Globe and Mail article on the CBC by Konrad Yakabuski April 21 2014

From The Globe and Mail, Monday April 21 2014 :

No, the CBC’s not cool. Nor should it be

KONRAD YAKABUSKI

The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Apr. 21 2014, 6:00 AM EDT

“Well, here we are again,” a wistful CBC president Hubert Lacroix began as he outlined the latest round of cuts – $130-million and 657 jobs in all – to afflict the national public broadcaster. And off we’ve gone again into another round of CBC-bashing and rehashing the network’s many failings.

It must be alternately infuriating and demoralizing to work for the CBC. The English-language television broadcaster gets zero public praise. Everyone’s a critic and the private media seem out to delegitimize your very existence. But that’s what you sign up for when you take a job at an institution Canadians not only own, but delight in “reimagining.”

It would all be easier if the broadcaster’s leaders, past and present, weren’t still stuck in some alternate reality, deluded by visions of grandeur and budget envy. They think that, if only Canadians funded their public network the way the British and French fund theirs, the CBC could be all things to all people and ne’er a disparaging word would be heard. In other words, it’s not their fault; it’s ours.

“The CBC, despite the fact that it faces arguably the largest cultural challenge, is the worst financed public broadcaster,” the network’s former head of English services, Richard Stursberg, told a Senate committee this month. “I don’t see any reason why a CBC that is properly focused and properly funded can’t compete.”

The first problem with this idea is that it completely ignores the circumstances in which overseas public broadcasters operate. The British Broadcasting Corp. and France Télévisions are empires under siege, but they are still empires. They have built up powerful political constituencies and set up countless sister networks, on multiple platforms, precisely to keep private competitors out of their space. They face nowhere near the same direct threat from American fare as the English CBC does, and have been able to shape and satisfy public expectations as a result.

The second problem with Mr. Stursberg’s analysis is that it assumes the CBC’s mission is to “compete.” He is hardly alone in thinking that the CBC must chase ratings. That mindset prevails all the way up the food chain. “It is declining viewership that is causing their challenges,” a spokeswoman for Heritage Minister Shelley Glover told Sun News. “It is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want to watch.”

With Ottawa sending that message, it’s little wonder programmers fear that the failure to boost ratings will only give politicians further ammunition to cut their funding. So, next season, Canadians will be treated to Schitt’s Creek and Strange Empire as a CBC desperate to create any buzz it can risks taxpayer money on an “edgier” lineup designed to attract a younger demographic.

Hopeless. It’s not the occasional popular “hit” that is going to make the CBC viable and necessary. It does not have the means or the talent pool to deliver consistently high-quality dramas or comedies that can lure English Canadians back from their constantly improving American favourites.

The CBC claims a share of English TV ratings of about 8 per cent. Without pro hockey, which it will soon lose, the share may be half that. Its comparative advantages lie elsewhere, in public affairs programming that actually reflects the country we live in, not some programmer’s fantasy world.

Thankfully, someone at the CBC gets it.

The same day Mr. Lacroix announced his cuts, the CBC broadcast, in prime time, an in-house documentary that purported to solve the mystery of the Bell of Batoche, a 130-year-old symbol of Métis pride. It encapsulated the history of the North-West Rebellion, Louis Riel and the very reason 19,000 francophones still live in Saskatchewan. These are stories we should all know to appreciate the country we have become. It’s an illustration of the CBC actually fulfilling its mandate, for a change.

It may not be as “cool” as some self-anointed fixers would like. But I shudder at the thought of what a CBC that tries to be any cooler than George Stroumboulopoulos would look like. The ultimate arbiters of cool will never be impressed because cool, by definition, is ephemeral.

Ephemeral is the opposite of what the CBC needs. It needs stable funding, of course. But it also needs managers committed to public broadcasting, rather than imitating entertainment networks in the hopes of landing a better job at one of them. Frankly, it needs to gets serious.

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.

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!

The CBC: Who cares?

I noticed several articles about the CBC in the National Post and Globe and Mail over the last several days. On Saturday, the National Post carried the article "CBC tunes in to a new reality". Also on Saturday, Jeffrey Simpson's column in the Globe and Mail, entitled "A beleaguered CBC should ask itself: Who cares?". And today, in the Globe and Mail, there was an article about the cancellation of a meeting between the Heritage Minister, James Moore, and the CBC's board of directors.

