BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE MASSIVE FAILURE OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has undertaken a review of Canada's entire broadcasting system. There is no doubt that there is a great deal wrong with it, and that this review is long overdue.

REAL Women was delighted to have the opportunity to express our concerns before the Committee, in regard to the failure of the CRTC and the bias of the TV and radio media in Canada. We believe our views are shared by most Canadians.

On December 4, 2001, we appeared before the Committee, as part of a panel consisting of several other organizations, and we made a strong contribution to the hearing.

Outdated CBC, CRTC. CBSC (Canadian Broadcast Standards Council) - Biased and Prejudiced.

REAL Women pointed out to the Committee that Canadian broadcasting decidedly does not do what it is supposed to do, as required by the Broadcasting Act 1991. That Act requires that the Canadian broadcasting system "…safeguard and enrich the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada" and that it "reflect the circumstances and aspirations of Canadian men, women and children." It does anything but that.

We pointed out that, according to Statistics Canada census (1996), 74% of children live in the traditional family unit of mother, father and children. Only 13% of families are single-parent (the same as in 1930), and only 14% of couples live in a common law arrangement. The vast majority of Canadians, therefore, live within a traditional marriage, not because they are forced to, but because they choose to. You would never be aware of these facts from viewing Canadian television, where dysfunctional family portrayals are the order of the day.

1. The CBC

REAL Women stated that the CBC has massively failed in its mission to nurture and develop Canadian culture. Rather than promote a national sense of unity and identity, it has become a divisive element in Canadian society. We stated that the CBC has become not a source of factual information, but a source of indoctrination to the left of centre political and social agenda. For example, when government or Supreme Court decisions are made concerning social issues, the CBC automatically calls on feminist women lawyers to comment; it rarely involves conservative groups. We referred to the CBC's constant parade of left-of-centre reporters, commentators and guest speakers who provide unbalanced coverage of issues. Moreover, the CBC is remarkable in its determination to keep any conservative perspective out of the information loop. Even on those rare occasions when the CBC does include the views of a conservative group, according to a study by The Fraser Institute, it nonetheless labels these groups in such a way as to undermine their credibility. At the same time, it provides labels for left-of-centre groups so as to legitimize them and their statements! This bias is hardly an appropriate use of taxpayers' money.

2. The CRTC (the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission)

The Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC), an arm's-length federal agency established in 1968, has a mandate to maintain a balance in the public interest between the cultural, social and economic goals of the broadcasting industry in Canada. REAL Women pointed out, however, that the CRTC consists of 13 full and part time paid commissioners, hand picked by Prime Minister Chrétien, who have total bureaucratic control of Canadian broadcasting. These commissioners arbitrarily decide what Canadians may or may not see and hear on our broadcasting system ignoring the real wishes of the Canadian public.

Moreover, the CRTC has not ensured a balance of views on matters of public debate. Instead, broadcasters, without any hindrance from the CRTC, provide a perspective to the left of the fiscal and social perspective of most Canadians. In short, we stated that the CRTC, with its $22 million budget, is deciding what is good and bad for Canadian viewers and has become an arbiter of what is considered "acceptable" in Canada - again in disregard of what the viewers actually want to see and believe to be true.

(a) The New Digital Universe

While regulations over broadcasting by the CRTC may have been necessary at one time because of the limited number of airwaves available under the old analogue system, this is no longer the case in the 200 or 500- channel universe brought about by the digital channels. Yet, the CRTC still insists on regulating all broadcasting, including the digital channels. It is also regulating the digital channels, not to reflect the taste and interests of the viewing public, but to promote those channels which it thinks Canadians ought to see. It also insists that the cable and satellite companies must provide a series of digital channels in package deals, whether the customer actually wants to view all those channels or not. In other words, the CRTC not only chooses the channel which the cable providers must provide, but also places them in packages, so that less popular programming, such as the new homosexual PrideVision channel, will be protected and shielded from competition and viewers' choice.

There were over 232 digital channel applicants to the CRTC, and the latter chose 16, which were placed into category 1 as required viewing packages. The obvious question, REAL Women asked at the hearing is, "Why did the CRTC pick these 16 particular services in the total of 232?" For example, why did the CRTC select the homosexual channel PrideVision, which is a service that caters to the gay community only, and not EWTN (Eternal World Television Network), a religious broadcast, which is viewed by millions in other countries?

(b) PrideVision Specialty Channel

REAL Women expressed concern at this hearing about the CRTC's selection of PrideVision as a category 1 mandatory channel by the CRTC. Its selection appeared to us as yet another example of the CRTC's arbitrary and bureaucratic decision to override the customer's choice. We brought to the Committee's attention the fact that, according to the documents supplied by the license applicants for PrideVision, it was stated:

There is currently a lack of programming targeted to the gay and lesbian community. This service will fill that void for the millions of Canadians who want informational and entertainment programming based on gay and lesbian issues and perspectives.

