News

What to do with the Canadian Broadcast Corporation? Does Canada need a publicly owned broadcaster? Why can't we emulate the successful mix of entertainment and documentary programming of the original mother corp, the BBC? Is Radio-Canada being dragged down by the English-language programming, or the other way around? Should sports even be a part of a public broadcaster's mission?

These are the kinds of questions raised by Canadians in all walks of life, and recently The Globe and Mail's Kate Taylor posited her own bold plan for CBC renewal.

In Saturday's paper she wrote:

CBC Television's master plan to boost its ratings has run into trouble. Nobody watched The One, the American reality show that was supposed to prepare audiences for a Canadian version this fall, but which also forced controversial delays to The National. The ratings for this month's episodes were so low, ABC cancelled the series, leaving CBC facing the new season with a lame-duck concept.

So, maybe it's time for Plan B.

How about, say, a CBC-TV that does wickedly clever — and totally original — reality shows? How about a CBC-TV that not only offers the best national newscast but also a host of current-affairs programs, documentaries and shows about science and the arts? And how about a CBC-TV that specializes in Canadian comedy and smart little sitcoms that make a virtue of their low-budget necessity?

This CBC would stop trying to draw mass audiences to single events such as big-budget dramas, American movies or Saturday-night hockey games, but instead would offer a lineup of specialized Canadian programming that reached millions over the course of a week.

And this CBC would not have to chase the overnight ratings — because this CBC would not take ads: That's right, the commercials would simply disappear.

Read the full story here

Kate answered questions from Globe readers in an on-line conversation about the past, present and future (if it has one) of the CBC.

Kate Taylor is a columnist and feature writer in the Globe's Review section, writing on cultural affairs.

Born in France and raised in Ottawa, Taylor studied history and art history at the University of Toronto before completing a Masters in Journalism at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ont.

She joined the Globe and Mail's copy desk in 1989 before moving into the arts section as a reporter in 1991. In 1995, she was appointed theatre critic, a job she held for eight years, winning two Nathan Cohen Awards and a National Newspaper Award nomination for her reviews.

She is also a prize-winning novelist. Her critically acclaimed 2003 novel Madame Proust and the Kosher Kitchen won the City of Toronto Book Award and was a regional winner of the Commonwealth Writers Prize, taking the award for best first novel in Canada and the Caribbean.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Kenny Yum, globeandmail.com: Hi Kate, thanks for joining us today. We've got a lot of questions so we'll get right to it.

Al Forone from Toronto writes: I'm with those who are ever so grateful for CBC Radio, but rarely watch CBC TV beyond Newsworld, don't care about hockey and don't see why it must be shown by a tax-supported national broadcaster. Further, I don't understand why I'm taxed for a station that ruins movies and other programs, even late night, with so many commercials I get RSI from the VCR remote. My one bright thought I hope you'll comment on is that handing CBC sports properties and advertising market share over to private networks would be a big unearned windfall for them, and I believe they should have to pay ongoing royalties, which then would subsidize the public TV network and relieve the tax burden for loss of the commercial aspect.

Kate: Yes, taking the ads off CBC Television would hand extra revenue to the private networks, e.g. CTV and Global, and the specialty channels too. So, any discussion of an ad-free CBC often includes the suggestion those extra profits be taxed back in some way to then fund the CBC. It isn't that easy, of course. First of all, not all the revenue would automatically flow back to the commercial networks. TV generally is losing advertisers to new media; also, it's quite possible that some of those advertisers specifically want CBC audiences and would not move over to Global or TSN or wherever. Second, how do you make sure you have a fair formula for taxing the revenue?

Another possibility is to raise the cost of the commercial channels' broadcasting licences, and use that money to fund the CBC. Anyway you do it, you can be sure it would be a hard sell with the commercial broadcasters. Still, there are successful precedents: the Canadian Television Fund is, in effect, a levy on cable and satellite operators to fund the creation of Canadian programming. Certainly, if CBC leaves pro sports to the private sector, there needs to be a quid pro quo.

