaints about any specific program or item broadcast on Global or CTV, because those are the two main broadcasters for which we have responsibility in this area, that have related to a concentration of ownership issue. Complainants have to, of course, refer to a specific program and say to us, "Well, on this day something happened that we think would reflect a concentration of ownership issue." They do not have to use that language, but they have to tell us that. We have had no such complaints.
Senator Phalen: Your website mentions the endorsement of the CRTC for a number of your initiatives.
Can you tell us a little about your relationship to the CRTC and whether or not you believe changes to their mandate are necessary?
Mr. Cohen: First, we do not have a perspective to bring on the mandate of the CRTC. In an important sense, that is outside our mandate, but I can tell you about how we function with the CRTC.
The CRTC, of course, as the body mandated to exercise the authority of the Parliament of Canada, has full responsibility for all issues of broadcasting and telecommunications. However, in one of the public notices I have mentioned, 1991-90, the CRTC provided the opportunity at that point for the private broadcasters to self-regulate.
Essentially, all complaints that arise with the CRTC that relate to any of the private broadcasters who are also members of the CBSC, as are virtually all private broadcasters in Canada, are shipped over to the CBSC unless they disclose a potential breach of the Broadcasting Act or regulations under it. The CRTC retains those cases. Otherwise, they come over to us and we deal with those issues. That is the fundamental relationship between the two bodies.
Senator Phalen: In the CRTC's decision on the licensing applications of CTV and CanWest Global, they said they would suspend their separation of newsroom conditions for these cross-media owning companies. Has your organization come up with an industry-wide code of conduct?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, in part. We have submitted a draft code to the CRTC on which we had worked with the three broadcasting organizations that had been signalled and separated out by the CRTC in this respect. The code was submitted to the CRTC, and we await their reaction to see what will happen to it next.
In the meantime, we have become the broadcast monitoring committee for CTV and CanWest Global in the event of any complaints arising in the journalistic independence area.
Senator Phalen: Because your organization is made up of members of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and financed by those same members, would this not allow to you police yourselves?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, it does. We have sufficient financing available to do that policing in an effective way.
Senator Phalen: That leads to my next question. Are you financially able to police such a code of conduct?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, we are in a position to do that from a financial point of view.
Senator Eyton: I read a little, and heard a little in the exchange just now, about how you came into being, but I am curious as to what the trigger was for the formation of your organization. I understand it came into being in 1990. How did that happen? Who took the lead?
Mr. Cohen: I was not there at the time, so a little of this is surmise on my part.
I think it was a combination of things. First of all, the broadcasters were of the view that they could take care of their own business. When it came to complaints, they would be perfectly able to do that job.
At the same time, if you look at CRTC pronouncements from, essentially, 1987 on, there was an indication from the commission regarding the idea of self-regulation. This was not only in reference to the private broadcasters, but in the case of the cable sector, for example, they have their own body. Advertisers have their own body as well.
The commission was looking in the direction of self-regulation as an effective way to go. It may have been in part because it would relieve them of burdens they would otherwise have to carry for the thousands and thousands of complaints they would receive. I suspect it was a combination of those things. The CRTC set up a system for overseeing what we did to ensure that it was effective.
Senator Eyton: Was there any particular circumstance or challenge that might have brought that system on at that time?
Mr. Cohen: I am not aware of any particular circumstance or challenge that would have brought that on, but if you have a suggestion, I would like to hear it.
Senator Eyton: I am curious as to why an organization suddenly appears. I have some understanding from your presentation and my reading. Do you have any stalking horses? Is there anyone in other jurisdictions or other states, for example, that you look at to copy and measure yourself against? I am a strong believer in stalking horses. I believe that you can always eat better if you understand what other people are doing, study their best, replicate it and try to get rid of the worst.
Mr. Cohen: Your point is well taken. We remain in regular contact with other bodies of this nature. In May I was in Johannesburg. It would be fair to say, Senator Eyton, that to some extent we serve as a stalking horse for other bodies in the world, but it certainly is a two-way street. When I was there I met with colleagues from South Africa, Zambia, Britain, Germany, Slovakia, Australia and New Zealand. We were discussing issues of common interest. We are, in a sense, in constant contact.
In the course of the last month I was in particular contact with our colleagues in South Africa, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand over an issue that is of concern to all of us and that we are looking to refine in the Canadian environment.
That is a long and detailed answer because I think it is illustrative of what you are getting at — if we do maintain that contact. We serve as a good example for many other bodies as well.
Senator Eyton: Do you have that kind of exchange with your American counterparts?
Mr. Cohen: There is no American counterpart, really. The FCC is the formal regulator and it is the counterpart of the CRTC, but there is no self-regulatory body that performs the kinds of activities that we do. There was one such organization in Minnesota. There is no other organization of the type with which I am familiar in the United States. However, in Johannesburg, for example, Jeff Cole, who was the head of the Centre for Communication Policy at UCLA, and that entire enterprise moved to the school at USC. He was there. We are in regular dialogue with him, but the Americans do not have a comparable body.
Senator Eyton: You spoke about your code of conduct and the items you covered, most of which would not be very controversial. Certainly, in this room we would say that is a good thing and agree to it readily. The area we are looking at in particular is news and information and the balance that we believe is in the public interest. Is that concern covered by your remark that you did not try to manage or prescribe taste? When you look at taste in a broadcasting context, do you look at balance in the service that is provided to the public?
Mr. Cohen: To judge by the complaints that we receive, there are many contentious issues with which we deal on an ongoing basis. I mentioned two of them. Some of them have been very public recently, involving, among other things, comments by Gilles Proulx in the province of Quebec, which may or may not have come to your attention, but have been of concern. There are inevitably some contentious issues outside of the news area.
The issue of taste can arise anywhere. It can arise in dramatic programming. It can arise in open-line programming. It could conceivably arise in the news area. It is likelier to arise in the area of public affairs. We would not deal with a simple taste issue, but we do deal on a regular basis with journalistic and news issues arising either under the RTNDA Code of Journalistic Ethics or under the CAB Code of Ethics, where there are also very specific journalistic provisions.
Senator Eyton: Is there a public register or a place where I can examine decisions or actions you have taken?
Mr. Cohen: Our website provides a full textual record, including a record of all of the pertinent documentation coming from complainants in the first place, also going back from broadcasters to complainants, for all 363 decisions since the very first one in 1991. They are all accessible and on the record.
Senator Mercer: I want to talk about membership and then move on to news coverage.
You spoke about 581 broadcasters covering the radio/television specialty service areas, 425 representing radio broadcasters, 88 conventional television broadcasters and 68 specialty services. That seems like a lot of people. If you could break those 581 down, how many owners are there?
Mr. Cohen: We would have to go back and do some homework. If that were important to you, senator, we would do that. I am not in a position to answer the question now, but it is obvious that there are some companies that own a good number of licensees.
Senator Mercer: For example, Maritime Broadcasting owns 20-plus radio stations; would each radio station be a member?
Mr. Cohen: In normal circumstances they would. Maritime is one of the few broadcast groups in the country that is not a member of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
Senator Mercer: We know that CBC is not a member. We now know that Maritime Broadcasting is not a member. Are there other large holes in your membership across the country? What is the geographic distribution of your membership — without giving specifics and telling me you have two people in Prince George and one in Lunenburg?
Mr. Cohen: We would be in a position to provide you with that information, without any question. We did not break it down on that basis. We did not think of doing so, honestly. I do not think it would be difficult to provide the clerk with that information. We clearly have broadcaster members right across the country, from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, on the east-west axis.