This service will meet the needs of millions of friends and family members of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons. These viewers will appreciate programming that accurately and fairly portrays the interests and lifestyles of their loved ones.

Focus group participants were clear in their demand for high-quality programming that would appeal to a "mainstream" gay and lesbian audience, rather than sensational programs that would only appeal to small sectors within that audience.

We pointed out that even a brief analysis of the evidence fails to support these statements. For example:

• The focus groups' information referred to by the Commission was obtained through interviews with only a few members of the gay and lesbian communities, 20 in Vancouver and 23 in Toronto. These small groups are the only quoted source of information on the type of demand that would appeal to "mainstream" gay and lesbian audiences.
• The " millions of Canadians" and the "millions of friends and family members" quoted by the Applicant channel comes from demand estimates of 330,000 in the first year to 550,000 viewers in 7 years, if PrideVision were offered a stand-alone service. If it were bundled in a package with other services, the audience would then become 1 to 2.6 million for the same period. These estimates show clearly that the higher number is only because of a captive audience that would occur if PrideVision was included in the packages. Moreover, even the lower numbers may not be realistic. On obtaining its license and having revised the information in its original application, PrideVision has now announced its new pricing strategy as of November 13, 2001 (Financial Post, November 14, 2001), which provides that it needed "well over" 100,000 subscribers to break even after three years, quite a different number from the 330,000 estimated for the first year as predicted in its application. PrideVision has also now announced that it no longer wants to be part of a package deal, but rather wants its service to be "stand-alone" and sell for $5.95 to $7.95 per month. It can be assumed that PrideVision's claim that it wanted to portray only "mainstream" homosexual/lesbian programming (whatever that is) was only a short-lived claim in order to obtain a license, and now that it has received the license from the CRTC, we can expect it will now be providing something other than "mainstream" programming. It is likely it will provide more hard-core erotica to its small audience.

REAL Women stated that the bureaucrats at the CRTC clearly promoted their own bias, while overlooking the real market demand and objectives of the PrideVision license. The CRTC's lack of objectivity with regard to PrideVision was apparent in the enthusiastic statement of the Commission in Decision CRTC-456:

A channel devoted to this audience will be unique to the broadcasting system in Canada, among the first of such services world-wide. It will have the potential to be a "bridging" service, creating understanding and thereby reducing stereotyping.

Heady stuff indeed! In the Commission's judgment, PrideVision is therefore more unique in the world than the other 232 channel applications. In addition, the Commission is of the view that PrideVision has the potential to serve a worthier social purpose than the other candidates, even though this "worthy" cause seems to have had a very short shelf life. REAL Women of Canada doubts very much that most Canadian viewers would make the same judgment and reach the same conclusions about PrideVision that the CRTC did.

We suggested that services aimed at groups that are "diverse and under-represented" according to CRTC language, like the gay and lesbian interests, should have restrictions placed on them, such as those imposed on religious broadcasting. Unlike other channels, single faith religious providers must broadcast a specified number of hours of so-called "balanced" programming. In short, why is there a requirement for single faith religious broadcasting to provide "balance," while there is no similar requirement for the gay and lesbian channel? Now that PrideVision has obtained its license, it can now broadcast whatever it chooses with no restrictions at all - and we can assume it will do just that.

3. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC)

We were delighted that Mr. Ronald Cohen, national chair of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) appeared with us on the panel. This provided us with the opportunity to raise our objections to this Council that was set up by the Canadian broadcasters themselves in order to regulate the standards of broadcasting in Canada. Unfortunately, in 1991, the CRTC gave the Canadian broadcasters, through its CBSC, the jurisdiction to personally receive and adjudicate complaints from the public regarding programming on its 498 private television and radio stations. We asked why these broadcasters were permitted to assume for themselves, with the agreement of the CRTC, the determination of what not only is permissible on the Canadian airwaves, but of self regulation regarding content and acceptable limits of freedom of expression in Canada. To do this requires a great deal of arrogance and puffery on the part of the broadcasters. Mr. Cohen conceded, in the discussions following our presentations, that CBSC decisions "shape the parameters of acceptable content on an ongoing basis, whether in the talk shows, news, dramatic, traffic or other areas." This control by the broadcasting industry itself, unfortunately, does not reflect the values of the vast majority of Canadians.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger

In the course of his presentation, Mr. Cohen proudly acknowledged that his organization, the CBSC, had pushed broadcaster Dr. Laura Schesslinger off the air. He stated:

… the decision relating to the Laura Schlessinger … radio show resulted in the disappearance … of abusively discriminatory comment on the basis of sexual orientation from the show, not only in Canada, but also in the United States. Such unduly discriminatory comment on the basis of sexual orientation never became a part of her short-lived television show, either.

