A Public Television Warning for PBS - and the CBC

David Fanning has been the executive producer of PBS Frontline for more than 25 years. It is the program that more than anything else, has encapsulated what public television in America is all about: smart, timely and not afraid to ask the toughest journalistic questions.

Frontline documentaries have examined the American condition in war and peace. It has looked at the abuse of women in Saudi Arabia ("Death of a Princess") which almost caused a rupture between the Saudis, the British government and the US administration. It has tracked how the US went to war in Iraq through lies and manipulation ("Cheney's War") and it has looked at the failure of American healthcare over the years.

Fanning is originally from South Africa. He learned his television craft at the BBC and PBS stations. But it was through the American system that his unique vision and passion for public broadcasting has found its truest expression.

Recently Fanning delivered a significant lecture about the state of public television journalism in the United States. It is a powerful warning that the strength of the system is being watered down and washed away by the relentless quest for ratings and for a desire by television management not to offend, but only to please.

Some years ago, a Dutch-born scholar of US public broadcasting, Erik Barnouw referred to PBS as "safely splendid" in that it sought out so-called high quality British programs such as "Masterpiece Theatre." The initials PBS were known (perhaps it still is inside its confines) as standing for the "Predominantly British Service." But at least PBS was committed to providing something that was not available anywhere else.

So Fanning's jeremiad is timely for Americans: it warns that unless PBS is committed to excellence, the money given to PBS is money wasted:

"That’s the most profound challenge to public broadcasting, I believe: that while we argue for increased funding, for more accessibility, for new programs and innovative applications in the multi-platform world, we have to consider the decision makers, the programmers and the gatekeepers -- the leadership of this enterprise.

"They have to demand excellence.  Frankly, they don’t deserve more money, until they do."


This idea has enormous implications for other public broadcasters, including the CBC. The battle inside the CBC is still on between the information programmers and the entertainment divisions.

While CBC TV is producing some popular programs, it is being done by stripping resources out of news and information for programs that are relentlessly middle brow, unmemorable and indistinguishable from what passes for programming on commercial tv. The result is a deepening pessimism among CBC program producers and reporters and a growing sense that young tv journalists must looks elsewhere besides the CBC to practice their craft. This is a cultural and informational disaster that is looming over Canadians for 2010 and beyond.

Supporters of public broadcasting in Canada have been lobbying for years, but they have been doing it wrong: they want the CBC to be restored to "full funding" levels of a few years ago. But to what purpose? To produce more shallow programs that entertain but rarely inform?

More helpful would be if the lobbyists demanded that CBC be restored to what the public broadcaster's mandate calls for: to inform, enlighten and entertain. And in that order.

Increasingly, I am hearing from Canadians that the CBC doesn't deserve more money until it does just that.

CANADIAN LIBEL LAW REFORM: Be Careful What You Wish For

Canadian journalists should not start breaking out the champagne - not just yet.


The Supreme Court of Canada has updated this country's libel law and ruled on a matter of "responsible journalism." The ruling states, in part, that journalists, and their news organizations can be shielded from libel if they demonstrated that they have taken every reasonable step to check the veracity of the information.


The defense will operate in favor of the media outlet, "if it can establish that it acted responsibly in attempting to certify the information in a matter of public interest," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.


That sounds like a victory for hand-hitting journalism by lessening the libel chill that has been frostier in Canada than in many other English-speaking countries.


But while this may appear to be good news in principle, the implications are quite different; the reality is that this is no early Christmas present for the lawyers at the CBC, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, CanWest Global or any other media organization in Canada.


And while the pundits are saying this is good for journalism, I think the SCOC decision must be making media lawyers very nervous. While editors are hailing the ruling as a breakthrough for more aggressive journalism, it also makes it clear that these days, news organizations may be less able than ever to deliver on these expectations.


That's because as layoffs continue at news organizations and as newsrooms are pared down to the editorial bone, the ability of news organizations to engage in deep, contextual investigative journalism is far from what it once was, or what it should be.