Now, I'm not sure what prompted this sudden spate of articles on the CBC - I was out of the country for two weeks, so may have missed something - but is seems to have been prompted by the fact that the CBC recently requested an advance on its annual public funding to compensate for falling advertising revenues and the fact that this request was turned down by the Minister of Heritage, Mr. Moore.

Also, it appears that there is some controversy over the decision by the CBC to run more U.S. programming in the evening television schedule, in the hope of attracting a larger audience share and thereby boost advertising revenues. Mr. Moore is quoted in today's Globe and Mail article as having said the following on Tout le Monde en Parle:

"The reason that taxpayers provide a subsidy to the CBC is to give each Canadian, in every part of the country and in both official languages, the opportunity to see [Canadian] news, stories and dramas. Frankly, I can tell you I don't like it when I see the CBC cancelling Canadian content, and we see Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune."

Well said, Mr. Moore.

There are several points raised in the articles mentioned above that I could elaborate upon, but since this blog is primarily concerned with CBC Radio Two (or "CBC Radio 2" as the CBC insists on calling it) I'll focus on Mr. Simpson's column.

I found Mr. Simpson's column so insightful that I've copied it below. Have a look.

A beleaguered CBC should ask itself: Who cares?

Jeffrey Simpson

March 14, 2009

Heritage Minister James Moore rejected more funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. this week. Nothing new in that.

Governments have been saying no to CBC for decades. Why?

This government said no in the context of a stimulus budget that showers money everywhere. The few groups that were ignored - academic and medical researchers, for example - complained. Their complaints echoed in the media and in Parliament.

CBC, by contrast, really didn't complain. It just asked quietly for an advance on next year's allocation, according to news reports. In the meantime, the corporation's board will meet Monday to ponder the impact of declining advertising revenue.

The public broadcaster's ongoing dilemma is clear and painful, its response clear and counterproductive.

CBC's public allocations have been declining for years. Per-capita public funding is about a quarter that of public broadcasters in Britain and Germany and less than half that in France. Only New Zealand supports its state-financed public broadcaster less, according to a study by the Nordicity Group, a consulting firm specializing in broadcasting.

CBC executives argue that between 1995 and 2004, CBC received 9 per cent less government funding, while public money for the arts in general rose by 39 per cent. Said CBC president Hubert Lacroix earlier this year, "the last permanent increase in our basic funding goes back to 1973."

Seven years ago, the government gave CBC a discretionary, yearly sum of $60-million for Canadian programming. The Commons heritage committee recommended a per-capita increase to $40 from $33 in CBC's appropriations, instead of the yearly, discretionary sum. The government ignored the committee.

Presidents, chairpersons and CBC union leaders have exhausted themselves pleading CBC's case to governments of both political stripes over many years - to very little, if any, avail.

After Ottawa climbed out of deficit in the mid-1990s, almost every public policy and institution received more money, except CBC, including under the supposedly tight-fisted Harperites. So a shortage of public money cannot explain CBC's woes.

CBC's defensive answer, given privately of course, is that governments always hate the broadcaster because they don't like its news coverage and think that they can penalize it because CBC is a public agency.

A sliver of truth resides in that observation, but that sliver does not explain why other countries' public broadcasters get more. Nor can the explanation be solely that the Harperites have a special grudge against CBC, as they do, because CBC didn't get much from the Liberals either.

Much more plausible by way of explanation is that in the age of media proliferation, CBC is not nearly distinctive enough, so that increasingly people ask: Who cares? The sound that greets CBC's fate has been resounding silence, including from those whom you might expect to defend it.

Listen to NDP Leader Jack Layton, who likes all things public and has seldom seen a cause for which more public money was not needed.
Said he of more money for CBC: "We'll have to look at any request that comes forward very carefully." In other words, even Mr. Layton isn't willing to go to bat for CBC.

Think of Dean Acheson's memorable quip that "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role" and apply it to CBC. It has disillusioned core audiences but not found others that really care.
CBC's answer to funding problems has been massive popularization in the search for audience maximization. A deep disdain for intellectualism pervades both English-language television and radio - or what CBC executive Richard Stursberg, quoting a British government white paper, called "worthy" programming.

