My summary of the CHPC meeting with CBC execs held May 1 2008

Mr. Hubert Lacroix, President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada, Mr. Richard Stursberg, Executive Vice-President, English Services and Mr. Sylvain Lafrance, Executive Vide-President, French Services, appeared before the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on May 1 2008.

I was not able to attend the meeting but instead watched the video of the meeting on the Parliament video site here.

I’ve attempted to summarize those portions of the meeting relevant to the changes in the CBC Radio Two programming that have taken place over the past year and those changes that have been announced for September. I have based this summary on the notes that I took while watching the video since I do not have access to a transcript of the meeting; consequently, any errors or omissions are mine alone. If you know where a transcript of the proceedings can be found, please let me know.

During his opening remarks, Mr. Schellenberger reminded the committee members that questions that overstepped the bounds of the committee’s mandate according to the Broadcasting Act, or that threatened the CBC’s operational independence, were out of order and would not be considered.

I find it interesting that Mr. Schellenberger felt it necessary to make this remark. The Broadcasting Act clearly states:

40. The Corporation is ultimately accountable, through the Minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs.

So, if Members of Parliament are not allowed to question CBC Executives concerning decisions that are relevant to “the conduct of its affairs”, then who is? Who is to oversee the CBC, if not the elected representatives of the taxpayers, namely, the Members of Parliament?

Fortunately, the Members of Parliament ignored the instruction of the Chairman and proceeded to ask questions concerning recent operational decisions of the CBC.

Mr. Hubert Lacroix then made an opening statement, during which he commented on the Committee’s recent report and the proposed MOU between the government (I assume) and the Corporation. Mr. Lacroix also stated that during the four months that he has held the position of CEO he has met with employees and “stakeholders that work in broadcasting” across the country. It is interesting, however, that at no point in his opening remarks did Mr. Lacroix state that he had met with Radio Two listeners to attempt to understand their concerns, even though there have been protests concerning the Radio Two programming changes taking place for the past year, and certainly within the last month. Are the CBC listeners not important to the conduct of the Corporation?

Mr. Lacroix also stated that in the four months since he has become CEO the CBC has focused on three priorities: its people, its programs and its push to move forward with its strategic initiatives. Once again, conspicuous by its absence is any mention of serving the needs of listeners. Where are the CBC Radio listeners in Mr. Lacroix’s priorities? Clearly not among the top three.

Mr. Lacroix also alluded to the recent protests by the CBC Radio Two listeners on April 11, stating that not all listeners are satisfied with change. However, Mr. Lacroix stated, CBC management will not shy away from making hard changes. What does this mean, precisely? Even if the majority of CBC Radio Two listeners are not in favour of the programming changes, CBC Radio executives are determined to push their changes through? Where will it end? Until there are no listeners left?

During the questions from the committee members that followed, Mr. Bill Siksay, Member of Parliament for Burnaby-Douglas, questioned the CBC executives about the recent changes that have been made to classical programming on Radio Two. Mr. Siksay reminded the executives that in many rural areas there are no alternatives to CBC Radio as very few commercial radio stations feature classical music. Mr. Siksay asked the CBC executives why listeners were being abandoned, especially in Vancouver, where listeners have been loyal to Radio Two?

Mr. Lacroix replied that the recent changes to the Radio Two programming are intended to make Radio Two the greatest showcase of Canadian music in the country and to expose listeners to other genres. Mr. Lacroix also reiterated the point that classical music will remain the most important genre on CBC Radio Two. Furthermore, Mr. Lacroix stated, in September the CBC will begin a streaming audio service on the internet to “stream classical music 24/7”.

This seems to be the crux of the CBC’s argument. (I find it interesting that the CBC executives have not felt the need to promote this viewpoint with Canadians prior to making the programming changes, but instead believe it’s acceptable to make the changes first, then explain their rationale. But this is another topic for discussion later.) Their argument, as I understand it, goes like this: the CBC is Canada’s public broadcaster. Therefore, it is the CBC’s mandate to promote Canadian artists, from every musical genre and every ethnic group represented in Canada. If this means that CBC Radio Two becomes a hodge-podge of music, everything from country music to jazz to pop to classical, so be it. It’s all in the name of cultural diversity! So what if no one actually listens to it!