Political Junkie from Canada writes: I'm a geezer who is a part of the CBC Radio's lost demographic, pining for the good old days of Peter Gzowski, Barbara Frum, Patrick Watson, Larry Zolf, Doug Leiterman, etc. In CBC's effort to find a new audience, they alienated the old one. Promo Girl is a sure turnoff. On the TV side, it seems that the political bias and the predictable comments from the talking heads (Chantal is o.k!) comes nowhere near the excitement of 'This Hour has Seven Days.' Comedy is safe and bland. Is this simply nostalgia, or has the quality actually plummeted big time?

Kate:Yup, nostalgia ain't what it used to be. Whenever the classical music community complains about the dumbing down of CBC radio music, my colleague, music critic Robert Everett-Green asks: Do you know about The Happy Gang? The Happy Gang was a radio variety show of the '40s and '50s that specialized in corny jokes and sappy songs. His point is that the CBC has not always been so high-brow, and yes, sometimes it is just nostalgia to complain about dropping standards. Still, I agree with you there was a heyday for CBC journalism and public affairs programming and we are not living in it currently! Interestingly, the great catalyst for a lot of that talent was CBC Radio's decision in the 1970s to drop advertising. Some of the people I spoke with researching my article believe an ad-free CBC Television could be similarly inventive and distinctive. I tend to agree with CBC executives who want to popularize -- certainly, I have never understood where CBC Radio got a mandate to run a classical music service; it just seems such a narrow band of programming to me -- I just don't think they know how to go about it, and don't always have the right talent or the right mentality. Hence the hated Promo Girl -- or at least you hate her; I remain carefully neutral on the subject of Promo Girl.

Andre Carrel from Salmo: Why should or could CBC-TV not create an alliance, call it a partnership, with the likes of TVO, SCN, or BC's Knowledge Network? Drop sports, drop what people can see on commercial TV anyway, and work with regional commercial-free TV stations to produce and broadcast quality programs aimed at informing citizens and challenging the mind. Then focus on news and public affairs, and in these areas work form alliances with other public TV networks around the world. As for CBC Radio, I am concerned about the afternoon program, it is a waste of airtime. Ideas and The Current should be the standard for what CBC Radio should be all about.

Kate: Interesting idea: one of the big concerns of those who oppose plans to reform the CBC is that talk of an ad-free CBC is really code for a Toronto-based specialty channel sending content to the regions, but never broadcasting content created in the regions. Perhaps some alliances of the kind you describe -- or at least some co-producing -- would help keep a national network with that regional input. Still, comparisons with the educational broadcasters do have to keep in mind that their audiences are a fraction of the CBC's. (Both TVO and Quebec's educational service, for example, reaches a quarter of the number of Ontarians or Quebeckers as CBC TV reaches Canadians; I think the numbers for the Knowledge Network in B.C. are similar.) If we whine about paying a billion for a CBC that doesn't reach a large enough audience, how would we feel if we reduced that audience yet further by limiting the CBC to the educational model?

Randal Oulton from Toronto writes: Hi Kate, If the CBC were to disappear tomorrow, which class of Canadians do you think would miss it most? I'm from Brantford, a working-class town, and it's been decades since working-class people (aside from the hockey) there have tuned into CBC -- not since colour TV and 12 channels arrived (except for hockey). How strongly do you disagree that it's a middle / upper-middle class nice to have thing, that has the side benefit of teaching us great unwashed masses what and how to think (if we paid attention), for which great favour we get handed the bill. If working class people got to vote on whether they wanted something like the CBC or whether they wanted healthcare extended to include dental or pharmaceutical* (or even eyecare, since McGuinty slashed it), which do you think someone working at Canadian Tire or Time Horton's would vote for? Do you think we should be moving on to the nice-to-haves for the 'annual vacation abroad and tennis in the summer' set before we have provided for the basics such as dentalcare for everyone?

Kate: I guess I don't agree with you that CBC audiences can be characterized quite so easily according to wealth. The tennis set -- not that I am that well acquainted with it; I hate tennis! -- is not necessarily CBC's audience. It is definitely an older audience -- and statistically older people are poorer.

But I do agree with your broader point that the CBC is not appealing to a broad range of Canadians, although a majority say in polls that they believe the CBC should exist. The question is how should it serve Canadians: by programming populist material that will earn it mass audiences? (The One proved a disaster in that regard.) Or by programming a whole range of specialized material that will never earn mass audiences but will play to all sorts of different niches.