The result is an ersatz, albeit Canadianized, private broadcaster calling itself a public one. A tiny handful of CBC board members sharply disagree with this direction, but they have been beaten down. The entire management of English CBC believes in the strategic direction and defends it vigorously.

Management changed Radio 2 into an ersatz private network (minus commercials), but has not (as yet) increased audience share. What CBC achieved was to alienate a chunk of its core audience - the one that really cared about CBC - and replace it with another that is only indifferently attached to CBC because so much of the programming is available elsewhere.

The same phenomenon besets television. The Hour, for example, could just as easily be on MuchMusic or CTV. Political commentary apes that of private television, with discussions revolving not around substance but who is winning, what are the political calculations, who is up and who is down - questions that for most viewers evoke the response: Who cares?

As long, therefore, as CBC pursues this strategic direction, it will have the worst of all worlds in the search for public money. It will have alienated core audiences who might have cared enough to fight, and exchanged them for audiences for whom CBC is just one choice among many, and therefore not worth getting excited about.

Mr. Simpson has captured the very essence of what is wrong with the CBC. In attempting to popularize CBC radio in an attempt to capture a larger audience, the CBC has alienated its core audience and ensured that it will become even more difficult for it to convince the government (and taxpayers) to fund it.

Imagine what would have happened in March 2007 if CBC management had issued an appeal to its listeners, telling its loyal audience that it required more funding to maintain its current programming. Imagine if the CBC had put it as bluntly as this: if we don't get more funding from the government, we'll be forced to cancel classical programming on CBC Radio Two, start importing game show programming from the U.S. for evening television broadcasts and will not renew our licensing agreement for the Hockey Night in Canada theme song.

What would have been the result? Why, Canadians would have been up in arms! Letters would have been written to the editors of the national newspapers, to Members of Parliament, to the Minister of Heritage in support of the CBC, demanding increased funding for the CBC! Loyal Radio Two listeners would have donated money to the CBC in response to PBS-style campaigns for donations! There might have even been people marching in the streets in support of increased funding for the CBC!

Well, if you've been reading this blog or paying attention to recent events, you know what happened. Instead, CBC management tried to implement their programming changes without explaining what their overall plans were and without prior announcements making it clear to listeners what was happening until it was too late. First came the March 2007 programming changes. Then - as best I can recall - further changes in the autumn of 2007, finally culminating in the destruction of the CBC Radio Two programming in September 2008.

What was the result? Of course, letters were written to MPs, to the Minister of Heritage, to the newspapers. People started blogs (such as this one) in protest. People marched in the street in protest. But they were not marching in support of the CBC. No, they were writing letters and protesting against the CBC. So the CBC lost one of its most valuable assets in any fight with the government - the support of its listeners, who also happen to be taxpayers and, more importantly, voters.

So Mr. Simpson is correct. Who cares about funding for the CBC now?

Well, I for one care. In fact, I care quite a bit. I resent the fact that I am funding a public corporation with my tax dollars that does not care one whit for my opinion and that seems determined to run itself into oblivion.

The National Post article states that the CBC funding is currently $34.00 per capita. Note that that is not $34.00 per taxpayer, but $34.00 for every man, woman and child currently living in Canada. If you're a taxpayer, how much are you contributing to the CBC?

Just as a quick check on the figures, we can take the 2008 budget for the CBC as $1,115,424,000 and the population of Canada as 33,212,696 (as of July 2008). The per capita funding thus works out as $33.58. So the figure of $34.00 per capita seems to be correct.

However, if we take the labour force participation in Canada (18,245,100) during 2008 as a proxy for the number of taxpayers, then the CBC funding per taxpayer works out as $61.14. (Yes, I know that this does not include retirees and others who are not in the labour force who also pay taxes, but as I said, I'm using the labour force participation rate as a proxy for the number of taxpayers in Canada. If you have a figure for the number of taxpayers in Canada, you can do the calculation yourself and figure out how much each taxpayer is paying.) So you, if you are paying taxes in Canada, paid (on average) approximately $61.14 for the CBC in 2008.

Well, I for one would like my money back.