Committee Member, MP Jim Abbott (Kootenay-Columbia), the Alliance Party Critic for the Heritage Department, in reaction to Mr. Cohen's statements on Dr. Scheslinger stated:

… I find that rather interesting that Dr. Laura's position that she took on the homosexual community, which was based on her faith, was found to be objectionable and therefore excluded from Canadian broadcasting …

In 1998, the CBSC also ruled against Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, for stating that homosexuals were using false statistics and research to validate their viewpoint and using such data in order to get the homosexual agenda into the schools. (See Reality, September/October, 1998, "Freedom of Expression Curtailed by Homosexuals," p. 7.)

In that case, on the basis of a single homosexual activist who complained to the CBSC and who described Dr. Dobson's comments as "hate" mongering, the CBSC concluded that Dr. Dobson's program:

… attributed to the gay movement a malevolent, insidious and conspirational purpose, a so-called 'agenda," which, in the view of the Council, constitutes abusively discriminatory comments on the basis of sexual orientation, contrary to the provisions of clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

This is pure poppycock. This decision was based on Mr. Cohen's and his council's bias in support of the homosexual agenda and was in total contradiction to Canadians' freedom to dissent and to speak of their most deeply held religious beliefs.

The discussion at the Committee hearing on the CBSC also provided REAL Women with the opportunity to raise concerns about the CBSC's dismissal of many complaints made to it, in regard to repeated attacks on the Christian faith on Canadian broadcasting. These complaints to the CBSC have been simply brushed off again and again.

REAL Women stated:

… in fact, never actually have we seen any correspondence from the Standards Council that has found the attacks on Christian faith to be either appalling or objectionable, which they, in fact, are...

We went on to state:

What use is the council which is not objective in its assessments?

… I would suggest that if we were looking for a totally, absolutely disadvantaged group of people in Canada in terms of their reflection on television anywhere on any channel, it would be evangelical Christians being handled in a sensitive and realistic way. There are no, NO, no programs of any type in the form of entertainment that give anything of a sympathetic view [to them]. I want to put that on the record. I look forward to being challenged on that.

In this, Mr. Abbott's comments were supported by NDP Committee member, Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NS), who stated that her sister was an evangelical Christian and that many of her own constituents were "cultured, faith driven and family oriented," who did not see themselves reflected on Canadian broadcasting.

According to Mr. Cohen, with the exception of three of the CBSC's 215 decisions, "all of our decisions have been rendered unanimously." This confirmed our observation that the CBSC is controlled by people of the same mindset or viewpoint and that Canadians trying to obtain balance in broadcasting are wasting their time bringing complaints to such an organization.

We concluded that the views of the CBSC do not reflect the values of the vast majority of Canadians, and that it should be abolished as a complaint bureaucracy, so as to make room for a more democratic, open process answerable to market demands.

In the discussion, John Harvard MP (Liberal, Charleswood St. James - Assiniboia, Manitoba) who has spent 18 years with the CBC, as well as in private radio and television, stated:

...I think that our country in the main is far too conservative and if we left it just to the so-called justice of the marketplace, media like the aboriginal channel and others just would never see the light of day. We have to I guess in a way use some kind of democratic coercion to do this. I'm just glad that we do it. (emphasis ours.)

In other words, according to Mr. Harvard, Canada's broadcasting system should be manipulated so as to adhere to a pre-determined set agenda for "our own good." What Canadians actually want to hear and see in our broadcasting system is quite beside the point and irrelevant to the likes of Mr. Harvard who believes that he and his fellow believers know which broadcasting is "best" for Canadians. He probably believes that we should be grateful for these totalitarian decisions being made on our behalf.

Fair Hearing

REAL Women of Canada was given a just opportunity by Committee Chairman Clifford Lincoln MP (Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, Québec) to present the concerns of our members. It was obvious that the credibility of Canadian broadcasting has been seriously undermined and barriers shutting out ordinary Canadians need to be removed in today's expanded digital system. We were grateful for the opportunity to put our views forward.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is accepting written and verbal presentations on the Canadian broadcasting system from Canadian groups and individuals for the next six months. If you or your organization would like to make a presentation to the committee, please contact the following, requesting the opportunity to make an appearance before the Committee (all travel and accommodation expenses are covered by the Committee):

House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Christine Fisher, Clerk
House of Commons, Room 640
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Tel: (613) 947-6729 / Fax: (613) 947-9670

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS