An anniversary to remember.

An anniversary for the CBC passed recently and I didn't mention it in this blog. What anniversary was that, you might ask? Why, it was the second anniversary of Phase I of CBC Radio Two's disastrous attempts at restructuring its programming, which began March 19, 2007.

Of course, we didn't know at the time that it was simply Phase I of a larger program. No, the CBC Radio Two listening audience merely thought it was an ill-advised restructuring of the evening programming - the cancellation of the "World at Six" news broadcast, the replacement of "Music for a while" with the much-reviled "Tonic", the replacement of "In Performance" with the cretinous "Canada Live", the cancellation of "Two New Hours" and the introduction of the crapulent "The Signal" and the cancellation of "Brave New Waves" and "Northern Lights". Oh, and I forgot to mention: the cancellation of the "The Arts Report" and Joe Cummings during the "Music and Company" morning broadcasts. Well, I suppose it was unfair that the evening schedule should bear the brunt of the restructuring.

Following Phase I of the CBC restructuring was Phase II - the cancellation of "Symphony Hall", "The Singer and the Song" and the removal of Howard Dyck from "Saturday Afternoon at the Opera". And, following swiftly on the heels of Phase II like a rabid dog chasing a postie came Phase III, the cancellation of "Here's to You", "Studio Sparks" and "Sound Advice", and the replacement of "Disc Drive" with "Radio 2 Drive" and "Music and Company" with "Radio 2 Morning". The announcement of Phase III, of course, resulted in a storm of protest, letters written to the editors of newspapers, protests in the streets on April 11, 2008, the creation of Facebook groups in protest and much general hand-wringing. But it all came to naught. The CBC continued on its merry way in spite of the protests of its listeners.

Two years have passed since the beginning of Phase I and the CBC is very much in the news lately. Last week the CBC announced program cancellations and staff reductions in response to a budget shortfall, blamed by CBC management on the loss of revenues from television advertising during this global recession. The CBC has even announced that they may have to resort to asset sales - the sale of buildings owned by the CBC - to meet their budget. Of course, global recession aside, the lack of funding increases for the CBC over the past several years and the Conservative government's refusal to provide additional funding to the CBC during this time of crisis can also be blamed for the current mess the CBC finds itself in.

But who is really to blame for the crisis at the CBC? Greedy mortgage lenders, bankers and insurance companies who precipitated the global financial crises leading to the current recession and the resulting loss of advertising revenue? Sub-prime borrowers who borrowed too much money to buy houses they couldn't afford and whose subsequent defaults on their mortgages lead to the uncertain value of the asset-backed commercial paper that the banks invested in? Alan Greenspan, for lowering interest rates in 2001, only to initiate a program of interest rate increases in recent years leading to sub-prime borrowers being unable to meet their mortgage payments when their adjustable-rate mortgages reset to a higher interest rate? Canadian voters for electing governments who failed to increase funding for the CBC over the past several years? Or perhaps CBC management, for failing to adequately manage their working capital such that they could withstand a recession?

I suspect that the answer is, to some degree, all of the above. But there is another aspect to consider.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine that a right-wing government is in power, a government which does not believe in the need for a public broadcaster and which does not have the moral courage to propose the dismantling of the public broadcaster, but instead prefers to let the public broadcaster wither and die through lack of funding. Suppose too that the public broadcaster, in a misguided attempt to make itself more relevant, has gutted its programming, replacing a classical music schedule with a hodge-podge of contemporary, bland music, thereby alienating its core audience to the extent that that core audience feels compelled to protest the public broadcaster's actions to their Members of Parliament, to the Minister of Heritage, to the national newspapers, to the public broadcaster's Board of Governors - in short, to anyone who will listen. The right-wing government, seeing the public dissatisfaction with the public broadcaster, views this as a green light to continue their program of starving the public broadcaster in order to eventually abolish the public broadcaster through attrition. Suppose that the public broadcaster's once-loyal audience, who would have previously protested job layoffs, program cancellations and regional station closings and may have attempted to counter the right-wing government's attempts to kill the public broadcaster just can't be bothered anymore because they feel they have been betrayed by the public broadcaster and are no longer willing to stand up for the public broadcaster. Would the public broadcaster find itself in a state similar to the state that the CBC currently finds itself in? Perhaps. Could the public broadcaster be blamed for not only giving the right-wing government the ammunition with which to shoot it, but also giving it the gun and instructions on how to use it? Most certainly. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. What goes around, comes around. Insert your favourite aphorism here.

Of course we're all losers in this scenario, especially those CBC employees still working at the CBC, the CBC employees who have taken early retirement, either forced or in disgust at recent actions of CBC management, as well as the laid-off CBC employees who are all entirely blameless for the misguided actions of CBC management during the last two years. Oh, but I almost forgot, there are some winners. Namely, those members of CBC management who will still receive their bonuses for 2008.

Whither the CBC? Wither the CBC!

The National Post has been running a series of articles and columns for the past week on the future of the CBC. The title for this series was "The State of the CBC", but it could just as easily have been titled "Whither the CBC" or, more appropriately, "Wither the CBC". In any case, a number of well-known columnists, commentators and pundits have written about the current state of the CBC and its prospects for the future.

On Saturday, Mr. Robert Fulford provided this article, titled "An on-air bureaucracy". His submission was accompanied by a column titled "What Canada wants" by Ms. Kirstine Layfield, identified at the foot of the column as being an "executive director of programming for CBC Television".

I've copied them both below. Have a look at both, and see for yourself whether Ms. Layfield's column is not a sterling example of the type of CBC-speak that Mr. Fulford decries.

First, Mr. Fulord:

An on-air bureaucracy

Robert Fulford, National Post Published: Saturday, March 21, 2009

Ottawa won't close down the CBC, no matter how many contributors to the National Post yearn to see the end of it. A minority government could never stand the storm of public anger that would follow, egged on by an army of self-righteous journalistic defenders.

CBC viewers and listeners, it's true, are a minority, but even if only 100,000 Canadians actually love it, 100,000 Canadians can make an unbearable amount of noise, particularly if they believe they are on the side of virtue, truth and "Canadian values." Even governments with large majorities, while despising the CBC for chronic unfairness, have never seriously threatened its existence. They have grudgingly allowed it to remain alive -- though keeping it, from the CBC's point of view, on starvation rations.

That also means that Ottawa won't substantially increase the CBC's funds in the imaginable future, no matter how much the company's president begs. A generous grant to the CBC in this economic era would be even more politically troublesome than killing it, even if Stephen Harper wanted to be generous.

For now, at least, change will have to come from inside. That's just as well, because that's where the problems lie. The most profound failures, in style and attitude and ambition, can be found among CBC employees, both junior and senior, and the corporate culture they have jointly created. It's true the government sometimes interferes and has always burdened the corporation with far more tasks than it can be expected to accomplish. But that's nothing beside the self-created atmosphere in which CBC employees work.

They are over-managed and over-manipulated, wretched servants of focus groups and demography charts. So far as a viewer and a listener can tell, they are not excited about their work and do not expect that we will be. Many crucial figures among them are pure managers who could work anywhere with equal satisfaction.

They lack the animation that comes from a belief that what you are doing is unique and valuable.

In mass communications, which demands spontaneity and imagination, they show little originality and barely a hint of daring. This comes through when they acknowledge, condescendingly, that they are appealing to the young. The melancholy results usually appear to be the work of 30-year-olds instructed by 45-year-olds on how to appeal to 20-year-olds.

Broadcasters who came to the CBC with dreams of making great programs instead find themselves conscripted into a nightmare of sclerotic bureaucracy in which everything matters more than broadcasting. What counts most is the endless, baffling shuffle of titles and responsibilities, a byzantine turf warfare.

To work at the CBC is to live in a world of memos, usually concocted by bosses whose insecurity dictates that they write in incomprehensible gibberish. Memos explain that the bosses want to "Ensure that all managers have development plans based on leadership competencies according to identified timelines," which are "part of ongoing efforts to better align resources and workflow with evolving needs." (I've lifted two sentences from two different --but both actual--CBC memos.) The tone is deadening, joyless, self-defeating.

We can see the results on The National, the news flagship of CBC television, an emblem of all that's wrong. The journalists delivering the news are afflicted with an emotional flatness that seems to be built into the regulations. Feeling has been so carefully banished that every story is delivered in the same tone, right down to the sing-song ending. Journalists manage a thin smile when there's an item intended to be amusing and pull a long face when describing death. That's their emotional range, A to B. They apparently imitate the sternest and dullest of the U. S. network journalists. They look as if they're terrified that something bad will happen -- not in the news, but to them.

Richard Stursberg, the vice-president of English-language services, knows the CBC culture has to change and hopes to lead the revival. Despite his curious habit of declaring programming triumphs that nobody else has noticed, he's emerged as an average executive with average plans whose results will be average, if that. The only hope of those dreaming about a resurrected CBC is that there are fresh and largely unknown talents sprouting inside the corporation and that their up-from-below pressure will eventually work serious changes. No one else is going to do it.

Next, Ms. Layfield:

What Canada wants

Kirstine Layfield, National Post Published: Saturday, March 21, 2009

People say the CBC is chasing eyeballs. Personally, I have never met an eyeball. I have met Canadians from across our great country who have eyes -- and ears and hearts and minds. They have a thirst to understand their world from a Canadian perspective and a desire to hear their own stories and music. This is the audience of the CBC.

Lately, there has been much debate concerning the CBC. Many politicians have suggested that the CBC should focus on "service," not "ratings." Yet of all people, politicians should know only too well that being a public service requires the support of the public. The public needs to be engaged, its needs and desires need to be understood and acted upon. Its support and approval needs to be earned. In the case of politicians, the public votes to give them a mandate.

In media terms, a public broadcaster needs to have the input, support and the "vote" of its public audience to know that it is on track and providing a valued service. Success for a public broadcaster must be measured by the extent to which the public supports and endorses its programs.

The BBC understands this.

The BBC is fully supported by U. K. taxpayers. It is in the envied position of requiring no advertising dollars to pay for the service. BBC Television, widely regarded as the best public television service in the world, makes provocative documentaries, thoughtful dramas, engaging comedies and is renowned for its news coverage. But that's not all: Last week, it ran the Hollywood film Meet the Parents. It airs U. S. series -- Damages, The Wire and Family Guy -- back to back. On weekends, it runs Formula One racing and professional sports such as football.

The BBC is not chasing "eyeballs for advertisers." Rather, it is in service of its public, providing a wide breadth of programming.

And its content looks similar to what the CBC has been broadcasting these past few years. We too respond to our Canadian public with a variety of great content -- a range of genres from arts to quiz shows, the classics to popular music, a vast majority proudly homegrown and broadcast across multi-platform services.

The CBC is battling for ground in the ad market because if we didn't, half of our television budget would disappear. Services such as Radio 3 and commercial-free CBC radio, programming in eight aboriginal languages and commercial-free kids programming come with a cost that the government appropriation does not entirely cover at a price of $34 per Canadian. And it can't be imagined in these economic times that our government funding would, or even should, increase.

So the CBC competes with private broadcasters. But what is a private broadcaster in Canada anyway?

Nordicity, an independent firm specializing in broadcasting, valued the federal regulations that provide private broadcasters with the right to substitute U. S. content at between $270-million and $330-million. Other provincial and federal government subsidies such as tax credits and the Canadian Television Fund add another $165-million in cash support to the privates. Canada, in short, has a heavily subsidized media industry in which private companies compete for public money, and the CBC, in turn, competes for advertising dollars.

And by all measures, the CBC is working, engaging more radio listeners than ever. We are producing the most Canadian content -- indeed, our spending on Canadian programs is more than all the privates combined. Our television shows are watched by 30% more Canadians than just three years ago. In fact, for the first time in our history an overwhelmingly Canadian prime-time schedule of homegrown dramas, comedies, documentaries, current affairs and sports has drawn more Canadian viewers than the overwhelmingly U. S. schedules of the privates. Cbc.ca is the number one news and information Web site in Canada.

A young man named Amaar remarked that when watching CBC's Little Mosque on the Prairie, for the first time he heard his name describe a character who was not a terrorist. Family viewers gather to watch Heartland from Calgary. Viewers watch 50-year legacy Hockey Night in Canada and yell at Ron and Don in English -- and in Punjabi. People hear more variety of Canadian music on Radio 2 than they ever had access to before.

People are talking about the CBC. Canadians are watching and listening to the CBC. And for the CBC, that is the vote that counts most of all.

Aside from the irritating rah-rah tone of the column, I find a couple of factual points to dispute. The first is the statement:

"Nordicity, an independent firm specializing in broadcasting, valued the federal regulations that provide private broadcasters with the right to substitute U. S. content at between $270-million and $330-million. Other provincial and federal government subsidies such as tax credits and the Canadian Television Fund add another $165-million in cash support to the privates. Canada, in short, has a heavily subsidized media industry in which private companies compete for public money, and the CBC, in turn, competes for advertising dollars."

The right of private broadcasters to substitute U.S. content may indeed be worth $270 - $330 million, but of course this is not cash in the hand for the private broadcaster. So no public subsidy here.

Secondly, tax credits have value only in so far as income is earned - once again, it is not cash in the hand paid out by the government to the public broadcaster. So, once again, no public subsidy.

Indeed, the Canadian Television Fund may provide cash to the private broadcaster, but I have no information on the extent of this funding or what percentage of the $165 million it constitutes. I'll leave that as an exercise for the interested reader to pursue.

Another point I object to is this:

"And by all measures, the CBC is working, engaging more radio listeners than ever."

Well, perhaps for CBC Radio One, but CBC Radio Two has been a dismal failure, losing listeners in all of the major Canadian cities surveyed by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. Why not address this point as well.

And finally, I find these statements laughable:

"Lately, there has been much debate concerning the CBC. Many politicians have suggested that the CBC should focus on "service," not "ratings." Yet of all people, politicians should know only too well that being a public service requires the support of the public. The public needs to be engaged, its needs and desires need to be understood and acted upon. Its support and approval needs to be earned. In the case of politicians, the public votes to give them a mandate.

In media terms, a public broadcaster needs to have the input, support and the "vote" of its public audience to know that it is on track and providing a valued service. Success for a public broadcaster must be measured by the extent to which the public supports and endorses its programs.

The BBC understands this."

Well, clearly, the CBC doesn't. How do you account for the protests that have been taking place for the past two years over the changes in CBC Radio Two? Are these protests not an example of the "input" and "vote" of its audience?

The CBC must be able to face up to reality if it's to be successful, and Ms. Layfield's column is an indication that the CBC will continue to delude itself into believing that it has the support of Canadians.

Advertising on CBC Radio Two? Why not?

The following letter appeared in today's "Letters to the Editor" section of the Globe and Mail:

Tuned in, tuned out

GERHARD BASSLER

March 21, 2009

St. John's -- It is difficult to understand why CBC president Hubert Lacroix is so eager to keep assuring us there will be no advertising on radio (CBC Plan To Freeze Executive Salaries, Cut Bonuses Gets Poor Reception - March 20). He might as well introduce advertising on Radio 2; it goes with the kind of wishy-washy pop music that has replaced the CBC's unique and culturally distinct classical music and jazz programming.

The new listeners Mr. Lacroix is trying to attract would most likely not object to having the programming spiced up with advertising.

Advertising would have the additional advantage of funding bonus payments to reward CBC executives for having successfully gotten rid of an old community of loyal listeners and dedicated supporters.

Well said, Mr. Bassler!