The problem with this, of course, is that there is no focus on the listener. What does the listener want to hear? There is no focus on the quality of the music. Is it of sufficient quality to be played on Canada’s national broadcasting service? There is no focus on educating the listener. Is the music being featured on Radio Two accepted as being one of the great performances that deserves to be heard?

What if this approach to content was taken by, for example, the National Gallery of Canada? Suppose the National Gallery decided to focus primarily on Canadian artists, rather than considering the merits of the art? Would Canada be better served by being exposed to more Canadian art, albeit at the expense of other works of art from other countries, including the great masterpieces from Europe from previous centuries? Would this not be considered a somewhat provincial attitude?

What if this approach to content was taken by public libraries? What if public libraries in Canada decided to feature Canadian writers, at the expense of other authors from other countries. Would Canadians be better served by having access to more Canadian authors, even if best-sellers from other countries or the classic literature from other countries and other eras was not available, or was still available but not as widely?

Mr. Ed Fast, Member of Parliament from Abbotsford, pointed out that four of the finalists from the “Canadian Idol” competition had backgrounds in classical and choral music. Mr Fast also expressed concern that, as CBC scales back on classical music, fewer Canadians would develop an appreciation for classical music. Mr. Fast asked the CBC executives how they would measure the impact of their decision to reduce classical music on CBC Radio Two.

Mr. Lacroix reiterated his statement that Radio Two would become a showcase for Canadian talent in other genres and that “classical is not going away” on Radio Two, merely sharing the airwaves to better reflect other genres.

Mr. Fast then asked whether the same goal could not have been achieved by establishing another FM channel, leaving Radio Two as a mostly classical channel. Mr. Fast asked whether other options were considered and what consultation took place before these changes were implemented.

Mr. Stursberg stated that studies and consultations took place over the three previous years and that these consultations were the “most far-reaching” in the history of the CBC. Mr. Stursberg also reiterated the point that access to classical music would continue on Radio Two and that a new classical channel would be featured on the internet. Mr. Stursberg also pointed out that 30,000 pieces of music are released in Canada each year, yet only 240 pieces are played on radio. Mr. Stursberg stated that there is a “vast commercial landscape that is not heard” and that the shift in strategy on Radio Two was not meant to denigrate classical music, but instead intended to expose Canadians to music that they have had little access to in the past.

Well, this is all very interesting. If studies and consultations had taken place in the three years prior to the programming changes being implemented, don’t you think your or I (as loyal Radio Two listeners) would have heard about it? Don’t you think there would have been discussions on the CBC web site, on CBC Radio Two itself, in newspaper articles, in town hall meetings, on phone-in shows (on “Cross-country Check-up” perhaps) ? Instead, the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming that were introduced on March 19, 2007, were sprung upon an unsuspecting listening audience with little or no warning. This constitutes the “most far-reaching” consultation in the history of the CBC? What does the CBC do when it want to surprise someone?

As for the statement that there are 30,000 pieces of music released each year yet only 240 get commercial airplay, well, perhaps there is a good reason that only 240 get commercial airplay (if indeed these statistics are true, I have no way of knowing). Could it be that only 240 deserve to be heard? Is Radio Two to become a dumping ground for Canadian content that no one else wants?

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia, Member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis, stated that he has noticed the change in mix on Radio Two and that if one is looking for classical music, it is getting to the point that “Radio Two is not the place to go” as it is becoming “hit and miss – lounge music, then jazz”. Mr Scarpaleggia also suggest that if the music mix becomes too broad, then in major markets it will get to the point that listeners will disengage from Radio Two and CBC Radio Two’s audience share will fall. Those who want to hear pop music will go to commercial radio. Mr. Scarpaleggia wondered: what will happen if the CBC executives appear before this committee in the future, after CBC Radio’s market share has fallen to one percent (from the current three percent)?

Mr. Lacroix replied that CBC Radio is attempting to replicate the depth and analysis currently devoted to classical music in other genres and that classical music will remain in the 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM timeslot. CBC Radio Two listeners will still know where to go to hear classical music. Mr. Lacroix stated that he would be disappointed if Radio Two listeners moved to other channels and did not “open up to other genres”.

Mr. Scarpaleggia replied that the CBC Radio Two listener may not be able to listen to CBC Radio Two during the 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM timeslot and may want to hear classical in his or her car, or on the kitchen radio. In that case, will the CBC Radio Two listener be lost forever? (The answer to that question is yes, of course the listener will be lost forever. But I realize it was a rhetorical question.) Mr. Scarpaleggia asked if the CBC would create another radio station, if it had sufficient funding.