Senator Mercer: I am interested in the number of complaints that you receive. Did you say there were 360 since 1991?
Mr. Cohen: There have been 363 decisions.
Senator Mercer: Have you had many more complaints?
Mr. Cohen: That is right. The complaints run at a level of about 2,000 a year, roughly speaking.
Senator Mercer: What happens with the ones where there are no decisions?
Mr. Cohen: We do not deal with a percentage of the complaints that we receive. First, they may not concern our members. We get complaints about the CBC and other public broadcasters, and we send them along to the CRTC. There are complaints that do not concern our codes at all. There are complaints that do not provide sufficient detail to enable us to deal with them.
We may get complaints that refer to something that was said on air, but without telling us what station, what day or at what time. We cannot deal with that kind of complaint. We have to be able to get a tape of the program.
I will just get the actual numbers for the past fiscal year, which ended August 31: We opened 1,924 complaint files in the year and we actually handled 1,526 of those, which is to say 79.3 per cent. Essentially, we handled four out of five complaints.
I neglected to mention to you that some of the complaints were sent to other bodies having responsibility, like Advertising Standards Canada. That is an example of an issue that did not concern us or our broadcaster members but concerned the advertiser. We send complaints to the Cable Television Standards Council, to which I had referred a few moments ago in responding to Senator Eyton.
As for the other block of complaints, it is equally important to know that in the vast majority of cases with respect to the broadcasters, who are obliged to reply to every complaint we receive that concerns their station, service or network, the individuals are most frequently satisfied with the response given to them.
It is only when they get back to us to say they were not satisfied that we give them a document that they merely have to return to us, without explanation, which says "We are not satisfied," and begin the next part of the process.
In the vast majority of cases, they are satisfied with the effort made by the broadcaster in reply.
Senator Mercer: You indicated there are seven panels, five regional and two national. Who makes up those panels? Who decides who is on the panel?
Mr. Cohen: The members of the panels, the adjudicators, are appointed by the national chair. I consult broadcasters and members of the public in order to make the decisions about who should sit.
We make a significant effort to have appropriate geographic and gender representation as well as representation of the multicultural fabric of this country. Of course, half the adjudicators being members of the industry, we have a distribution to make among the major companies. Rogers, CTV, Standard, NewCap, CHUM and so on, need to be represented. We have to make sure groups and smaller broadcasters have appropriate representation on the industry side. We go through that balancing effort right across the country in making the appointments.
Senator Mercer: It sounds like those panels are large. What is the size of an ordinary panel?
Mr. Cohen: We have panels of 10 adjudicators each. We sit, however, as panels of six. The idea of having 10 is that we have some bench strength. In circumstances where adjudicators A, B and C may be unavailable, we can then call on others to try to get a panel of six together. In the regional panels, it is three public members and three broadcaster members. In the two national panels, I sit as the national chair, and then there are three public members and three broadcaster members in those two cases.
Senator Mercer: Is membership voluntary?
Mr. Cohen: Yes.
Senator Mercer: We have already talked about a number of outlets and groups of outlets who are outside your organization, CBC being one example and Maritime Broadcasting another.
Mr. Cohen: Those are different circumstances. We have no mandate to deal with public broadcasters at all, and on the private side, I cannot name you another group of any significance that is outside of the CBSC. Maritime is the only one.
Senator Mercer: Would it be beneficial for the voluntary aspect to be removed and become a condition of licensing, and not necessarily to name your body, but since you are the only game in town, that is who they would have to join?
Mr. Cohen: I do not think naming us is a bad thing, senator.
Senator Mercer: I anticipated someone else saying that.
Mr. Cohen: There is an issue that could be difficult in terms of the old principle, delegatus non potest delegare, which is to say that since the CRTC has ultimate responsibility in this area, unless Parliament were to provide us with that responsibility directly, I am not sure that legally speaking it would be possible for it to be other than voluntary.
Since we have almost everyone in the country, certainly all of the major players, and, of course, a huge number of small stations all around the country, as members, it seems to me that the question of forcing membership may not be necessary; we already have a high level of participation.
Senator Mercer: How many members are there on the staff?
Mr. Cohen: In-house, we have a total of five persons.
Senator Mercer: Do they all come from a background in broadcasting of some kind, or are they administrative personnel?
Mr. Cohen: None of the five comes from any broadcasting background.
Senator Merchant: You do not deal with a certain number of complaints. Do you make any effort to get back to the complainants to see if you can get more information from them? Sometimes ordinary people might not know exactly how to present their complaint. Do you get back to them to see if you can resolve their problem?
Mr. Cohen: Senator, we get back to every person who writes to us, so even where someone may write about a matter with which we will not deal at the end of the day, for whatever reason, we tell them something about ourselves because we think it is important that members of the public know what we do. Even if we cannot be of help to them this time, we may be of help next time.
We do provide information to absolutely everyone who writes to us.
Senator Merchant: In the print media, if something is printed that is later found to be incorrect a retraction appears in the newspaper somewhere. How does the public know what the complaints of people whom you deal with are? How do you communicate that to the general public? How do the broadcasters correct their mistake or indiscretion or whatever the complaint has been about?
Mr. Cohen: Senator, being very conscious of the position that you took when dealing with the Ontario Press Council some time ago, I may be able to be specifically helpful. In the case of the testimony that was provided on that occasion, the point was made that most of the time, the retractions are made somewhere in the paper, as you just said. Sometimes, as it was explained, page 2 is reserved for that purpose. The example was given on that occasion of The New York Times retraction that had recently been made on page 1 as being an exceptional circumstance.
All of the broadcaster announcements of our decisions are made on page 1. First, every broadcaster announcement of a decision that we have made does not rely on newspaper, in the sense that the press council does, to present a fair account of what was concluded.
In our case, we write it. The announcement has to be made as we have written it, and it is made in prime time, on television, and during the period in which the programming in breach of a codified standard was broadcast. If it was not a prime time program, we tell everyone watching in prime time what has happened.
That is page 1; but at the same time, we ensure that those who are watching during another period also are advised of it. If the programming in question was broadcast in prime time, then there are two announcements in prime time. Therefore, I think the information that is required gets out there very specifically.
If I may be permitted a little aside in your case, senator, you will be happy to know that on our prairie regional panel, both the regional chair and the vice-chair are from Saskatchewan.
Senator Merchant: I am very pleased to hear that, and I know other people here will be jealous. My final question is what is the term of your adjudicators? Are they appointed for a certain term? You renew their appointment obviously, but are there a limited number of renewals that you make? Do you try to have a variety of people involved in your decisions?
Mr. Cohen: We try always to have a variety of people involved in our decisions. To answer your question, the initial term is two years. There is frequently renewal. In fact, I think it is fair to say that often, adjudicators find the work so challenging and interesting that they want to stay around for a longer period.
There is a balance. There are always new people coming in and people leaving who have been around for a time. There is new blood and old blood. It keeps what we are doing current and relevant. I think that is important.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, you investigate complaints. You do not file them.
Mr. Cohen: You are absolutely correct.
Senator Chaput: If you hear comments or witness some aberration, you wait until someone files a complaint.
Mr. Cohen: Yes.
Senator Chaput: You stated that as of today, the CBSC has 581 broadcaster members. One of the witnesses testified that his agency has abolished the internal complaints investigation committee set up after the agency's license was last renewed. The job of investigating complaints was turned over to the CBSC.
Have many of your members taken similar action? Do you encourage them to turn this responsibility over to the CBSC, or do they do so voluntarily?
Mr. Cohen: You are referring to a very unique situation. All CBSC broadcaster members assign to us from the outset responsibility for handling all complaints.