As for the funding, it's a mistake to believe that the sum the CBC gets -- now under a billion annually; which is peanuts compared to what is spend on health care -- would suddenly buy you a whole bunch of other services unless it was a government's political priority. If you really just eliminated the CBC all together and gave everybody free prescription drugs (leaving aside the issue that the first is federal money and the second provincial), I bet in a year or two you would find that drug costs were spirally out of control, governments were agreeing that the plan would have to be scaled back, and you would have lost your public broadcaster.

I guess the real issue is how do you create a CBC that provides value for the public money it gets, and earns enough audiences that Canadians see that value.

Tough Love from Canada writes: Hi Kate: Yes, Canada needs a public broadcaster, but the CBC has gradually relinquished that mandate because it has seemingly lost the ability to be neutral and objective in the reporting of news, especially political news. The CBC has become increasingly liberal and anti-Harper in her views, with people like Peter Mansbridge and Julie van Dusen even bordering on rudeness eg. the interview with Peter MacKay during the Lebanon evacuation crisis. Would you agree?

Kate: No, I would not agree. This accusation of bias is made against the CBC often enough, and I think it's a complete red herring. Obviously, there may be problems over the years with individual reporters or specific programs, but I have to say I have always admired the professionalism of CBC journalists, and always found, both seeing or hearing their material on air, and watching them operate at news events, that generally the only characteristic they showed that wasn't exhibited by their counterparts in private broadcasting, was a deeper grasp of the issues of the day.

I think to viewers and listeners (and readers too!) journalists may often seen biased against the government of the day, because it is their job, after all, to ask some hard questions. I don't think CBC reporters were any easier on Chretien's government then they are being on Harper's.

Miles Lunn from Vancouver writes: Hi Kate. I've always believed that crown corporations ought to only do what the private sector cannot or will not do. It seems today much of what CBC does such as the olympics and Hockey Night in Canada could just as easily be done by the private sector. Do you agree CBC should focus only on what the private networks won't do? Also what effect since viewership is so low would privatization of CBC or shutting it down have? Would it be devastating as its supporters say or would it lead to a network people actually want to watch as its opponents say?

Kate: Yes, in a perfect world, crown corporations don't replicate services provided by the private sector. But in an imperfect world, governments don't fund the crown corporations well enough so they turn to profit-making ventures -- look at Canada Post! Perhaps it should get out of the (highly profitable) courier business and just provide letter service to every farflung corner of this huge country. But then, it wouldn't be returning all those nice profits to the government would it?

The CBC is given a huge mandate to be both a national and a regional broadcaster and uses things such as Hockey Night in Canada to cross-subsidize. So, get the CBC out of sports, by all means, but then you either have to find another source of revenue or greatly reduce the mandate.

As for the effect of shutting it down, I do believe it is important to have a public voice in broadcasting. As you acknowledge, there is stuff the private networks don't do. Here, that especially means Canadian programming -- high quality Canadian news and information but also drama and variety programming. Do we really want to live in a country that simply doesn't exist when we turn on the TV or the radio? (It's worth remembering that if the private networks do provide Canadian content, it is only because they are forced to by the regulatory regime -- imported content from the U.S. is almost always cheaper and, in the case of drama, draws bigger audiences so bigger ad dollars.)

Purcell MacDonald from Nova Scotia writes: Hey Kate. Why are the private broadcasters having CBC for lunch as far as homegrown programming is concerned? Why are Global and CTV churning out Degrassi, Corner Gas, Falcon Beach, etc. while the CBC is getting by on Mr Dressup reruns from the 70's? I believe that there is no impetus for program development - they get their billion dollar budget and don't have to answer for it. The ONE was an embarrassment before it ever aired. There is no viewer loyalty to the CBC, and with the Olympics gone and Hockey Night in Canada soon to follow, they'll have nothing but reruns of King of Kensington and Seeing Things(actually Louis Delgrande wasn't bad) to fill the dead air space.

Kate: Yes, you raise a really good point here: the CBC seems to have lost its way creatively in that which it used to do so well. Notoriously, somebody at the CBC turned down Corner Gas. (Degrassi, of course, started life on the CBC, so in that regard CTV is just cashing in on the franchise CBC built.) CBC talks a lot about a great new push on drama, but we've yet to see results. There are a couple of new shows this fall whose success or failure will be key to showing whether the current populist philosophy works.

