Public Broadcasting: More Elite = Better Journalism

One of the worst insults you can hurl at a public broadcaster is the accusation of
"elitism."

As the CBC and NPR struggle through the recession, questions are raised about the purpose of public broadcasting in this environment. For the CBC, it's a particularly sore subject since the CBC takes around C$700 million (US$550m) annually in support as allocated by the Canadian parliament.

NPR, on the other hand, takes almost no money from Congress. Around 1% of its annual budget of US$180m comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for new program initiatives. PBS takes more because the economy of scale makes television a more expensive proposition.

So the CBC - radio and television, in French and English has long debated just how "popular" it should be to justify taking money from the taxpayers.

As my friend and former CBC colleague Karl Nerenberg says, "Some think CBC may have already hurt itself by being too populist. But it has always been a tails they win, heads you lose situation for CBC TV. If they focus on quality and do not get big audiences, they're too elitist and not worthy of public $$. If they try for bigger gross tonnage with more "pop" fare -- then, the response is: who needs to pay them to do what commercial broadcasters already do! In a way, CBC can't win."

The question is, who is accusing the CBC of elitism? And does the criticism have any value in this media environment?

Ironically, there seem to be two kinds of critics who attack public broadcasting as elitist. The first is from commercial broadcasters and their allies in the media who use the charge of elitism (or worse, even "left wing elitism") every time public broadcasting starts to win in the ratings.

The other charge of elitism comes from those producers of so-called popular programs who like things the way they are, and whose definition of success is derived from the commercial side of the street. But in a media landscape where so much content looks and sounds the same, that would argue for public broadcasting to be substantially different from the rest.

More significantly, some media analysts have claimed that around 30% of all media consumers are people who are significant contributors in the world of public policy. Doesn't the media in general and public broadcasting in particular have an obligation to give them the information they need to make informed decisions?

Or should we be satisfied with simply amusing ourselves to death, as Neil Postman so accurately put it?

Teaching Twitter

According to The Guardian, British schools will be teaching a higher level of
media literacy in state schools. This will include showing British kids how to
"tweet" and how to use wikipedia. Teaching some aspects of British history, such as World War Two, will be optional.

As a former historian, I admit to being torn between having to choose between the past and the present. Certainly, there is an argument that can be made that there remains a powerful, if indirect connection between what society experienced then and how we live now.

Still I admire the proposal for giving students a level of media literacy, and hopefully to teach them how to use these platforms in a way that deepens our awareness of new media beyond the trivial.

Here is the article:



Lee Glendinning
25 March 2009

BIG BROTHER, SMALL PUPILS

The growth of Twitter and various social networking sites and the
spread of their tentacles into various tenets of society dominates
the front pages today, albeit in different ways.

The Guardian reports that under draft proposals to overhaul the
primary curriculum, the Victorians and the second world war will be
jettisoned in favour of teaching children about Twitter, blogging,
podcasts and Wikipedia.

According to the article, the new curriculum marks the biggest change
to primary school teaching in a decade and strips away hundreds of
specifications about the scientific, geographical, and historical
knowledge that pupils must accumulate before they reach 11 years old.

Interestingly, the Independent splashes on another encroachment of new
technology with news of the possibility for a government database to
monitor social networking sites.

The home office minister, Vernon Coaker, has disclosed that social
networking sites could be forced to retain information about users'
web-browsing habits and could also be required to hold data about
every person that users' correspond with.

Isabella Sankey, policy director at Liberty, the civil rights group,
told the paper: "Even before you throw Facebook and other social
networking sites into the mix, the proposed central communications
database is a terrifying prospect. It would allow the government to
record every email, text message and phone call and would turn
millions of innocent Britons into permanent suspects."

An Exchange on CBC vs NPR

An old comrade in arms, David Gutnick from Montreal, wrote to present a different view of public broadcasting in Canada and the United States. I have much time and respect for David who is a brilliant radio producer.

Here is our exchange:


Salut Jeffrey,

David Gutnick here in Montreal. The next time you are in Montreal and in the neighourhood give me a shout as i would love to go for a drink I would love to hear about your American years. I did follow your columns on the NPR website and found them fascinating.

Over wine I'd also like to talk about public broadcasting back here and hash out why I very much disagree with some of what you wrote in the Globe this week.

i agree with a lot of what you say when it comes to CBC television. i believe the present CBC leadership is way too tied into ratings and not nearly conscious enough of serving the larger public good, what you so eloquently describe what PBS and NPR do in the States.

Despite CBC television broadcasting more Canadian content than ever there is no sense that what we offer will be noticeably different than what the private networks offer.