Mr. Stursberg stated that the CBC could not afford to build another FM radio network. Mr. Stursberg also stated that, as a result of market research, it was becoming clearer that the CBC Radio Two audience was becoming older. It was also clear that the prevailing view that the audience would “grow into Radio Two” was not taking place. Radio listeners in their 40s and 50s were not moving to Radio Two. Therefore, Mr. Stursberg stated, Radio Two would have to be repositioned and, by doing so, would serve the Canadian music industry better. Mr. Stursberg also stated, surprisingly, that he was “not too worried about losing the audience”.

Mr. Michal Chong, Member of Parliament for Wellington-Halton Hills, made several points concerning Radio Two. Mr. Chong compared CBC Radio Two’s decision to revamp its programming to Coca-Cola’s decision to introduce “New Coke” in 1985, stating that the CBC was alienating its core audience. Mr. Chong asked why, if the CBC was interested in showcasing new artists, they were putting new artists on FM radio instead of on the internet. Mr. Chong pointed out that FM listeners tend to be an older demographic, whereas younger listeners tend to listen on-line more often. Mr. Chong also suggested that if the CBC wanted to showcase diversity, a third FM band would be required as is commonly the case with public broadcasters in Europe.

Mr. Siksay then asked whether the CBC executives had any market share data available to judge the success of their programming changes. Clearly, the subject of the discussion had been the changes to CBC Radio Two, yet Mr. Stursberg persisted in trumpeting the audience share of CBC Radio One and CBC Television before finally stating, with an apparent straight face, that no erosion had been seen in the Radio Two audience, and none was expected!

Mr. Siksay asked whether audience erosion had not occurred in Vancouver and Mr. Stursberg replied that it had not. Mr. Stursberg also stated that the CBC would not have a clear sense of the CBC’s market share “until the beginning of next year”, after the new programming had been launched in September.

Mr. Siksay then asked: when did the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming begin? Mr. Stursberg, showing himself to be a master of the understatement, replied that some “small changes” had been made in the past year.

Mr. Siksay then asked whether the CBC did not survey its audience to determine the reaction to these changes and Mr. Stursberg replied that the CBC does not survey its audience, relying instead on the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. Mr. Stursberg reiterated the point that the CBC has not seen any erosion in market share.

I find Mr. Stursberg’s remarks preposterous. Of course the CBC executives have access to market share data and of course they can assess the impact of the changes in the programming on CBC Radio Two’s market share! They have a full year’s worth of data to assess, from the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot, when “Music for Awhile” and “In Performance” were replaced by the crapulent “Tonic” and even the more crapulent “Canada Live”. Unfortunately, members of the public do not have access to this data. While it is true that the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement (BBM) provides access to its "Top Line Radio Reports" here, the fact is that this data covers the time period from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM Monday to Sunday as one single value - hardly granular enough for a member of the public to determine if, for example, CBC Radio Two has lost listeners in the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot during weekdays. One would expect that if the effects on audience share of the move away from classical music would have been felt, it would be in this timeslot. And, the fact is, the BBM have compiled a full years' worth of data for the CBD to analyze - and the CBC, as a subscriber to their service, receives data that is much more specific than available to the general public. If the changes in CBC Radio Two’s evening schedule, first launched on March 19 2007, were such a smashing success, as the CBC executives would have us believe, doesn’t it make sense that the CBC executives would be willing to highlight this success? Or perhaps this experiment has not been so successful after all, and the CBC executives are unwilling to admit this?

After further questioning the meeting was adjourned, and Mr. Schellenberger thanked the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

I find all of this quite astonishing. After a year of programming changes we finally hear, in a public forum, CBC Radio management’s rationale for the changes that have been taking place on Radio Two. If you were the executive of a large corporation planning to implement an unprecedented change in your product, wouldn’t you prepare your customers carefully for such a change? Wouldn’t you advertise this change well in advance, preparing your customer for the change so that, when it did happen, the customer would be prepared for it and perhaps even be looking forward to it? And, before making such a change in your product, wouldn’t you survey your customer base to make sure that your customers were receptive to such changes?

