Charles Gordon column

The Ottawa Citizen

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

A progress report on efforts to save Canada's news media

How do we keep bad things from happening to the news media? The studies continue, as do the bad things.

About three weeks ago, six experienced print journalists in Ottawa had their jobs eliminated by CanWest Global, in what was termed an "integration" of news operations. A week after that, the Commons heritage committee issued a massive report recommending a moratorium on new broadcast licences for media companies wanting to own both TV networks and newspapers.

"The committee is of the view that the potential problems with cross-media ownership are sufficiently severe that the time has come for the federal government to issue a clear and unequivocal policy on this matter," the report says.

And that means ...? Well, it doesn't mean that the committee wants existing cross-media groups broken up, according to the chair of the committee. "All we want to do is send a signal for the future," said Clifford Lincoln, a Liberal member of Parliament.

So it means ...? It means that the CRTC should postpone renewing or awarding broadcasting licences until a new policy is in play, which the committee wants by June 30, 2004.

Maybe the Commons heritage committee is not going to keep bad things from happening in the news media. What about, instead, the Senate committee on transport and communications, which is conducting a study? Could it help?

The precedents are not encouraging. The Davey Committee produced some fine research in 1970 and no change. The Kent Commission in 1981 made a lot of headlines, after allegations of collusion between the Thomson and Southam chains. Kent produced fascinating reports and nothing changed, except that the Thomson and Southam chains are gone now, replaced by other chains, which have television networks, telecommunications companies and what not.

This year's Senate committee shows some promise, in that it is clearly more interested in gathering information than in making headlines. "This will not be the parliamentary equivalent of 'gotcha' journalism," the committee chair, Joan Fraser, announced. The committee's meetings are low-key, in smaller meeting rooms, without batteries of attack lawyers.

Media professionals and academics have appeared, coming up with ideas of varying usefulness -- such as, inevitably, the call for a print version of the CBC, first heard in 1981.

Last week, a cross-media veteran, Kirk LaPointe, testified. LaPointe, now at the Toronto Star, has been involved with Canadian Press, the CBC, Southam News, the National Post in the Hollinger days and CTV in the BCE days.

He didn't have much to recommend with respect to keeping bad things from happening in the news media. He said Canadian media have strong records of community service and high levels of employment relative to the rest of the world. He said it was too early to label convergence a failure. "We ought to be encouraging people to experiment," he said, "and not let other countries beat us to the punch."

LaPointe's main recommendation was the creation of a centre for research and professional development for journalists, a Canadian version of the Poynter Institute in the U.S.

Would this keep bad things from happening in the news media? The senators wanted to ask about other things, such as what readers can do when they encounter journalism they don't like.

LaPointe conceded that sometimes journalists "get naughty." When that happens, the people should contact the editor. "Letters to the editor do get the attention of the editor," he said. Media outlets are aware that readers vote with their pocketbooks.

That's true. Letters are good. But, as we have seen, they don't keep bad things from happening. Usually they come after the bad things happen, then disappear until the next bad thing, rather like Senate committees.

It is a bit sad to be at this stage and hear only calls for professional development, a print CBC and letters to the editor.

More to the point, the committee has also heard calls for a ban on cross-ownership. Those who oppose such a ban (and that would seem to include the Commons heritage committee) fear a breaking up of cross-ownerships would cause the closing of media outlets. Would it? Or would it help stop bad things from happening in the news media? An answer to that question would in itself justify the committee's existence.