Regarding the testimony of Mr. Hurst of CTV — and I believe you are referring to his testimony — a decision was made in CTV's case, in accordance with the journalistic code of ethics and in keeping with matters of editorial independence, to set up a committee, further to the CRTC's decision to renew CTV's broadcasting license.
In Global's case, the broadcaster moved immediately to ask the CRTC if the CBSC could assume responsibility for any question involving editorial independence. In CTV's case, the broadcaster had set up its own committee and subsequently — I believe it was two years later — it asked the CRTC to approve the transfer of responsibility to the council. This was a unique case.
Senator Chaput: Was the transition a smooth one?
Mr. Cohen: Yes. It was a matter of asking the CRTC, which did not object at all. I think I can say, or assure you, that the CRTC is very pleased with the service we provide to the commission as well as to broadcasters and the general public. They were very pleased to see us take over this responsibility from CTV, and from Can West Global as well.
Senator Chaput: So these were exceptional cases then?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, only three cases arose involving the transfer of responsibilities held by these committees set up further to the renewal of the broadcaster's licenses by the CRTC. The three broadcasters in question were Can West Global, CTV and TVA. TVA decided to maintain its complaints investigation committee, while the two other broadcasters transferred this responsibility to the CBSC.
Senator Chaput: I have one final question. How much time elapses between the moment you receive the complaint and the moment it is ultimately settled, one way or another?
Mr. Cohen: We always endeavour to resolve complaints within six of months of receiving the initial request. The document to which I referred earlier, that is the document that we send to the complainant, sets out the possibility for the complainant to request an investigation by the CBSC, which sets the wheels in motion. We try to resolve matters within a six-month time frame.
[English]
Senator Munson: In the notes for your opening remarks, there is a headline saying "A Successful Experiment in Self-Regulation" — we would all like to get a headline like that in the former Newsworld. However, you are paid by the 500-and-so broadcasters that you represent. Do you not find yourself in a bit of a straitjacket? How critical can you be of the people who pay you?
Mr. Cohen: Do you mean conflicted, senator?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Mr. Cohen: The answer is we do not feel conflicted at all.
In the course of the last 36 decisions that we have rendered — just to choose the most recent possible examples — 32 were against the broadcasters.
In the fiscal year 2004-05, which is not quite the same as the calendar year, as you know from your background in broadcasting — it runs from September 1 to August 31 — of the 35 decisions rendered, 31 of them were against broadcasters. In the previous fiscal year, if I have my figures correct, of the 36 decisions in that year, 28 of them were rendered against broadcasters. In the fiscal year before that, when there were 37 decisions rendered, 27 were against broadcasters.
If you are asking me if we have any difficulty rendering decisions against broadcasters, the answer is no. May I go one step further before I give you the opportunity to come back with another point? Even when we dealt with major programs such as the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, which at the time, 1994, was the most financially successful program in the history of children's television, our decision against that program — which actually attracted worldwide, not just Canadian attention — resulted in that program leaving the air on YTV the day after it was rendered. It left the air shortly after that on TVA; on CanWest Global, which was the primary carrier of the program in Canada, it was modified within a month or so, lasted another six months and then left the airwaves.
In the case of Howard Stern, a very expensive program to import, our decision against the broadcasters carrying Stern resulted in changes to the programming in Canada beginning immediately.
The program only continued for 11 months on the CHUM station in Montreal, CHOI-FM, and then it left the airwaves. In the case of the Toronto station, Q107, the broadcast began to be modified by a producer. Because of the cooperation of WIC, and then Corus when they took it over, we received the paper edits every single day for the two or three years that the program remained on the air after that.
My only point, senator, is that even when programs were expensive, not merely one-off situations, we have had the full collaboration of broadcasters who have bought into the system. It has not been and is not a problem for us.
Senator Munson: In the 30-odd decisions, and you named two, has there been compliance?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Munson: In every one of them? It is a good thing, if so.
Mr. Cohen: Yes, there has been compliance. I can you tell you more about that.
Senator Munson: You released only one decision in 2003-04 that dealt with news and public affairs. Given that, is it fair to say that the issue is not a priority for you folks and that you are involved in general programming and the ethical or moral aspect of what Canadians see or hear?
Mr. Cohen: First, we are checking that information. The answer is that the priorities are those established by the citizens of Canada. In years in which news and public affairs is the most important matter on their minds, it is the most important matter for us. We are guided entirely by the complaints we receive.
Senator Munson: Keeping that in mind, would you care to table your draft code with us?
Mr. Cohen: I do not think that I am in a position to do that because the code, such as it is, is in a state of flux until such time as the CRTC indicates whether they are comfortable with it or not, whether there are revisions required, and then it would presumably have to go back to the broadcasters themselves.
Senator Munson: Are you using that draft code to make your decisions?
Mr. Cohen: We have not had to make any decisions yet. We would make them on the basis of the rules as established in the CTV and Global decisions that were initially rendered by the CRTC.
Senator Munson: I was surprised at your answer to Senator Phalen on cross-media ownership, media concentration and so on. You have not received any complaints from anyone. You feel that the viewers and listeners across the country are satisfied with the stations that they are listening to or watching; that they feel they are getting enough diverse voices from Vancouver or the province of New Brunswick. No one has said a word. Perhaps they just feel they do not have too many options here?
Mr. Cohen: I am not sure why they would not have too many options. Again, this committee was very clear with Robert Hurst of CTV when he testified, and reference was made at that time, you may remember, to the $1-million commitment from CTV. Let me tell you what CTV runs in its public service announcement. It says: "As a member of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, CTV is committed to the highest standards of broadcasting and adheres to the code of conduct of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. If you have a concern about something viewed on our service or under the statement of principles and practices regarding journalistic independence, write to..." and then it provides all of the details for the CBSC. That is the substance. That is the wording of the PSA that is run on CTV. If people are not responding to it, I suggest, senator, it is because they do not have a problem. We have no control whatsoever over who complains and about what.
I should add that CanWest Global is running a very similar text. I will not take you through all of it, but it ends "such standards include Global's statement of principles and practices related to cross-media ownership," and it then provides the information about the CBSC. Even if people do not know about that, even if they have not seen those, they can always complain either to us or to the CRTC. The opportunity is there. We have no control over the complaints that Canadians file.
I would like to add one important point to a question that I thought Senator Chaput was taking us toward, and that is that while we depend on complaints to do anything, it takes only one complaint to trigger our process. There is not a threshold of 25, 50 or 100; one complaint will do it. In the case of the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, in 1994, the Maclean's article written when that program went off the air was entitled, "Power to the People," because two complaints had effectively removed the program from the air in Canada. It does not require much to get the process going, senator.
Senator Munson: My children used to watch Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers on Chinese television when we lived in Beijing. It was in Chinese characters. I guess they never understood what was going on.
Mr. Cohen: Perhaps they did not have viewer advisories in Chinese at that time.
Senator Munson: I will let that go, but I would re-emphasize that we would love to see that draft code before we come to conclusions ourselves, and we make our report soon.
The Deputy Chairman: I have a few questions. With the advent and strong presence of all-news radio, sometimes they cross the line into what might be called radio entertainment, and it is sometimes a little off-colour or a little wild. Do you get many complaints? How would you handle a complaint about all-news radio in light of what we value in Canada as freedom of the press?
Mr. Cohen: All-news radio would not be any different from any other complaint that we get about a journalistic issue. We probably do not get a lot of complaints about all news radio. Can you think of any in particular, Ms. Gaylard?
Teisha Gaylard, Director of Policy, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council: Certain stations have an all-news format, but I would not say there are more complaints about those stations than music stations or other types of genre.
The Deputy Chairman: What if a newspaper owner and a television station owner combine their newsrooms but remain separate organizations, separate companies? There is the newspaper, and then there is a television station, for example, or a network. Can one complain about the other? Can a newspaper send in a complaint to you? Can a reporter send in a complaint?
Mr. Cohen: Yes. When you said "reporter," I assumed from the way you structured your question that you were referring to a print reporter.
The Deputy Chairman: Yes, a print reporter.
Mr. Cohen: That is important. I should add as a clarification that we do not accept complaints made by one broadcaster against another. However, nothing would prohibit a print reporter from complaining about a broadcaster. That would fly.
Senator Mercer: I have a link to what the deputy chairman asked.
Have there been a lot of complaints about editorial content, the similarity in content at stations owned by one owner? You do not have to drive too far from here and you will find a rock station, a country station and an AM talk-format station. The editorial comment, or the way the news is presented, comes across with a certain slant.
Do you get many complaints about that? We talk about canned music on these stations. Now it looks like canned news and canned editorial comment.
Mr. Cohen: I thought you were going in one direction, and then it seemed as though you might be going in another.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. There are stations and hosts with a point of view that has a bias. The bias cannot be reflected in the news, but when you refer to editorials, editorial content, by its nature, is biased. It is rare that editorial content is not biased and does not have a point of view. That is not a problem to us at all. We have rendered decisions in which we have distinguished the nature of hosting on talk shows by saying that there are talk shows of different kinds, including what we have said is the traffic-cop approach to callers, where there is absolutely no bias indicated on the part of the host. Then there are programs in which the host tends to be something of a catalyst, with a point of view and a bias. That is okay from our point of view. In fact, it frequently generates opposing perspectives and you develop some balance in the programming on that basis.
As long as it is distinguished from the news, Senator Mercer, it is okay.
Senator Mercer: I understand that and I understand that sometimes it is done to generate controversy, and listeners and advertising dollars to go along with that. I appreciate that. However, there are stations — and again, I go back to a local one — where those people giving editorial comments sometimes also make reference to the news, to news articles, and put their slant on it. Do you get complaints about that?
Mr. Cohen: Sure, absolutely.
Senator Mercer: I may complain myself tomorrow.
Mr. Cohen: You are entitled, senator. We will receive your complaint with grace and in recognition of its importance. We do receive such complaints in what we have called informal discourse in our annual report. That is where that kind of comment will be reflected. We get a lot of complaints about talk-show type content.
Senator Munson: How will you deal with cross-media complaints if you do not deal with newspapers? For example, complaints about newspapers go to press councils. With this cross-media ownership business, complaints are coming in and it is almost one and the same, is it not?
Mr. Cohen: Not from our point of view. We do not entertain complaints about newspapers now. We will not entertain complaints about newspapers in the future. Our responsibility is strictly limited to the broadcasters. If a newspaper were doing something, let us say, that might be inappropriate, that just simply would not fall within our sphere of responsibility. We can only deal with the broadcaster side of this.
Senator Munson: Is it when the broadcaster echoes the sentiments of the newspaper that you come into it, if it is the same story that there is a complaint about?
Mr. Cohen: If there were a complaint we would look into it, but from the broadcaster perspective. We would not be considering the newspaper angle on an issue that seemed to involve both a broadcaster and a newspaper.
Senator Munson: I love broadcasting. I did it for 35 years. I could go on all night, but I respect my chair. That is enough.
The Deputy Chairman: I would now like to welcome Ms. Miljan, professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Windsor, where she specializes in politics and the media. She is also a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute. Along with Barry Cooper, who could not be here today, she is the author of a paper for the Fraser Institute called The Canadian "Garrison Mentality" and Anti-Americanism at the CBC.
Welcome to the committee. You are invited to make introductory remarks of 10 minutes or so. After that, we will get into a round table discussion and have questions and answers.
Lydia Miljan, Professor, Political Science, University of Windsor, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me and my colleague, Barry Cooper, to give some of our thoughts about this important issue. Unfortunately, Dr. Cooper is unable to make it today. He had a conflict. He was asked to see Justice Gomery in Edmonton today and could not be in two places at the same time. He sends his regrets. He was looking forward to this.
We have a very simple thesis. It is different from what you have been hearing in previous testimony.
The benefit of coming at the end is you get to read about what happened before.
We noticed typically that academics have been complaining about cross-media ownership, concentration of ownership and things like that. Our thesis is different. We are not quite as concerned about media ownership as we are about journalists, because for us, when it comes to the news product, journalists matter. We think journalists matter more than owners and more than other issues.
This is controversial because many people argue that if you work for a certain news organization, you have to provide that spin. We have looked at this issue. I understand we are on TV, so I can plug my book.
In my book, Hidden Agendas, we interviewed journalists and asked them what they thought about certain issues. We asked them whom they voted for; what they thought about economic, social and national unity issues; and what they thought about the culture of the newsroom.
We found, for the most part, that journalists are not particularly different from the rest of Canadians. I think you have heard this testimony before. Other studies have indicated that they vote along the same lines.
I am not convinced that voting is the best measure for talking about ideological bias, especially with our Canadian party system. Most everyone tends to vote for the Liberals, but that does not necessarily tell you where they stand on the political spectrum. We looked at issue-oriented questions.
We find they say yes to some questions regarding economic issues. For example, the capitalist system is the best way to provide for the well-being of all Canadians. On the other hand, they say that they thought communism was a good idea at the time, but was spoiled by bad management. They are ambivalent.
When we do an index of these issues, we find that journalists tend to be somewhat left of centre on economics. They are in favour of state intervention in the economy, for example, more than non-regulation or deregulation or privatization. With regard to social issues, when you ask them about abortion, same-sex marriage or environmentalism, they tend to lead public opinion.
What is interesting is that we did not just ask journalists these questions. We compared journalists with the general population. We asked both the general public and the journalists the same questions at the same time. We found that on social issues, journalists were leading the agenda. They were sympathetic towards same-sex marriage and gay rights, so it is not surprising these ideas are being promoted in news coverage.
While other people are saying that we have to be worried about the owners, when we asked questions such as whether they had ever felt a story of theirs had been pulled or spiked by the owner because of an ideological bias, overwhelmingly, they said no.
We find it interesting when we ask journalists where they think they stand politically as compared to their managers or owners. All journalists seem to think that their managers are to the right of them. If they said they were extreme left-wing, they thought their manager was left-wing. It was an interesting trend that journalists seemed to think they were in the trenches and different from management; management is always to the right, even if just slightly so.
Although they perceived a difference of opinion, journalists overwhelmingly did not think their views were being squelched. They perceived that their managers were different from them, but they never thought their stories had been pulled because of these ideological differences.
I will not say that owners do not have any influence. I think they do. I do not think their influence is on the day-to-day reporting practices because that would be a complex undertaking. How could you be an owner of a huge corporation and sit by the shoulder of every single journalist, overseeing what they intend to write or whom they plan to phone?
There is a lot of flexibility for journalists. They get to choose the sources they go to, and there is a lot of selection in that respect.
Ironically, however, we found that there are influences, and those are in the hiring practices in newsrooms; and the hiring practices seem to be more biased at CBC than in the private sector.
If you separate CBC journalists from private sector journalists, they tend to be more left of centre on social and economic issues than the private sector.
The Deputy Chairman: Is that a big surprise?
Ms. Miljan: We document it, and that is what is different.
It raised the question: Does that mean the private sector is right of centre? It does not mean that. They had more diversity in their hiring practices. They had people on the left, people on the right, and people in the middle. The private sector seemed to have a more balanced newsroom in terms of hiring than CBC.
Speaking of CBC, I note that a lot of the testimony you heard in this committee was prior to the lockout of the CBC employees. It is important to address that issue. We need to talk about what people missed during the lockout.
I think we still received a Canadian perspective on international news. That was one of the original reasons for the CBC; we needed Canadian voices. During the last eight weeks we still had Canadian voices, but they were provided by other broadcasters. We still had coverage of major domestic issues. My colleague would argue that the country did not fall apart just because we did not have the CBC providing the news during that time.
What we did lack, and I will be the first to admit this, is a full 24-hour news service because CBC's Newsworld was also locked out. That could not be provided by CTV because their organization is a headline service. They are not allowed to provide full coverage. My colleague, Barry Cooper, liked the BBC service. He was becoming interested in hearing their perspective on the world.
As for myself, I am a Canadianist. That is what I study, and I did want more Canadian news. I missed programs such as Don Newman's Politics as well as The House on CBC Radio.
The question I continue to ask myself is: Do we need a CBC? Do we need a public broadcaster to provide these services?
From the studies I have done on CBC content, I find that the problem lies in the regulatory stance of the CRTC. It is not that private broadcasters have not asked for 24-hour full-service news channels; it is that the CRTC has not provided that. They have said no.
The reason is that there is a bias in the Broadcast Act that favours the CBC. It states that the CBC is there for national unity issues and the public broadcaster will have preferential treatment. The CRTC's ruling is that it will not go head-to-head with a private broadcaster. That is problematic.
Other countries have more diversity in their 24-hour news channels. If you look south of the border, they have at least three 24-hour news channels that are full service and provide broadcasts on a variety of issues.
What is frustrating from a viewer's perspective is that often, CTV has been better at providing live coverage of events. If you think back to the Conservative leadership debates, during that time, CBC's Newsworld was showing reruns of the Antiques Road Show while CTV was providing programming on the debates.
If we have a 24-hour news channel that is supposed to be providing full service, why is the CBC not doing that? Why are they showing us this canned programming?
There are other shows on CTV that are also very good. Mike Duffy's program is consistently getting complaints from the CBC that it is a full-service show and not a headline service. He is always being hammered for that, but it is a good-quality political show that could go head-to-head with any program on CBC.
We learned a couple of important lessons about journalists during the lockout. The Canadian Media Guild actually agrees with us. They stated in their own advertising that CBC journalists matter. They have a perspective that, if silenced, is detrimental to the fabric of Canada.
I remember seeing ads during the lockout in The Globe and Mail and other newspapers. One of them had a picture of Anna Maria Tremonti saying, "They can silence me but they cannot silence you." This is a clear indication that even the Canadian Media Guild recognizes that on-air hosts have a perspective. If they deny it, it means that these people are interchangeable. That is exactly what the Canadian Media Guild fought against in their dispute and, incidentally, won.
The other thing we must remember is that every human endeavour has a network. This underlines the complaints about corporate ownership and these huge networks being involved in a conspiracy. The same goes for journalists.
I was struck when I heard the speeches when the CBC was returning to work. On October 11, for example, Arnold Amber, who was the chief union negotiator and is also a producer of live events for CBC television news, said, "Let's get up there and show them what it's all about. Let's get back; let's retake the CBC and make it what it can be, a great public broadcaster for all Canadians," which is a laudable statement. However, he then added that people should remember two things; one, to never forget that they are the CBC, and second, that they had found out during the last eight weeks that they are also the CMG, a union.
This gives us a sense that journalists do have their own networks, and a huge organization that is publicly funded is saying that the people there are not just CBC employees, they are also members of a union, which implies a bias, whether you agree with it or not.
The problem I have been seeing over the years of studying the CBC, comparing it to CTV, is that CBC does tend to have a bias. Repeated studies show that they tend to favour state intervention in the economy; they tend to favour, in the way the stories are constructed, liberalization of social mores and increased government regulations. These are all valid positions, and it is not a problem for a private broadcaster to provide only one side of the story. The problem for many people, including me, is that the CBC is not a private organization. It is taxpayer funded and, more importantly, mandated by the Broadcasting Act to reflect Canada to Canadians. It cannot simply reflect one set of Canadian ideas, values and aspirations.
The problem is that taxpayers who do not share these values have to get some value for their tax dollars. Numerous individuals have complained to me that they are often offended by the one-sided nature of CBC.
I am the first to admit that the CBC is a wonderful service. It has high-quality programming and, at least on radio, it is commercial free. During the lockout I missed having commercial-free service, but I did not miss the one-sidedness or the snide remarks with respect to certain perspectives.
We must remember that the CBC is a great service that provides high-calibre broadcasting, but to the elite of this country.
If we are to continue with a taxpayer-funded broadcaster, we should try to have it live up to its mandate. It should provide Canadians' views in a balanced manner rather than just giving one side.
I will not go into a lot of detail on the next problem, but it does irk me as someone who lived most of my life in Western Canada. The news should not only be from Toronto or Ontario. We should hear from other Canadians, and not just on the quaint stories. It is tiresome for those who live in Alberta to hear stories about cowboys on the Prairies or the Stampede. That does not qualify as legitimate coverage of a region. It is important to hear the policy ideas, to hear what they are doing in Alberta that is resulting in a booming economy. It is just oil or is it some kind of public policy mix?
When I lived in Vancouver, I found it frustrating that the only time we heard about B.C. politics was when someone was doing something outrageous. It was never about positive initiatives or public policy ideas. In contrast, the news coming from Ontario and Toronto tends to be preaching to the rest of the provinces, which can be insulting when there are many great ideas out there.
Yesterday, Carole Taylor wrote in The Globe and Mail:
It's hard for a new Canadian living near the Punjabi Market in Vancouver to relate to a national broadcast centre in Toronto, introduced by a shot of that same city, night after night. Is this really The National? No, it is not.
We are not, in any important way, hearing the voices of Canada.
That is a strong statement.
I recommend that we allow private broadcasters to provide the programming that they think will serve the public good, without bias in favour of the CBC. In other words, Canadians should have choice in public broadcasting and in broadcasting generally.
Finally, CBC does not exist to provide the opposite of ideological balances from the private broadcasters. If they perceive that the private broadcasters are right of centre, they should not provide balance by staying left of centre. They need to provide balance in their own right and within their own newsrooms.
I would be happy to discuss this further or answer any questions you might have.
Senator Phalen: Welcome. Your paper on anti-Americanism at the CBC gives many statistics on the negative and positive comments regarding the U.S. in CBC news stories in 2002. Could you give us examples of what you consider a negative statement and a positive statement?
Ms. Miljan: We do any kind of content analysis by looking at every single statement. We identify the speaker and look at whether the statement is positive, negative or neutral toward the subject, which in this case would be the United States.
I believe that I have included several specific examples in the document of positive, negative and neutral. A positive statement would be, "The United States is our best friend and ally." We could clearly identify that as a positive statement. A neutral statement might be, "The Americans will go to NAFTA to discuss a trade dispute." That is just a statement of fact. A negative statement would be a reaction against something.
Senator Phalen: Would you consider that a negative statement?
Ms. Miljan: No, I said it was a neutral statement. The fact that they are going to NAFTA to talk about lumber, in and of itself is a neutral statement. If someone said, "The Americans are being bullies," of which we found a lot of instances, we would note that as a negative statement.
Senator Phalen: Have you done any research to determine whether other Canadian news outlets are presenting stories regarding the U.S. in a different manner? Is a CTV or a Global broadcast of a story like the softwood lumber dispute really different from that of the CBC?
Ms. Miljan: In this case we did not, and I would argue that they are probably very similar. I do not think that the CBC is particularly different on this account. The point, again, is that CBC needs to be held to a higher standard. Their job is not to give one side; their job is to give all sides because they are being paid by the taxpayer and the taxpayer needs their full service.
Senator Phalen: In your paper you state that Canadian nationalism is, in some unknown but significant proportion, equivalent to anti-Americanism. How do you reach a conclusion like that?
Ms. Miljan: When we researched the literature on Canadian nationalism and looked at how Canadians tend to identify themselves, we found a lot of support for that. Some theorists were saying that Canada and the United States were born enemies. A lot of our cultural identity goes back to the way the countries were founded. Canadians put up a lot of barriers to try to keep the Americans out, and broadcasting is probably the best example. The entire regulatory environment is built on the idea that we are afraid of American signals and need to protect ourselves from the encroaching American threat.
There are a lot of examples that we could use in that respect.
Senator Phalen: I take that another way. I guess I am a Canadian nationalist because I believe in my country and I believe that what we are doing is right. Am I anti-American?
Ms. Miljan: That would not be considered an anti-American statement because it reflects the positive values of Canada. We are saying that it is frustrating to see Canadians identify themselves in terms of a reaction against America rather than as a positive affirmation of who they are.
Senator Eyton: Professor, thank you for coming tonight. I take it from your remarks that you are, broadly speaking, in favour of public broadcasting but that you have some criticism about the way the CBC operates. Is that fair to say?
Ms. Miljan: This is where my colleague, Barry Cooper, and I disagree. He is probably more in favour of privatization than I am. However, I see a role for public broadcasters. I have traveled to places where it has worked fairly well and places where it has not worked well. I am a fan of it, but I think that is because I consider myself a member of an elite and I like very cerebral, boring radio. I do not like a lot of loud noise and commercials. However, whether the taxpayers should be subsidizing my preferences is another question.
Senator Eyton: You are in favour of good public broadcasting?
Ms. Miljan: Very much so.
Senator Eyton: Would you make a distinction between CBC television service and CBC radio service?
Ms. Miljan: If you are talking about ideological differences, in our survey we found that CBC radio was more to the left than television. Perhaps because there is more competition on a one-to-one basis, CBC television tended to be a little more balanced than CBC radio.
Senator Eyton: I may be aggravated by it, but I am particularly fond of CBC radio. I am a consistent listener to Andy Barrie, Michael Enright and all the others. I am aggravated half the time, but at the same time it is provocative. It seems to me that at least in the radio service, they provide programming that would not otherwise be available, and certainly I do not think is available in the U.S. I spend a lot of time in the U.S. and I look often for good content, but it is hard to find.
Ms. Miljan: I am not here to defend American public radio, but now that I live in Windsor, I have the opportunity to hear National Public Radio. They also provide, if not the same, a much higher quality of service. I am not sure if that is because of their funding mix or the size of their market. The NPR has an exceptionally good service.
Senator Eyton: I will not argue. I have listened to it. That is the option I have in the U.S. when I am there.
Ms. Miljan: These are personal preferences.
Senator Eyton: To have the quality of Andy Barrie day after day would be unusual. I have never had that experience in the U.S.
Is there a role model for the CBC that you could identify?
Ms. Miljan: I have been monitoring the newspapers and people are bringing up the BBC as an option. I do not know if Canadians can use another country as a role model because we do have a unique set of circumstances. We have a large geography and not many people. To adopt an American or British model is difficult.
I do not necessarily have a problem with the way they structure their organization; I have a problem with hiring decisions. When I talk to CBC journalists, there is a real difference between the older ones and the younger ones. The younger ones say, "Yes, there is an ideological divide in our newsroom." The problem is that we have not hired that many people in recent years and so we have a stagnant population. Maybe when they retire there will be opportunities to revitalize the organization and have more diversity. That is where my complaint lies. There is a culture that you hire people who are like-minded, so they tend to be of all the same mind.
Senator Eyton: Would you comment on the recent lockout, the significance of that and its resolution? It seems there was more at issue in the lockout — the debate, the discussion and the settlement — than simply working conditions or normal management/labour issues. Did you see anything of that? Is there any special significance to the lockout and its resolution?
Ms. Miljan: My area is not labour law or contract negotiations. Speaking as a consumer of the news, it is hard to understand why a broadcaster would lock out their employees when there had not been any work stoppages or actions like that. It was a confusing scenario that caused a significant amount of frustration. I do not know specifically what you are asking me now.
Senator Eyton: I have not discussed this with anyone else, but I thought one of the great issues was the ability of CBC to hire private contractors and to get better diversity by going out and reaching into the community for people who are not regulars on the show. There was a compromise on that. They are freer now to do that.
Ms. Miljan: I have heard both sides of that. Whether it is a private contractor or a full-time employee, again, as a consumer that is not the part that matters. What matters is the diversity in the type of people presenting the news, however they go about doing that within the organization.
Senator Eyton: The freedom to do that surely is good for diversity; it means more and different people, does it not?
Ms. Miljan: I would imagine. Again, I do not wish to take a position. That is not my area at all. The mechanism is not the point.
Senator Mercer: I would assume that as a professor at the University of Windsor that you are a member of the faculty association.
Ms. Miljan: Yes, I am.
Senator Mercer: That faculty association is a union as those of us who have been union members would know it. I am somewhat concerned about the way you presented the CBC union. The speech given by the negotiator is typical of any union leader following an extended labour dispute, to say, "Let's get back to work, let's do a good job and remember we stuck together."
My father would describe your presentation tonight as a back-handed compliment to CBC. You have consistently told us that you like the CBC. You think it is important, but you think it is slanted and the employees are left-wing pinkos. I do not remember myself as a pinko, but I do consider myself a left-winger and I am proud of it.
I am amazed that anyone would think that the CBC, particularly CBC TV news, is biased toward the left. I would contend, and this may lead to the balance, that there is a leaning in CBC television newsrooms to the right, particularly from anchors such as Peter Mansbridge.
Ms. Miljan: Let me deal with the union issue first. Yes, I am a member of the faculty association. The point about unionism is that if you work for, say, Ford, Chrysler or any manufacturing company, being a member of the union has no effect on your job. Nobody asks you what your beliefs are or tells you how to think about an issue when you are working on the line.
On the other hand, unions do try to educate their membership, and I see it all the time. I get letters and publications from my union and from the broader university associations telling me their positions on specific issues. For broadcasters, that is somewhat problematic. They are being fed the union position on issues as a captive audience. I am nervous when an executive producer at CBC says, "We are CBC, but we are also a union," because that implies that they will be presenting the union's perspective.
The Rabinovitch-Tremonti interview a couple of days ago clearly indicates that this issue is pretty raw. I think if you are locked out, you will be raw and cannot be dispassionate and objective in the coverage of a story. I have documented over time that when we are talking about labour issues, unionized shops tend to be much more sympathetic to labour's demands than to management's. That goes to the issue of balance. Can a union shop be balanced on labour issues? Can they be balanced on issues that the union is trying to put forward?
Senator Mercer: Following your logic, should media, in particular, public broadcasters, not be unionized?
Ms. Miljan: People have the right to collective bargaining. I am more concerned about closed shops. If they had open shops and competitive unionism, that might be a better option because you might have different ideas coming through.