Television should be more like PBS.....granted.

But Jeffrey CBC radio already does exactly what NPR does and what you want us to do. We are tied to listeners, to communities and so on. i hear lots of people talk about how radio is their lifeline. Lots of people tell me "I heard it on CBC radio." We already make programs that do fit what people want and need. I listen to a lot of NPR and we do a much better job of reflecting the regions, reflecting minority cultures and reflecting the world. NPR can be elite radio because that is who pays for it. We struggle between between populist and elitist because we have to serve everyone and keep high standards, both challenge authority and challenge those who challenge. i rarely get that impression from NPR.

i really think the NPR finance model would be a disaster for radio. We don't have the same money culture, we don't have the same population etc to make it viable. Even community stations here in Montreal are subsidized, drives do not work.

i agree with you though that the american mode might be the only way to keep television afloat.

or a radical rethink that would make publicly funded television really public...bye by Jeopardy, hello more investigative stories about mining in Nunavut...

But then as Alec Frame [a former CBC Radio program director] used to say, the powers that be will who are already uncomfortable with being challenged will like us even less.

Radio is the loser right now because our fortunes have been so tied to that ship which is TV. We are more and more nimble while televison is heavier and heavier. We are tied together for political and not practical reasons right now and that is at the heart of why we are so lacking in direction as a corporation....twins who are not being allowed to walk our separate ways even though we share common blood.

And we haven't even spoken yet about the INTERNET which is going to change television in the next few years in ways which are yet unimaginable. My own teenager and her friends rarely look at television, they just download and watch it on their laptops.

It is nearly 6. i have to run out to meet a guy in his twenties who wants to talk about a pilot for radio. Imagine!

cheers,
gutnick

And my response:

Hi David -

Very good to hear from you.

I don’t think we disagree essentially on how CBC Radio and CBC TV have become entirely different creatures and yes, I think that CBC Radio serves communities well in some cases, but...

1. The core values of CBC (service, citizenship, communities) are in Radio and the longer that Radio must partner with tv, the values become reversed to become ratings, budgets and commercialism.

2. The values of the Corporation (as distinct from the CBC) are entirely Ottawa focused. That’s normal because that’s where the money and power emanate from. But those values have deformed the public broadcaster into a government department that, like all ministries, must satisfy all stakeholders and never upset the status quo. Hardly the framework of an information oriented public broadcaster which must be about serving the audience as citizens first...

3. The definition of success at the CBC is now entirely commercial in both Radio and TV. It’s all about ratings because only that way can the Corporation can please its political masters. Once you change that definition, or at least modify it, you will rediscover the values that once allowed for that service and its values to re-emerge.

My worry is that (CBC) News and Current Affairs is being marginalized because the Corporation wants to show that it will not do anything that might embarrass or upset anyone. The fifth estate [CBC TV's flagship investigative reporting program] has been moved to Friday night, newscasts in radio are being shortened, budgets are being deflected to support reality programs, music is replacing current affairs in significant parts of the radio schedule. A re-evaluation of all news programming is underway which, I fear will simply
plug the “reality entertainment” values into the news and current affairs departments so they become “entertaining reality.”

The corporation has hired Frank Magid to “revitalize” supper hour tv shows to concentrate on weather and crime.

I know Magid and his reputation from the US. He is the one that came up with “eye witness news” and I-Teams 30 years ago which have been discredited and dropped. So he came north to keep the business going. We hear a lot more the crime stories on the news now on Radio and TV, not because they aren’t occasionally compelling. But because they are supposed to scare the audience into watching and listening.

It will do quite the opposite and there have been some important studies that show this to be the outcome.

CBC’s crime reporting is done not because it’s significant. But because it’s cheap to do at a time when crime rates in Canada and the US are going down (and have been since 1970), crime REPORTING on tv has gone up around 800%!

So, yes, there is still some great work done by excellent journalists on CBC. But the environment is not optimal and that’s why I needed to say something about finding a disconnect between the CBC and Ottawa as a possible solution to the problem.

When I got to NPR, we decided that we could not and should not be all things to all people. We weren’t funded to do it. So in consultation with the stations (who own NPR) we agreed that news and information of the highest quality would be our goal. From 2000-2005 we stopped taking money from Congress, we tripled the ratings while deepening the audiences’ sense of loyalty. It still has problems (what organization these days does not?) but it’s worth looking at and listening to.

There’s more to tell. I didn’t mean to go on so long, and I hope we can get together soon to keep this discussion going.

