Of barn doors and diverse voices

I spent the better part of my Tuesday speaking to the CBC about the CRTC's new cross-media ownership policy. In the afternoon, I was on Newsworld, and was then corralled by one of the producers who wanted to use me for a piece she was working on for "The National". In the end, the piece didn't run. This is because, to be honest, there really isn't much of a story here. Or let me put it a different way -- the story was not exactly newsworthy, except for some policy wonks in the broadcasting business.

The basic results of the report -- a ban on one company owning newspapers, radio and television stations in one market (but, in the words of Meatloaf, "2 of 3 ain't bad"), a ban on one company having broadcasting assets comprising more than 45% of the national television audience share through a merger or purchase, and a ban on one television distributor dominating any local market -- seem perfectly sensible and likely to ensure the "diversity of voices" that new CRTC honcho von Finckenstein seems to want. So why are people so upset? We can describe the dissenters in terms of barn doors and diverse voices -- and we can say that both of them are, in some ways, off the mark.

First, there are people who feel that the CRTC is closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. That's because these rules aren't retroactive, and therefore don't cover the mega- mergers that have already made Canada one of the most converged Western nations (and don't get me started on our cell phone services). This criticism is valid, except that it was also true that von Finckenstein was cleaning up the business carried out by the previous administration, and probably didn't have much wiggle room on decisions already carried forward. So all they could feasibly do is let the decisions work their way through the approval process, and try and set some rules for next time. So now it's true that, in Ottawa, CTVglobemedia couldn't snap up the Ottawa Citizen, and that Rogers can't buy CTVglobemedia, for example. So what's left to be converged in a very tight national media landscape is reasonably safe for now.

While it's definitely the case that these rules should have been put in place decades ago, the barn door analogy doesn't quite hold up, because there are a few, ahem, animals still left in the stable. Remember, this decision says nothing about new media, because the CRTC hasn't taken a position on what it is going to do when it comes to regulating aspects of the Internet. I predict that while it won't slap content regulations on ISP's, it will probably impose some kind of rules on the distribution of content that comes from conventional broadcasters operating over the internet. Why do I think this may come to pass? Because with the decision on cross-media ownership, the CRTC has established now that, although it doesn't regulate newspapers, it can use its soft power to ensure that those organizations that it does regulate don't go into the newspaper game. In other words, the CRTC is saying to those it now regulates that if you want to own a newspaper, you're going to have to give up one of your broadcasting properties. Which one is more important? A similar kind of move may be coming for new media, in which activities on the internet will be tied into broadcasting licenses. The report is due in February.

The second issue is that of foreign ownership of Canadian media properties. Although it's been floated around that the thresholds on foreign ownership may be lowered (a flame fueled by the CRTC's handling of the Canwest/Alliance merger), it's unlikely that any real changes will take place under a minority government. Seen that way, one might argue that the CRTC is making a preemptive move against lowered foreign ownership restrictions by capping the audience share any one media company can own as a result of a purchase or merger. So even if Rupert Murdoch were to come into Canada, he'd have to deal with rules that limit his audience reach.

So with a few things still left in the barn, then there's the issue of diverse voices. Critics find the language -- that the CRTC is acting to ensure a diversity of voices only after consolidation -- to be a rather seedy act by the regulator. To some degree, I think they are right, because for all of its apparent, toughness, the rules do nothing to a status quo which sees a profound lack of diverse voices at the local level. Remember the 45% figure is for an audience share measured on the national level. Remember too, that The National Post and the Globe and Mail don't count as "local" papers. Because of this, we have a situation where in places like Vancouver, both of the local papers are owned by Canwest, the National post is owned by Canwest, and the leading television network is owned by Canwest. Similar scenarios involving CTV exist here in Ottawa, through its ownership of television stations, radio stations, and the Globe and Mail.

The irony of the diverse voices argument is that it is probably safe to say that Canadians now have access to a significant diversity of voices when it comes to national and international news. But what about local happenings? These are endeavours that attract only a small number of news agencies with the resources to cover them extensively. It is here where a diversity of voices policy focused on local media could have had significant effect.

There's one other reason why national audience share is important to the way we understand the CRTC's decision. Let's remember also that coming from the Competition Bureau, von Fickenstein also sees "diversity of voices" in the context of ensuring a fair marketplace for the advertising industry. A dominant player can also dominate the advertising market, setting high rates and limiting opportunities for other advertisers. Let's remember that the national advertising market matters to these discussions too. Simultaneous substitution of Canadian shows benefits advertisers, not viewers. These "diverse voices" need to be heard, too.