The point is not that they should not be unionized. I think they have that right. The point is that we must be cautious. We cannot say on the one hand these corporations are bad because they all think the same way and are trying to force a perspective down people's throats, and then ignore the fact that the people who work for them have their own perspective and network. To say that the owners are biased in one way and to ignore that the employees might be also is a double standard.
Senator Mercer: I do not want to spend all of our time talking about the union. That is not the basis of our study. However, I did hear the interview between Anna Maria Tremonti and Rabinovitch. I thought it was, under the circumstances, a remarkable piece of journalism on both their parts. To have the head of the network interviewed by one of the leading people on the other side so soon after the events I thought was a remarkable piece of journalism that you would not see anywhere else. This was uniquely Canadian.
I compliment both of them, although I am not a big fan of at least one of them.
You have talked about the regionalism of CBC but I want to talk about the regions within the regions. I am from Nova Scotia. Our local morning show in Halifax, which covers all of mainland Nova Scotia, moves around the province day by day. There will be a report from Barrington Passage one day, another from Middleton the next, and from Pictou the following day, et cetera. They move it around the province and use local reporters, who are good or not so good, depending on what part of Nova Scotia they are from.
This is something that we need to remember about the CBC. Would you not agree that this is something that private broadcasters will never bring us because it is not economical for them; there is no money in it, and, because of the concentration of ownership, in many cases their news is not coming from the local broadcaster, but from some other place in the network?
Ms. Miljan: Are you referring to television or radio?
Senator Mercer: Radio.
Ms. Miljan: I have not listened to much Nova Scotia radio so I cannot answer that. However, having lived both in the West and in Southern Ontario, I listened to it happening in those areas. I agree with you, it is not necessarily the role of the private broadcaster to do that. The public broadcaster is especially mandated to do that and I do not think they do as good a job as they might in Nova Scotia. The rest of the country does not get that kind of service. In fact, one of the problems within CBC is that when they are reorganizing and restructuring, it seems to me that the first thing they gut is the regional services. They do not provide nearly enough regional services. We get a lot of material from Toronto and Ontario going out to everywhere else, but people in this area do not hear the voices of other Canadians and other regions.
Senator Mercer: On the gutting of regional services I do not disagree. We had that problem in Nova Scotia with the Sydney operation of CBC television. Everything seemed to come out of Halifax. Are you not referring mainly to television rather than radio?
Ms. Miljan: My focus tends to be more on television than on radio.
Senator Mercer: Windsor, where you live now, was one of the primary places affected by this.
Ms. Miljan: That is right; they lost their television station but now they have it back. On the television side, those local news programs attract hardly any viewers, and the private sector consistently outperforms them and has huge markets. Even on radio, the private broadcasters on AM radio tend to have a wider audience. In Windsor, we do not necessarily hear about what is happening in Toronto, but we certainly hear about what is happening in Windsor and Essex County. There is fairly good coverage in that region.
Senator Munson: First, I wish to put on the record that I think the CBC made a horrible mistake in gutting local programming across this country. All news is local. There are great programs in Atlantic Canada and out West. I was in the private sector for 35 years. That kind of competition on the local ground is great. Where do journalists go when they leave the schools? They cannot start at CBC Toronto, CBC Vancouver or CTV Toronto. I just want to share your feelings on Carole Taylor. I thought it was an excellent article and recommended reading on where the CBC should be more diverse, perhaps stop showing all those buildings in Toronto, do more things in the regions and get out there in programming.
As a person from the private broadcasting environment, I never went to work in the morning with a perceived bias. I went to work to do my job and try to seek balance. You talk about bias at the CBC. When a Paul Hunter walks into work in the morning, is he walking in with a left-wing bias? I would like to have some examples of this perceived left-wing bias that you talk about.
I watched last evening a brilliant report by a health reporter for the CBC on the pandemic. I did not see any bias there. I saw great journalism. The private broadcasters will play a role in giving Canadians information, but I do not believe that they will do that unless there is a healthy, vibrant CBC. I do not think they will pick it up and run with it unless there is someone to complete with.
Ms. Miljan: I have heard that argument before. I remember Lloyd Robertson telling me the same thing. He said "The CBC has a role because it keeps us doing our jobs better." That is an interesting perspective.
With respect to bias, it is usually in the eye of the beholder. You see a story, you like it — they are on my side — they are balanced; and if you hate the story they are biased. We try to approach this systematically and the first thing I will admit is that everyone has a bias. We can all strive to be objective. I strive to be objective in my own work, but I come to every question with a perspective — life history and so on. We argue that the same is true of journalists.
In the book we ask journalists a series of questions on economic issues. We asked them what they thought about the economy, the best way to solve economic problems, and we created an index and gave a statistical number to that. Then we looked at the content and how they covered unemployment issues. We did not just look at CBC, but also at CTV, Le Devoir, Calgary Herald and The Globe and Mail. We acknowledged that for the most part, the coverage will be neutral. It will be objective statements of fact, such as unemployment went up today X number of basis points. That is fine. Then we break it down and look at whether they talk about the solutions to the problem. Let us say the problem is unemployment. There are a lot of different ways to deal with unemployment. You could have increased government funding, which we would call state intervention or a left-of-centre perspective. You could say we need to lower taxes, which we would consider a right-of-centre or a market orientation. We categorized those in a left/right index and compared that to what the journalists had to say. That is where we found that CBC journalists were much more likely — not necessarily in their own words — to show bias in the sources that they selected. A journalist like Paul Hunter or yourself will be careful. You will choose your words carefully and try to relate the facts, but you have a selection bias in who you interview; you tend to interview people whose perspectives you like.
We found that CBC — and you can see the charts — was much more likely to have left-of-centre spokesmen on their panel discussions and in their debates arguing that we need more government intervention in the economy rather than the other side.
By the same token, when we looked at the Calgary Herald, they were much more likely to provide the right-of-centre position, that you needed less government intervention and more private sector management. There are differences in the news organizations and you can measure that.
Senator Munson: I have heard interesting comments from Alberta commentators from the right on Peter Mansbridge's night-time show recently, which I have to accept, as a viewer, as their opinion, then go to bed with them and reject them in the morning. There is my bias.
I would like to ask you about the role of the public broadcaster. Should the CBC forget the idea of having advertisers and get out of sports, where it makes some money? I think that is what drives people in the private broadcasting industry crazy, because it is not a level playing field. I am a firm believer in public broadcasting and I do not differentiate between radio and television.
Ms. Miljan: My perspective is if they receive taxpayer dollars, they should service all taxpayers.
I do not have a strong opinion about commercialization and advertisers. If a popular show can demonstrate good ratings, get commercials on there and make advertising dollars, it helps fund that programming, which just gives it more legitimacy.
With respect to sporting events, again, you are hitting up against a national institution such as Hockey Night in Canada. Ironically, I teach sometimes in the United States and a lot of my American students understand Canada because they get the CBC service of Hockey Night in Canada. Don Cherry is a household name in a lot of Michigan cities. I do not have a strong view on that because I do not have a vested interest in where people get their advertising revenues and how they fund themselves.
Senator Munson: Like Senator Mercer, I could go on all night and listen to you and your points of view because they are important in seeking balance in terms what we will be recommending, but there are two other senators who would like to ask questions.
Senator Merchant: Good evening. I like to state that I come from Regina, Saskatchewan. Each of us is the product of the society in which we grow up and live. It is not surprising that reporters also reflect the opinions of the majority. I noticed some statistics that said the voting patterns of people in the media are similar to the patterns found in the general public; and that is not surprising.