News organizations almost everywhere are dropping their investigative units as too expensive, too time-consuming and far too unable to deliver the requisite audience numbers. Instead, investigative reporting is being contracted out in the US and other countries to "stand-alone" not-for-profits such as ProPublica, Global Post, the Center for Public Integrity, among others. In Canada, we don't even have that option.


Dispensing with investigative reporting, or doing it on the cheap relieves mainstream media organizations of an expense, and now from possible legal liability. NPR is an exception to this trend having just hired Susanne Reber away from CBC Radio as Deputy Managing Editor, Investigations.
But others news organizations have not been as bold and only those news organization with the deepest pockets will partner with other investigative organizations, leaving most broadcasters and newspapers to cover more popular, and less risky stories.


My guess is that media law departments are now advising chief editors to restrain their journalists from doing more aggressive reporting unless they can prove that every effort (including a demonstrable commitment to editorial resources) has been made to get all sides of the story. It's that commitment to shoe-leather reporting that is among the first things to be dropped in a downsizing news organization.


In any future libel action, the onus will now be on the media organizations to prove that every reasonable effort has been made to contextualize a story. And the definitions of "reasonable" and "context" will be subject to enormous debate in newsrooms, in boardrooms and hopefully, in journalism schools.


There is however, one positive aspect in the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada: as journalism moves increasingly to the web and as mainstream media seek to return to profitability, the best journalism is increasingly online, and the justices seem to know this better than most. The ruling addresses the issue of ethics, standards and practices among bloggers - those independent reporters and opnion-mongers whose power and influence are growing just as legacy media's reach and heft are diminishing. The ruling brings the blogosphere under the same right, responsibilities and obligations as the mainstream media.


But the blogosphere has been regarded by the more established media as the "wild west" of journalism where the normal rules seem not to apply. The ruling insists that bloggers have responsibilities, to go along with their right to free speech.


The challenge for the online community is to create a set of ethical standards that will give bloggers the same credibility with the public as valid as those espoused by the mainstream media. In effect, bloggers need an ombudsman.

As for newspapers and broadcaster, they now have to show that they are still in the game by doing journalism that provides context and balance, and that serves the audience as citizens first, and consumers of media second.
 

My Own Personal Healthcare Reform Act: Leaving the USA

After twelve years living the United States, it was the absence of humane and comprehensive health care – more than any other single event - that drove me back to Canada.

I’m not demonizing the US system. My wife and I met some wonderful and caring practitioners. Nor am I idealizing Canada’s health care plans. There is rationing in Canada, much as Canadians refuse to admit it. But both systems have advantages and disappointments. In the end, it was the American approach – with its utter lack of any consideration other than a commercial one, and its ruthless corporate attitude that can only be describe as harassment – finally did it for me and my wife. In 2008, we had had enough and decided to leave.

Some background first: In Canada, all citizens are guaranteed health care through the federally mandated Canada Health Act. The Act is administered by each province while the funding comes from a combination of direct federal grants and provincial taxes.

In Ontario, it’s known as OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Programme) and it covers all medical events. Prescriptions are separate and are often covered by employers in a public-private subsidy. It works pretty well, although Canadians generally complain about having to wait for non-emergency surgery and treatment.

I was hired by NPR to be VP of News and Information in 1997. My family and I were excited about the prospect of living in Washington DC, but nervous about dealing with the US healthcare system. Canadians love to point out the flaws in the US system and have exalted the Canadian system as another way of differentiating the two countries. But in truth, we benefited greatly from the US system – for a while anyway. At NPR, the company health care plan was with CIGNA and it worked for us. Whenever I needed to see a doctor or get a prescription filled, I would be promptly reimbursed, minus a small $10 deductible each time, known as a “co-pay.” Fortunately we had no serious pre-existing conditions that could have disqualified us.

I thought that with no major illnesses and a company plan, we had the best health care possible.

But once I left NPR and CIGNA in 2006, it got worse. A lot worse.

I took a career chance and left NPR to become the first executive director of a journalistic not-for-profit – the Committee of Concerned Journalists. At CCJ, health care was covered through the University of Missouri (a 25% stake holder in CCJ). The health care plan was run by a company known as UnitedHealth.

I won’t go into the now well-known details of how UnitedHealth has been ranked as the worst of all American insurance companies, how it came under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for fraud and stock manipulation, how the SEC is still investigating. Or how in 2006, the CEO William McGuire was forced to resign and repay more than $400 million in bonuses (he received more than $1 billion from the board when he left the company). As an employee of the Missouri School of Journalism, I had no choice.

It was my own personal experiences with UnitedHealth care that were enough to drive me back into the arms of so-called “socialized” medicine in Canada.

An example: I would file a claim for Lipitor, a well-known cholesterol medicine when I was with CIGNA. Once with UnitedHealth, they refused to allow Lipitor. Instead there was a preferred list of other medications to be purchased from UnitedHealth’s own company. So much for freedom of choice.

My doctor wrote a letter to UnitedHealth saying that Lipitor was working well for me and other medicines often had side-effects including stroke and migraine. His letters were ignored. So I was forced to switch medications since staying with Lipitor would have been prohibitively expensive. Initially there were minor side effects, but over a few months they went away. But the concerns did not.

The harassment really began after I filed my claim with UnitedHealth and for a month, all seemed well.

When I filed a second time, I never heard from them, and no reimbursement arrived even though the website said I would receive a check within a week. So I would call to inquire and get trapped in their “telephone tree:” “Dial 1 if you are a UnitedHealth care customer. Dial 2 if you are not…”

When I finally found a way to speak to a human being, the routine was invariably the same. I would be told they had no record of me or my wife as being enrolled. My number issued by the University of Missouri was unknown to UnitedHealth. A call to the Missouri confirmed that indeed, we were registered.

Back to the phone tree: “But you paid me last month!” I would exclaim.

“One moment please,” as I would be put on hold. Then the line would go dead.

This would happen regularly and I was later told that insurance companies regularly resort to this technique since a "significant" percentage of callers abandon the process out of frustration.

This would happen every month and each time I would be spending anywhere from an hour to three hours trying to get some response from UnitedHealth.

Eventually I discovered on an Internet site that the best way to get results would be to threaten an “executive complaint.” An “EC” it seems, was a complaint that the insurance company must file with Congress – and the last thing they wanted was congressional oversight. That usually brought the required check within a few days.

After a year with CCJ, I resigned, as the position was not the perfect fit I had hoped for. I left to teach at Georgetown University as an adjunct (no benefits) and to do some consulting in and around public broadcasting.

As for health care, I entered into the “neverland” called COBRA – an ominous acronym that stands for The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It gives workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by their group health plan for limited periods of time. Qualified individuals may be required to pay the entire premium for coverage up to 102 percent of the cost to the plan.

COBRA generally requires that group health plans sponsored by employers with 20 or more employees in the prior year offer employees and their families the opportunity for a temporary extension of health coverage (called continuation coverage) in certain instances where coverage under the plan would otherwise end.

COBRA outlines how employees and family members may elect continuation coverage. It also requires employers and plans to provide notice.

But COBRA is expensive. $1100 a month that came out of my pocket. And COBRA would only last for 18 months.

More disconcerting, and as bad as it was, UnitedHealth does not “handle” COBRA. Instead I was transferred to Great West Life and the same “phone tree” hell began again. After more promises of “executive complaints” I was given my own “insurance professional” who would process the claims. This person (quite helpful, by the way) was based in Tennessee and after a month or so, he went on stress leave and eventually left the company. I felt his pain.

The last straw was when Missouri finally ended its relationship with Great West and suddenly I was a “client” of Coventry Insurance – a company completely unfamiliar to me. The process started all over again.

That’s when my wife agreed that it was time to go. Dealing with American insurance companies was simply life-threatening. I was lucky: I could teach and consult from Toronto and not have to deal with this insanity again. It made complete sense. So despite a home we had made for ourselves with the expectation that we would be in the US for the rest of our lives, we moved back to Toronto in 2008.

As I read about the struggle to pass health insurance through Congress, I realize that timing is everything and my timing on this issue at least, was all wrong. A few years from now, Americans will look back and wonder why they listened to the scaremongering of Sarah Palin and Joe Lieberman (who really should be ashamed of himself).

An imperfect plan has passed the first hurdle in the Senate. It will be interesting to see how the lobbyists and their allies in the media try to sabotage whatever bill is finally passed. But watching the debate and listening to how the present system is defended, I am reminded of a comment told by a friend in Washington: "He died after a long struggle with Blue Cross and Blue Shield..."

I’ll come back to the US from time to time to see the people and places dear to me. But this is one US citizen (yes, I became one in 2005) who was forced to leave. I love America and Canada too, but I won’t miss dealing with insurance companies.

Viewers Compare CBC TV's "The National" and " PBS Newshour." Nolo Contendere

Two giants of public television journalism in North America have just completed a relaunch and a re-design of their respective formats and presentations.

In Canada, "The National" is CBC TV's flagship nightly news which airs in prime time at 10 pm locally across the country. Anchor Peter Mansbridge remains at the helm after more than twenty years in that role.

While in the US, PBS' "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer" has been nominally changed to "The PBS Newshour." Longtime host Lehrer is now joined by Judy Woodruff in what appears to many critics as a gesture toward an eventual succession to the role of anchor.

Both programs have moved away from longer form reportage but not yet to the extent of the abbreviated reporting found on the nightly news shows of commercial television. A breezier presentation is not always a bad thing and indeed, as viewers' attention is abbreviated, television is forced to adjust (some say it may be the other way around, but that's for another column).

What is interesting is the audience response to the changes.

At PBS, according to their ombudsman, the audience seems to appreciate the changes, for the most part. But at the CBC, the critics and the public have been largely hostile to the swirl of images, the brevity of the reporting and the move to softer, chattier features. Amazingly, the audience has noticed that Mansbridge is no longer sitting behind a desk, but standing for the entire hour. That simple gesture has generated much comment including many viewers demanding that he sit down!

Full disclosure: I was critical of the new "National" in its first few days. The constant studio camera movements and the constant de-briefing of reporters (as opposed to field reports) left me both visually disoriented and informationally famished. After a couple of weeks, the studio director was obviously given calming doses of ritalin but the dearth of information from the reporters continues.

PBS, on the other hand, seems to have found the right mixture. Jim Lehrer even gave the audience a primer on the journalistic values that will inform the new program. What a great idea!

Rather than another critique of both shows, I would suggest you have a look at what the CBC viewers are saying about The National here. Compare that to what PBS' viewers are saying here.

Nolo contendere.

Should Judicial Twittering Be Allowed?

A student has asked me what I think of reporters being allowed to tweet in court.

It seems that a federal judge in Georgia has ruled that no one in his court - including reporters, may employ twitter while the court is in session.

Other judges, in other jurisdictions are being less restrictive and are not only allowing tweets, but cell phones and live blogging, as well!

I can imagine the cacophony of clicking and tsunami of sidelong glances among the hacks attending a highly controversial trial. To that extent, it might appear as a distraction for the jurors and for the learned counsels who are presenting their cases.

A recent high-profile case in Ottawa saw the mayor on trial for bribery. The judge allowed reporters to live-blog the proceedings.

But like the old argument about cameras in the court, the risk of legal grandstanding is less than it appears: any judge worth his robes will keep decorum and not let the technology disturb the proceedings.

More worrisome is whether jurors should be allowed to keep cellphones which would allow web surfing and tweets. A Scottish case was dismissed because the jurors kept sending messages to one another to discuss the case.

    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *     *     *     *     *     *     *

My only experience as a juror was in the State of Maryland and the judge was extremely careful to make sure that we, the jury did not discuss the case amongst us or with our families when we went home for the evening. Not talking about the case was one of the most difficult things I had ever been asked to do in those pre-twitter days. Some old journalistic instincts kicked in, and I was eager to share this story but I kept quiet as the case was presented:

It involved a violent man who had thrown himself on the mercy of the court, claiming that he was too mentally ill to be sent to prison for serially threatening and beating his family and anyone who looked at him sideways. He admitted that he was extremely violent especially against his own family. He was clearly disturbed and the case revolved around dueling psychiatric assessments.

The Assistant District Attorney presented forensic evidence claiming he was sane; his lawyer (a public defender who seemed quite tenacious) presented counter arguments with equally qualified experts.

In the end, the jury was asked, who they believed? One piece of evidence that was overlooked (in my non-legal opinion, which gave him grounds for appeal) was a history severe drug abuse and motorcycle accidents. There was medical evidence that showed he suffered serious brain injuries and after which his propensity for violence increased. His wife and mother begged the court to find him insane to keep him away from them.

I was dismissed before the jury was sequestered so the decision was rendered without me. To my astonishment, the jury found him guilty (and sane) and he was sentenced to 8 years in a maximum security prison in Jessup, Maryland. He'll be out in 2012. I was hoping he would be found not guilty by reason of insanity. If he had, he'd get treatment in the Clifton T. Perkins State Hospital for the Criminally Insane and his wife and children would no longer be terrorized by him.

Pack Journalism at the Toronto Globe and Mail?

There is a remarkable columnist at the venerable Globe and Mail called Christie Blatchford. Her columns are ones that I often find myself disagreeing with because they are, for me, too adulatory of the Canadian military in its mission in Afghanistan. However, it is a tonic to read her because her tone is so different from much of the rest of the paper. The Globe has always aspired to be the New York Times of Canada: a bit of the newspaper of record, combining a voice of authority, with dispassionate reporting of the Canadian and international scene, and voilà, you have The Toronto Globe and Mail.

Blatchford, on the other hand, writes lively, if sepia-toned descriptions of the military, the Canadian working class and their lives. She does it, I think not to illustrate any particular larger issue or point of view, because she conveys an attitude of world-weariness with it all. It can be a bit trying, even grim, but it is one that keeps me reading her day after day.

Since coming back to Toronto last year, I note that the Globe, like many other papers are in a deep quest for relevance with a younger demographic. So far, that search has not deformed its essential journalistic purpose. The Globe, like so many others is going through a period of deep financial dislocation with no obvious solution. Yet the paper conveys a relevance with a deep if slightly paternalistic affection for this country.

Blatchford comes from a more populist journalistic tradition. She has more of a tabloid feel than for the Olympian ways of the Globe. She was lured away from another newspaper, the National Post - a paper that is now in severe financial distress, and one that was once owned by Conrad Black. The now disgraced financier is serving jail time in Florida for fraud and obstruction of justice. The Post has been taken over by CanWest Global, a media company that is, itself, in receivership. Never a dull moment in the Toronto media scene.

But back to Blatchford: the Globe under the editorship of Ed Greenspon lured her away from the Post. Greenspon was fired earlier this year and replaced by John Stackhouse, a longtime Globe editor and former foreign correspondent, who, it is said, has less time for Blatchford. But Blatchford has her defenders inside the paper, including the publisher. So my guess is that Blatchford is safe, for now.

Blatchford has been a relentless defender of the Canadian military. But the army has recently been accused by former Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin of handing over suspected Taliban fighters to be abused and possibly tortured by Afghan authorities. Blatchford has raced to the defense of the army and has attacked Colvin's reputation in her column.

Other journalists and columnists in the Globe have shown that Colvin is the victim of a possible smear campaign by the government in Ottawa. (The Afghan mission is not overwhelmingly popular with the Canadian public). Blatchford today responded by hitting back at her detractors (she doesn't name them) but another respected Globe columnist, Jeffrey Simpson in his column today, is clearly not a fan of Blatchford. And Blatchford is standing by her point of view in her column today as well.

It is a classic media food fight: from my perspective as a reader, Blatchford is on balance, good for the Globe because of her different perspective. Newsrooms are too often, repositories of like-minded individuals who can easily be caught up in pack journalism. Blatchford may have missed the mark in attacking Richard Colvin and she could undoubtedly be helped by stronger editing.

But women - especially high profile women in newsrooms - are too often targets in the predominant male culture. I hope Blatchford isn't another.

J-School Students and Current Events

The autumn term is over and the faculty at Ryerson University in Toronto gathered for a last meeting before the new year.

While progress is reported on many fronts (curriculum changes to reflect new/social media, more applicants for both the undergraduate and the graduate program) one area of regression surprised us all.

Journalism students, it seems, are less well informed about current events than ever before according to of our two professors who regularly give out pop quizzes on the news to their classes.

One teacher noted that the level of knowledge about the news has been in decline for a number of years. Students have a diminishing knowledge of national and international events. Some are unable to name prominent politicians at the local, regional or national level. Fewer than 40% in one class were able to name the newly "re-elected" president of Afghanistan.

They were however, well aware of Tiger Woods' recent marital difficulties; much of their online times, they admit, is devoted to Facebook and other forms of social media.

Some of this is not entirely the fault of the students or of the undoubted appeal of Facebook.

News organizations - both print and broadcast - are devoting less and less space and airtime to significant national and international news stories. In Canada, even the public broadcaster, the CBC now spends much of its news agenda on crime and weather. Political news is openly disdained as "elitist." So the appeal of Facebook is increasingly reflected in the news agendas of mainstream media.

This is not to let journalism students off the hook. But the gap between old media values and new media values appears to be growing.

I am also to blame for assuming that my students are keeping up with current events. I think a weekly news quiz next term is in order.

Trolling for Ratings in German and Canadian Public Broadcasting

My friend, colleague and mentor, Eric Koch kindly points to his blog where the existential questions of "whither public broadcasting?" are being asked as well in Germany.

The system of public broadcasting is much more decentralized than in Canada or the US. Broadcasters are owned and operated at the provincial or Länder level. That may make the broadcasters more local and accountable. But they also seem to suffer from the same identity crisis that bedevils other pub-casters especially in Canada.

Eric's blog is worth reading for this and other issues. But to highlight only a couple of shared concerns:

* "Difficult" subjects are removed in favor of light and breezy entertainment programs.
* "Difficult" subjects are usually turned into consumer-protection stories.
* Media critics bemoan both the lack of serious programs and the failure to garner large ratings.
* Management remains aloof and unaccountable while any serious discussion of the role of public broadcasting is dismissed.

While the similarities with the condition of public broadcasting in Canada are remarkably striking, there is one large difference: in Germany, at least they are talking about it.

Canadians (with some exceptions such as John Doyle in the Toronto Globe and Mail) seem to have all but abandoned their public broadcaster. It has ceased to be a subject of discussion because, as my students tell me, it looks irrelevant and deeply un-serious.

CBC Radio remains a marginal exception, but that may be changing as well.

But CBC TV can have astonishing ratings successes as long as there appears to be some connection to hockey (thus re-inforcing the stereotype of Canada as a place with 11 months of winter and one month of bad skidooing...). At the same time, budgets for serious programs including news are being stripped away and given to the "reality entertainment" department.

As long as we are imitating our German colleagues, at least we should have some debate about whether this is what public broadcasting should be.

Otherwise, the Germans have a word for this: "Schrecklich!"