And I don't think we can rely exclusively on the private networks for Canadian drama; yes, CTV has gone far with Corner Gas, but Falcon Beach flopped, and lets remember that Corner Gas and Degrassi are two shows on one night (Monday); otherwise it's wall-to-wall CSI, etc.

Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Thank you for this article Kate. Do you believe that it is in the best interests of the general public to have a public broadcaster? And, would it not be more relevant to the public if the government had no part in choosing the management?

Kate: Yes. I do think we need a public broadcaster, because it provides (or should provide) an alternative voice to the commercial networks. Specifically, in Canada, it provides Canadian programming which the private broadcasters only produce under regulatory pressure. We just seem to have got that proposition all turned around currently, with the CBC so desperate to raise ratings and ad dollars, that it can't always find its public broadcasting voice.

The issue of government appointment of the management is one that many believe is absolutely key to reforming the CBC: they feel the president should be appointed by the board rather than by the government so that he can be held more accountable to the board. The key is to get genuinely arms-length governance on the one hand, yet government oversight of the public trust on the other.

Lawrence Crofton from Mississauga writes: I'd say you're onto something, Kate. Trouble is, there's a vocal community in this country who'd like nothing better than to see the CBC (radio and television) go off the air and be sold for scrap. Any change in the working model for the Corpse is going to have to be done with authority and resolution . Personally, I'd love to see the CBC given the wherewithal to be taken off the ropes that it has inhabited for too long and creating (or at least commissioning) programming with Canada in mind. Will it happen? That's the $64,000 question.

Kate: Will it happen? I do think there is some sense of urgency; that the broadcasting landscape is being radically reshaped and that if the CBC is not rethought now it may be too late. Still, if past history is to be judged, no, we will muddle along the way we always have, with one royal commission after another and no action!

Guillaume Afleck from Ottawa Canada writes: Kate, criticisms I hear of CBC-TV seem to fall into two separate categories, complaints about the News and Current Affairs programming, and criticism of entertainment/culture programming. With news and current affairs, CBCs efforts to address the challenges of representing the wide range of opinion across the country in a fair and balanced manner seem only to have pleased those on the leftish side of Canadian opinion - in fact their views are so well represented on CBC-TV that they are the ones who usually see no bias. On the entertainment side the criticisms are more diverse - why not more formal culture, more informal culture, more Canadian content, more shows that more Canadians want to watch, why not more external funding, more in-house production, more independent production, more cutting edge, more capacity for honest examination/representation of our country, and so on. It seems to me that separating the news/political side of the operation from the cultural/entertainment side of the operation could increase the chances of dealing with these two separate sets of issues in a more thorough and satisfying fashion. It could also increase the audience for cultural/entertainment shows among the large number of homes who have tuned out CBC-TV because of it's political slant. Digital delivery to the majority of homes in Canada removes the bandwith scarcity that made distinct channels a technical/expense hassle. Does this idea have any merit to you? Could this help CBC-TV save the parts of it that are worth saving?…

Kate: I've said I disagree with those who complain of political bias at the CBC and think the issue that's a red herring. But I do think your notion of separate services is interesting for other reasons. People who work on the drama side sometimes complain that the CBC is an organization run by journalists and that they really don't quite grasp the nature of fiction. I think diversity of production sources will be key to getting drama and entertainment back on their feet -- that's one of the reasons why I actually favour a mixed model with the private networks also creating Canadian drama; more chances of success.

What you note about bandwidth is also very pertinent: digital technology can allow broadcasters to split their signals, so they would run high definition in prime time, and then two or more regular signals outside of prime with different programs. For example, PBS currently does that, I believe, so that all its daytime service is not totally taken over by long-distance learning shows. Yes, I think there is huge potential in digital technology for the CBC to target all sorts of different Canadians with different programs, but of course, government will have to pay for the switchover.