Nothing of the sort has happened in this case. Instead, CBC Radio has attempted to force these programming changes down the throat of their audience and, what is worse, appear to be completely oblivious to the impact that it has had on their audience. They are not willing to change their course and it appears that there is no government body that is willing or able to make them change their course.

What is the Canadian taxpayer to do when a Crown corporation begins to run amok?

My letter to the members of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, April 30 2008

I sent the following letter (as an e-mail, I'll follow up by sending letters by postal mail) last night to each of the Members of Parliament listed below:

• Bill Siksay, NDP culture critic
• Denis Coderre, Liberal Heritage critic
• John Godfrey, Liberal party
• Jim Abbott, Parliamentary Secretary for Heritage
• Gary Schellenberger, Chair of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
• Maria Mourani, Vice Chair of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
• Andy Scott Vice Chair of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
• Michael D. Chong, Conservative party
• Dean Del Mastro, Conservative party
• Ed Fast, Conservative party
• Hedy Fry, Liberal party
• Luc Malo Bloc Quebecois
• Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal party

The meeting of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage at 3:30 PM today will be televised, according to the meeting notice. Have a look on CPAC and let's see what our elected representatives have to say to the CBC executives!

It is my understanding that there will be a meeting of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on May 1, 2008, and that Mr. Hubert Lacroix, Mr. Sylvain Lafrance and Mr. Richard Stursberg have been invited to the meeting. I understand that the purpose of the meeting is a "Study of Plans and Priorities of CBC/Radio-Canada". I am writing to bring to your attention the following points, which I believe should be especially relevant for such a discussion:

1. I, and many other Canadians, do not believe that CBC Radio is adequately serving the needs and interests of Canadians.

2. I do not believe that CBC Radio management is attempting to solicit the opinions of the CBC Radio listening audience in a manner which allows the listening audience to have a meaningful voice in the choice of programming.

3. I believe CBC Radio management is making programming decisions which do not reflect the needs and interests of Canadians and is doing so based on information that they are unwilling to share with the CBC Radio listening audience.

4. I believe that CBC Radio is unwilling to let listeners comment on the programming changes that have already been made and are operating CBC Radio in an aura of secrecy that is not acceptable for Canada's public broadcasting system.

I provide the following as evidence for each of the above points:

1. I, and many other Canadians, do not believe that CBC Radio is adequately serving the needs and interests of Canadians.

Please see the petition concerning the increasing amount of pop music played on CBC Radio One at the following web site:

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/stopcbcpop.

To date (April 30, 2008) this petition has been signed by 2,001 individuals.

Please see the petitions concerning the changes made to the CBC Radio Two programming schedule on March 19, 2007 at:

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/returnclassicalmusictocbcradio

and

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/cbcradio2.

To date (April 30, 2008) these petitions have been signed by 248 and 5,004 individuals, respectively.

Please see the membership of the Facebook group "Save Classical Music at the CBC" and the comments made by these members. To date (April 30, 2008) this group has 15,038 members.

Please see the membership of the Facebook group "Save the CBC Radio Orchestra". To date (April 30, 2008) this group has 7,673 members.

Please see the comments made on the Facebook event page for the "Raise a Ruckus for Radio Two", held on April 11, 2008 in cities across Canada.

Please see the comments made concerning the recent programming changes to the evening schedule of CBC Radio Two at the following web sites:

http://www.insidethecbc.com/r2evenings

http://www.insidethecbc.com/newshowdeets#comments

http://www.insidethecbc.com/newr2

Please see the newspaper column written by Mr. Hugh Anderson in the Montreal Gazette on April 9 2007 at this address:

http://www.publicairwaves.ca/index.php?page=1838

Please see the newspaper column written by Mr. Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail on March 29 2008 at this address:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20080329.COSIMP29%2FTPStory%2F%3Fquery%3Djeffrey%2Bsimpson&ord=156092935&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

Please see the newspaper columns written by Mr. Russell Smith in the Globe and Mail on March 13 and March 20, 2008:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20080313.RUSSELL13%2FTPStory%2F%3Fquery%3Drussell%Bsmith&ord=114216126&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20080320.wrussell20%2FBNStory%2FEntertainment%2F&ord=114191767&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

2. I do not believe that CBC Radio management is attempting to solicit the opinions of the CBC Radio listening audience in a manner which allows the listening audience to have a meaningful voice in the choice of programming.