Best always,

J

It's Time for CBC Radio To Become the Northern NPR

The CBC Board is meeting in mid-March. With the CBC in serious financial trouble and audience disarray, it's time to consider a new model for public broadcasting in Canada. One that works - not perfectly - but extremely well is National Public Radio in the United States.

NPR works because it is rooted in a system of local support of member stations. This deep sense of localism and volunteerism means that listeners directly support the system, both financially and organizationally. NPR owns no stations, but delivers high quality news and information to almost 900 public radio stations. It's a system that evokes a powerful sense of loyalty and support. People openly identify as "NPR listeners." When is the last time you heard someone proudly describe themselves as a "CBC listener?"

Public radio in the US, is supported by a combination of listener donations to the stations (NPR can't solicit money directly from listeners), combined with corporate and philanthropic support, plus a small percentage of Congressional funding. The result is a network of citizen supported radio that is growing, credible and respected.

In the US, the phrase "I hear it on NPR," is code that indicates a certain type of American. It's a ubiquitous phrase that, according to audience surveys, can be heard uttered by about 30 million Americans a week. It is also an audience that self-identifies as only slightly more liberal than conservative. It is an audience that is highly educated, relatively affluent and prone to be involved in community and political activities. Public radio listeners vote at a rate of almost 80%. It is, say the pollsters, a demographic to die for.

More tellingly, public broadcasting listeners and viewers have a high degree of loyalty - not just to PBS and NPR, but also to their local stations. So deep is the affection for those stations and their thrice-yearly demands for audience support, that in the midst of the recession some public stations are raising MORE money than they needed.

In Canada, the CBC is the object of dismay from precisely those listeners and viewers who should be the most loyal. Why the difference?

Recent announcements that CBC may be short anywhere from $60m to $140m has renewed the discussion about "whither the CBC." The question itself is as much a part of Canadian cultural life as any of our most sacred icons. But the global economic crisis has lent an urgency to the question and Canadians should not miss an opportunity to answer the question in a more definitive manner.

The CBC's financial problems are directly related to the question, "What should a public broadcaster be?" Most countries with public broadcasting systems wrestle with this, but it's in the United States that a certain clarity of vision has emerged.

PBS (the television service) and NPR (the predominant radio content provider) have found their niche in the most highly competitive media market in the world. Those niches (there is more than one) are "local" and "quality."

American public broadcasting still receives some Congressional funding, but at a much lower rate than the CBC receives in its annual Parliamentary grant. In the US, federal funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting averages less than 11% of a public radio station's operating budget and only 30% for tv stations. NPR as a content provider receives less than 2%. However, compared to other western European public broadcasters, the US and Canada rank almost at the bottom of the list for government support.

On a per capita basis, Canada had the third lowest level of public funding of 18 Western countries in 2004, according to a 2006 Nordicity study commissioned by the CBC. Canada's $28 per inhabitant was ahead of New Zealand and the U.S., and far below the $80 average across 18 countries. Canada's funding was 20% of the level of the leading country, Switzerland. Given the present state of the world economy, the situation in Canada and the US is unlikely to change.

So how does NPR do it? Most of the money comes from listeners and viewers (more than 50%) and the rest from donations from foundations and philanthropic organizations.

At NPR, listeners believe they have a direct stake in the operation precisely because their donations to the stations are so important. They are active participants and engaged in how the stations should run and what should be on the air. NPR hears from station management constantly. That's because at NPR, the customers (the stations) own the company. Of the 17 members of the NPR board, 12 are public radio station managers.

The power of public broadcasting in the US is based in its local context and connection to their communities. Canadians may mock the pledge drives, but they are an accurate and intense contact between the stations and the communities that support them. A few years ago, NPR, working with the member stations (almost 900 of them) decided that the pledge drive needed to be more like the most interesting and attractive programs. By re-designing and reinvigorating them, the pledge drives have become "must-listen" parts of the public radio offering.

More significantly, NPR decided that it had to make choices at a time when it could no longer afford to provide high quality news and cultural programming. In 2000, most cultural programming was abandoned and resources were put into news and information. Within five years, NPR had almost tripled its audience, gained new revenue and assumed its rightful role as an important information source for Americans.

The CBC in recent years has demonstrated that in the pursuit of ratings (more the definition of a commercial broadcaster than a public broadcaster), it has only resulted in calling its essential role into question. NPR has shown that it can do both: produce high quality news and information and deliver a large audience. But hard choices have to be made.

It's time for the CBC Board to consider a better way to fund a public broadcaster that is worthy of the name and that treats Canadians as citizens first and as media consumers second.