D N from Whitby Canada writes: Hello, Kate. Thanks for taking our questions. There are worries from CBC fans like me that the new government will gut the CBC if given the chance and the majority to do so. Do you think this is a fair assessment? I'm intrigued by the possibility of commercial-free TV, but wouldn't that place the network under full control of the government of the day? At least now they have some independent funding from ad-revenue. Final question - I once read that advertisers wouldn't like to see the CBC eliminated or made ad-free as they feel that it would lead to a more limited ad market and higher prices for them. Do you think this is the case?

Kate: I am not one of those who believe there is a plot to gut the CBC in the current government -- I think the government is politically astute enough to realize that radical reform of the CBC is hardly a top priority with its supporters, and that cuts to the CBC always cause an outcry. If there are those Conservatives who hate the "Communist Broadcasting Network" and regard it as a waste of money; there are also some much more sophisticated views of the broadcasting landscape, albeit ones that believe the CBC should not compete with the private sector, including those of Heritage Minister Bev Oda.

The independence of an ad-free CBC could, I think, be guaranteed by its funding formula on the one hand and especially the arms-length structure of its governance on the other, especially giving the board power to appoint the president rather than the government. Ad revenue doesn't come without its own set of strings, after all!

Yes, if private networks might like an ad-free CBC, advertisers would be opposed because it would eliminate a place where they can reach viewers. "I want those eyeballs," one marketing executive told me.

Ginny from Lunenburg writes: Any real, significant change at the CBC will require personnel change at the management level. But as a former CBC employee, I can tell you from some experience that the people currently running the shop are pretty well entrenched. The 2005 lockout was disastrous. Was anyone fired? Nope. English TV and Radio One are floundering, but are changes planned? No, despite the fact that the Vice President of TV has no background in TV, and the Vice President of Radio has no background in Radio. So will anything change under the current regime? Or do we have to wait out Robert Rabinovitch's term? That will take another couple years, and by then it may be too late.

Kate: I think Rabinovitch has been very successful in managing that ever-shrinking budget, finding new sources of revenue here and there, etc. But what the lockout revealed was the lack of vision beyond that balancing act -- a public broadcaster to what end? What has now happened with The One rebounding, does I think leave English television in a position where Richard Stursberg needs a hit, and soon.

Andrew Fergusson from Ottawa writes: During the past couple months, the CBC has been expanding into the new media era of 'at your leisure' radio. And I couldn't be happier, I can enjoy CBC Radio without running into promo girl, Freestyle or Definitely Not the Opera. I religiously listen to As It Happens (the Best of), Quirks and Quarks, Ideas (the Best of), and the Current (the Best of) which are downloaded to my computer on a daily basis. CBC needs to realize that the demographic they are chasing with 'the One', and podcasting are in general alienated with the insipid and non-paid-advertising antics of Freestyle. I, as an 18-24 year old, turn into the CBC and TVO to be exposed to current events and culture, not to be exposed to advertising and mass produced garbage which I can get in greater, yet more refined quantities elsewhere. In short, when will the executives at CBC stop destroying amazing programming and realize that they will never truly be 'network?'

Kate: Yup, you have hit the nail on the head here. How without resorting to commercial gimmickry do you run a public broadcaster that draws a large enough audience to justify its millions in public funding (although that is millions less than most other Western democracies devote to public broadcasting per capita.) And if you are going to resort to commercial gimmickry, at least do it successfully -- the experience with The One seemed to offer the worst of both worlds; questionable programming for a public broadcaster and a ratings disaster too!

You mention Freestyle, the chatty CBC radio afternoon show that so many CBC listeners complain about. In the past, I have come out in favour of Freestyle in theory but not in practice. That is, on the one hand, I agree that Radio has to try and reach some new audiences (more diversity in age and background) and can't just play the music of dead Europeans; on the other hand, Freestyle doesn't strike me as very smart programming and sounds unsure of itself and its audience.

I am going to wrap up here, by noting that it's a really tough nut to crack. An ad-free CBC would abandon the quest for ratings, but it couldn't abandon the quest for audiences. The public broadcaster has to find some way to be intelligently populist.

Thanks for your questions and your great interest in the topic: Canadians love to complain about the CBC but I find the heated discussion the topic generates does tend to confirm those polls that show a majority of Canadians believe it's important to have the CBC.

Kenny Yum, globeandmail.com: Thanks again for joining us, Kate. And to our readers, sorry we couldn't get all your questions answered but feel free to join the discussion.