When it comes to political bias, if you talk to a supporter of the NDP, they will tell you that the CBC is anti-NDP. If you talk to a Liberal supporter, they will say that the CBC is too left wing. You can never find agreement because it depends on individual points of view. I do not know who is happy with the CBC in terms of their political biases. The CBC is a public broadcaster and should seek balance in its news reporting. It seems that people do not simply report the news. Rather, they have to use a flamboyant method to capture the attention of the audience. It has something to do with attracting advertisers. I do not know if that is the reason but their presentation of the news is never simple; they always seem to put a sensational spin on their broadcasts. That is why people perceive a bias.
Ms. Miljan: Perhaps. Part of the job is to get people to pay attention. Whether you have to cater to an advertiser, I do not know. I have not noticed any difference in the coverage on CBC between now and when it did not have advertising. It has not changed their style that I can see. It is just the nature of society.
Senator Merchant: It is the pressure of needing an audience.
Ms. Miljan: Yes. Someone has to watch the program and our society needs lots of stimulation. Part of that problem is television — it is the nature of the medium — has to be exciting. I do not have a problem with programs being exciting but I want them to provide different perspectives in a consistent way and not give me only one view of the news.
Senator Merchant: I agree with most of your comments. The CBC is a good programmer but they have to get back to their mandate. I agree with Senator Munson and Senator Mercer that out West we lost the regional perspective at the CBC over the last few years. Everything we tuned into was Toronto-centred or Regina-centred. There was no regional reporting of the news across the province. When someone from North Battleford reports the local news, he knows the people about whom he speaks because they might be his neighbours. They have to return to being true to their mandate.
Ms. Miljan: I agree.
Senator Chaput: You interviewed journalists so that you could do this study. How did you select the journalists? Was it according to regions? What cross-section of journalists did you interview?
Ms. Miljan: We did a random sample of journalists in the major news organizations. We wanted to focus on major dailies, television and radio. We did not want to look at the smaller regions or sectors. It was a random sample of French and English. Today, I have been talking about English journalists only. Yes, it was national.
Senator Chaput: I agree with senators who say that the CBC has to seek a balance and that it should not have pulled out of local programming. I am from Manitoba. My problem with the balance is that we are all human and anyone can have a perceived bias; is that not right?
Ms. Miljan: Yes.
Senator Chaput: How can you make such a statement and how can that statement be a balanced one? I will give you an example. Canadians have a perceived bias against the Senate of Canada and yet we senators know the work we are doing. How can you say this?
Ms. Miljan: I acknowledge that. That is why I was always frustrated as a student when reading these studies because it was a case of one academic not liking an individual story. The way I do it is much more systematic. We look at the coverage over a period of one year. I do not do the coding but hire students to look at it. When I interview my students I try to get an ideological balance. I will find someone on the left, in the centre and on the right, and they will have to look at the content. Rather than try to impose their preconceived notions, they have to quote what the person in the story said. They go through these inter-coder reliability tests; they have to compare notes to ensure that they all code in the same way; and then they compare notes and stories. We go through many checks to ensure that something was truly said in the news and is not a spin that the coder put on it. Based on that, we come up with a number rather than one example pulled out of the air that might not be representative.
Senator Chaput: As a Manitoban, I do not like the decision that the U.S. has made in respect of Devils Lake. Am I making an anti-American comment by saying that?
Ms. Miljan: No. We code as anti-American such comments as "We can't stand those bastards" — inflammatory comments that clearly reported an editorial statement against the country or the people.
Senator Chaput: Were there many such comments?
Ms. Miljan: Yes.
Senator Chaput: Were they reported on CBC?
Ms. Miljan: Yes, they were reported on CBC over the course of the years.
Senator Chaput: Did they all use that kind of language?
Ms. Miljan: No, not all of them.
Senator Chaput: My sentiment would not be seen as anti-American?
Ms. Miljan: No, because your statement was regarding a decision rather than something specific against the Americans. The subject of that statement was the decision, not the country or the people.
Senator Chaput: It would be the way in which the statement was said?
Ms. Miljan: Exactly.
Senator Phalen: I would like to hear a statement about your policies.
Ms. Miljan: The specific policies were not likely the problem. That study to which you refer was talking about references to Americans only. It had to say something specific about the Americans rather than simply that they do not agree with their policy on Iraq. That would not be part of that study.
You people are grilling me more than my students do; and that is great.
The Deputy Chairman: From a public policy perspective, we have had much debate in committee over the last year. I am unsure of the CBC's mandate and whether the CBC knows what it is. What justification is there without the local television station? We have no local news stations left in our province. It is basically CBC and Global. What is the justification for CBC? How can you build an argument that this should exist? The CBC people totally resist change. It took change to build the CBC; it took change to have medicare; it took change to do anything. You always need change to do something, but when you want to change what was built 50 or 60 years ago, people go out of their minds. I do not know what the public policy perspective for CBC would be today. What is it, from your perspective, in 2005? You say you want it to exist. Too bad Barry Cooper is not here. He would be much funnier, which is the way I feel.
Ms. Miljan: It is an important question. If you take away the regional issue and the fact that you no longer have the technological problems — you do not have to fight for the bandwidth any more, that you have this 500-channel universe, you can have satellite radio so there is no need to protect the public airwaves in the way that we imagined it 60 years ago — it is a much more difficult prospect.
The last entertainment program done by CBC I watched was Anne of Green Gables. That does not mean I do not watch Canadian entertainment programming; I just tend to watch it on the digital channels when the kind of material that comes out is more to my liking.
It is a difficult question because it is hard to justify them if it is only national. I have been arguing for years that if we are to have a CBC, it has to live up to its regional mandate. It has to tell me something about places in this country other than just Ottawa or Toronto.
Living in Windsor, for example, even Windsor feels out of the loop. They have the same kinds of views of alienation that I experienced in Western Canada because they do not get picked up by the national network either. Very few people know about the problems, and they have serious public policy issues. We are the biggest port of entry for NAFTA, for free trade. You would think that would warrant a lot of attention. You would think people would be talking about trade issues and coming to Windsor to try to deal with the gridlock and the border issues, but it is completely ignored by not only the private sector but also the public sector, and that is a huge concern.
The Deputy Chairman: Just judging from what happened at the time of the lockout, if CBC did not exist today, would there be any public policy incentive to create it?
Ms. Miljan: There would always be people wanting it. If other countries had public broadcasting, there would always be people saying, "We should have our own public broadcaster." However, we do not have the same circumstance as we did when we first built the CBC, which was there was a technological limitation with the bandwidth. The fact that there are many Canadian channels on digital and on the higher cable channels makes it hard to justify because you can get a national broadcaster that is not public in terms of, let us say, 24-hour news. There is no reason to only have the CBC there — or the CBC at all. As we have seen, other competitors have tried to offer that service and have been denied.
Senator Munson: I think that my own government has let the public down by not spending more on the public broadcaster. I am serious. I am getting it on the record. It is very important. I do not think that we will see the public policy debate through private broadcasting as much as we would see it on a daily basis, for example, on As It Happens, Cross Country Checkup, local morning radio programming — the debate dealing with people in the North, where private broadcasters do not exist, dealing with Acadians in New Brunswick, francophones in Manitoba and Franco-Ontarians. I do not think in that national debate we will ever see that as a national concept from a private broadcaster. The private broadcaster serves a great purpose, but I still do not think that it is a link between St. John's and Vancouver. I just say that for the record so that Senator Tkachuk does not get the last word.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Miljan. It was fun. It is good to be chairman.
The committee adjourned.