The changes made to the evening programming of CBC Radio Two on March 19, 2007 were made without consulting the CBC Radio Two listening audience and without providing advance notice of the planned changes. There was no opportunity for the CBC Radio Two listening audience to comment on the planned changes before they were introduced. Instead, these programming changes were launched on March 19 2007 as a fait accompli.Subsequent changes to the weekend programming and the recently announced changes to the daytime schedule were also made without consulting the listening audience. The result has been a storm of protest from CBC Radio Two listeners, as noted in point #1 above.

3. I believe CBC Radio management is making programming decisions which do not reflect the needs and interests of Canadians and is doing so based on information that they are unwilling to share with the CBC Radio listening audience.

CBC Radio management has alluded to public consultation that was done prior to the programming changes being announced. I refer you to an article in the March 19 2007 Globe and Mail in which Ms. Jennifer McGuire is quoted as saying: "we have talked to all the organizations. We talked to composers. We talked to them when we started the study [to overhaul CBC Radio] and when we were thinking about what it meant in terms of programming changes ... That conversation continues to be ongoing." However, conspicuous by its absence is any mention of consulting the CBC Radio listening audience.

CBC Radio management has also referred to an "arts and culture study" which is driving many of the recent programming changes. In the meeting report of the New Music Community and CBC Radio, it is reported that CBC Radio is unwilling to make this study public as it is an "internal document". You may view the entire meeting report at the following web site:

http://www.stopcbcpop.ca/CBC_New%20Music_Dec05.htm

To my knowledge, the management of CBC Radio has never released the contents of this report to any interested group.

4. I believe that CBC Radio is unwilling to let listeners comment on the programming changes that have already been made and are operating CBC Radio in an aura of secrecy that is not acceptable for Canada's public broadcasting system.

Although the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule was launched on March 19 2007, there has been no public forum accessible from CBC Radio Two's web site for listeners to comment on the new programming. There is a web site (http://www.insidethecbc.com) that claims to be the "official" CBC Radio blog, but this site has been closed to further public comments on the new CBC Radio Two evening schedule since April 10, 2007. Furthermore, since there is no link to this web site on the CBC Radio Two web site, I do not believe it is known to many listeners or users of the CBC Radio Two web site. There is also a link to provide feedback to CBC Radio (the "Tell Us What You Think" link) but this does not allow one to read comments left by other listeners, and there is no means to see replies left by CBC Radio management. Subsequent changes to the weekend programming have similarly been introduced without allowing CBC Radio Two listeners the opportunity to comment on the programming changes.

I am writing to protest against the behaviour of CBC Radio management since, by excluding the participation of the listening audience in the operation of CBC Radio, CBC Radio management is not adhering to the requirements of the Broadcasting Act, 1991. I am referring specifically to the following clause:

3.(1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that

a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians

The Broadcasting Act, 1991 also states:

40. The Corporation is ultimately accountable, through the Minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs.

I therefore urge you to recommend that CBC Radio management take the following specific actions when planning future programming changes:

1. Establish a web site where listeners can post comments. All comments should be permitted, except those that are derogatory, defamatory, use profanity or are otherwise unacceptable in a public forum. The comments should be visible by all users of the site.

2. Post the "arts and culture survey" mentioned above on the CBC Radio web site, with a link that is easily found on the main page of the CBC Radio web site.

3. Release any other surveys of the listening audience that have been done in the past three years and that are being used to justify any further programming changes.

4. Announce any further programming changes three months in advance of their implementation. These announcements should be made on the CBC Radio web site, with a link that is easily found on the main page of the CBC Radio web site.

5. Solicit listener feedback on any programming changes before they are implemented and display this feedback on the CBC Radio web site, with a link to this feedback that is easily found on the main page of the CBC Radio web site. CBC Radio management should not implement any future programming changes if the weight of public opinion, as determined through the feedback received, is not in favour of the proposed programming changes.

6. Establish a Listener's Council, formed from volunteers from the listening audience, performers and members of the arts and culture community to participate in the discussion and implementation of any future programming changes.

I believe that the above recommendations, if implemented by CBC Radio management, will be a good first step in returning CBC Radio to those who deserve to have a voice in the conduct of the corporation - the shareholders in the corporation, who also happen to be the taxpayers of Canada.

Sincerely,

James Wooten

Finally, a reply!

After having sent letters to Mr. Gary Schellenberger, Mr. Maka Kotto, Mr. Andy Scott and Mr. Jim Abbott requesting that the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage "encourage CBC Radio management to make it possible for CBC Radio Two listeners to express their opinions in an open, public forum" I found I was at a loss. What should I do next? CBC Radio management was proving to be very efficient at ignoring my letters. I took a break from my new-found hobby of public activism.

Then, in mid-April, I received a letter from Mr. Gary Schellenberger, chair of the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. My faith in the system was, for the briefest moment, renewed! Until I read the letter.

Now, I have to give credit to Mr. Gary Schellenberger (or his office) for responding to my letter. I appreciated very much the fact that my opinions were being acknowledged and that someone was taking the time to respond. This is how democracy should work! Yet, the response seemed somewhat lacking in thoughtful consideration of what I was requesting. The response read, in part, as follows:

As I am sure you are aware, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a Crown Corporation that acts at arm's length from the Government. If Parliament were to intervene in a day-to-day operations decision, it would ruin its independence.

Now, wait a second, I thought. I am not requesting that the CHPC interfere in day-to-day operations of the CBC! I am merely requesting that the CHPC "encourage CBC Radio management to make it possible for CBC Radio Two listeners to express their opinions in an open, public forum"! If it is not the CHPC's mandate to remind the CBC when they are not meeting the expectations of their shareholders, then whose responsibility is it? Given the mandate listed on the CHPCs web site, I thought this well within the mandate of the CHPC.

So, I sent the following reply to Mr. Gary Schellenbergers office shortly after April 27, 2007:

Dear Mr. Schellenberger,

Thank you for your April 16 letter in response to my letter sent March 28. I very much appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to consider my letter and to respond.

However, I am afraid that there is a misunderstanding of my request. I am not requesting that Parliament interfere in the day-to-day operating decisions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am instead merely asking that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage consider the opinions of Canadians with respect to the manner in which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is carrying out its mandate. Given the Standing Committee's investigation of the role of the CBC/Radio-Canada as a public broadcaster in the 21st century, I thought that the opinions of CBC Radio Two listeners would be especially relevant at this time. I thought it would also be of interest to the Standing Committee to know that there are some CBC Radio listeners who believe that CBC Radio is not fulfilling its mandate and is not taking into consideration the opinions of Canadians.

As I noted in my earlier letter, I am only requesting that the Standing Committee "... encourage CBC Radio management to make it possible for CBC Radio Two listeners to express their opinions in an open, public forum." I do not believe that CBC Radio Two is considering the opinions of CBC Radio Two listeners or enabling CBC Radio Two listeners to express their opinions in an open, public forum. Considering that the mandate of CBC Radio is to be responsive to the needs of Canadians, I expect CBC Radio to actively encourage the flow and exchange of opinion on many topics, with the content and programming of CBC Radio Two being one such topic for public debate. Currently, CBC Radio does not provide any means for listeners to exchange opinions on the content of CBC Radio programming and does not encourage the free exchange of opinions in a forum that is accessible to all listeners. Given that, as stated in the Broadcasting Act, "the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians", I find this state of affairs most lamentable.

Sincerely,

James Wooten

To date (May 15) I have not yet received a reply.

Are there other listeners out there who are similarly upset with CBC Radio management and their unresponsiveness to listeners and CBC Radio shareholders? The evidence seems to suggest this - see the few posts that were allowed on the "official" CBC Radio blog site. See also the news media reports concerning listener response to the new schedule - Mr. Hugh Anderson's April 9 2007 column and the April 22 2007 Ottawa Citizen article. See the "Stop CBC Pop" web site and Ms. Linda Roger's April 2 2007 blog entry which reproduces a letter sent by Dr. Paul Steenhuisen of the Canadian League of Composers to the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Without a site on CBC Radio's web site where listeners can exchange opinions with CBC Radio management and with other listeners, we frustrated listeners must resort to these samizdat-like blogs, posting wherever we can to find an audience and trying to find links to other disaffected individuals. When and where will it end? When the last CBC Radio listener finally tunes his or her radio to a commercial radio station, connects his or her PC to another radio station that broadcasts music more to his or her liking on the Internet, or plays the music of his or her choice on his or her iPod/CD Player/MP3 player? Is a radio station broadcasting into the empty void the best use of taxpayers money?