The People's Republic of Canada on Monday?

Jack Layton, NDP Prime Minister in Waiting?

Some American friends and colleagues are asking, "What the hell is going on up there?"

Yes, exciting times here in the Great White North. I would not have believed this could ever happen, but the Liberals seem to be on the verge of being relegated to the 3rd party.

The NDP under Jack Layton seems poised to become the Official Opposition. It's possible but far from certain. My guess right now is that the Liberals will hang on as the second party in the Commons.

The Tories will likely form a minority government. But if/when that happens, Harper is gone.

He's already being asked by those pesky journos if he will resign if he fails to deliver. He hasn't said no. Harper's lack of affect has been seen as arrogance by urban sophisticates. He still commands much loyalty in western Canada and in exurban areas for his handling of the economy through the Great Recession. Canada emerged relatively unscathed especially compared to the US.

This seems a likely scenario: Prime Minister Stephen Harper wins the most seats (there are a total of 308 in the House of Commons). He need 155 for a majority. The latest polls show him at around 140-147. The Liberals may fall to third place if present trends continue. Harper has to reintroduce a budget in a few weeks and most likely, it will be defeated by a combined opposition vote.

One of the sharpest blogs on this is http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/. They are still predicting a Liberal Opposition but with the NDP closing in, it still could change over the weekend. It's that close and that volatile.

Parliamentary tradition has it that if a government is defeated on a budget, it must resign. Calling another national election would be legally possible, but highly unpopular and hugely expensive. So Harper would be forced to go to the governor-general who, as the Queen's representative can then ask the leader of the party with the next largest number of seats to form a government.

Or the GG could asked Harper to stay on, try again and resubmit another budget or even ask some members of the opposition to sit in cabinet. Lots of possible scenarios.

If Layton is asked to form a government, he will need the support of the Liberals and
maybe the nominally separatist Bloc Quebecois. Layton could either form a coalition government with ad hoc support of the other parties, or they could try to create a new party of the united left. Some Liberals would rather die than join with the NDP, but we'll see. Power has a lovely way of corrupting principles, as we know...

Layton is a charming guy, an English Montrealer who speaks good French and is married to a Chinese Canadian NDP MP (my constituency). He is also an avid cyclist. He fits the bill as the modern lefty, even if the Tories are calling him the "Boy Stalin" in private conversations.

Long gone are the party platforms calling for nationalization of the means of production.

Forming a coalition party is what Harper did a few years ago when they hammered out a
new entity from among three right wing parties - the Reform Party of Canada (a bunch rednecks from Alberta), the Progressive Conservatives (so-called Red Tories from Ontario, much like the old New England/NY Republican types - Lowell Weicker, Nelson Rockefeller, etc.) and the Conservative Party which was made up of small business people. Much like the Republicans, it is riven with opposing tendencies, united only in their hatred of Liberals and liberals.

Harper created a relatively effective political force, held together largely by Harper's own force of personality (he is alleged to be the consummate control freak). His coalition which lasted about 8 years, should continue after he leaves. But Canada tends to skew leftish politically, so the next Conservative leader will have to soften some of the core Tory approaches, especially around gun control and abortion if he or she wants to create a big tent on the right.  

The vote is on Monday and the advance polls had a huge turnout - 35% more than the last election. This time another record turnout is expected.

In this election, the media in general, have done well in finding a balance between the horse race and the issues. But the reporting has not been helped while this is happening in the midst of hockey playoffs and the Royal Wedding.

But sometimes the news is just what everybody's talking about. There will be time enough after Monday to pour through the political entrails.

Sun TV aka Fox News North: Looks Can Deceive

The so-called "Fox News North" aka Sun TV launched is service a few days ago. The Toronto Star has been reasonably critical and not overly harsh, while still calling it full of "rookie mistakes." The Globe and Mail's John Doyle is less restrained and describes it as "dead boring."

First reviews in the blogosphere have been equally scathing: "Spartan sets," "Are we watching a news network or a sketch-comedy show?" "Terrible, almost unwatchable..."

Its hosts aren't exactly household names: Krista Erickson is a former CBC TV journalist who resigned under a cloud after being too cozy with a Conservative MP. Charles Adler is a former radio host who seems to know something about broadcasting. Ezra Levant is one of Sun's higher profile hosts. Levant made a name for himself by taking on various forms of political correctness, including the human rights tribunal in Alberta.

It's Levant's rants against the CBC that have caused the most notice. His approach is far to the right while devoid of serious analysis. More than anyone else, his screeds are likely to allow CBC management to relax under the impression that Sun TV is mostly the harmless plaything of Quebec media baron, Pierre-Karl Péladeau.

Levant will probably become the face of anti-CBC sentiment in Canada. As such, all anti-CBC criticism will be easy to ignore when lumped together with Levant's sophomoric tirades. There can be responsible criticism of public broadcasting, but you won't find it on Sun TV. Unlike some critics of public broadcasting on Fox and in conservative blogs in the US, Sun TV is -so far - neither entertaining nor pithy. Pity.

But the CBC shouldn't break out the champagne just yet on the belief that the threat has passed.

Sun TV is still in its infancy. It can and will only get better. And when it does, like its southern cousin, it will become a rallying point for opposition to any and all forms of standard journalistic practice especially at the CBC.

Rupert Mudoch's relentless attacks on the BBC for being anti-competitive and a drain on the public purse have paid off. According to the New York Times, Prime Minister David Cameron regularly needles BBC reporters at news conferences for sending three or more reporters when other media only send one. The BBC is now is serious downsizing mode.

This tactic of public shaming is regularly leveled against the CBC by this and previous governments. As a partial response, the Canadian public broadcaster has made an effort to make news gathering appear more efficient by limiting the number of reporters and "mike flashes" visible at news conferences. But it's only a gesture. Diminished quality of the reporting and a narrowing of the range of ideas may also be a consequence of letting politicians influence assignment decisions. More serious is the prospect of major cuts to the CBC budgets, especially if the present Tory minority government is returned to power next week with a fresh mandate and a majority of MPs.

The name of the game everywhere is putting public broadcasters on the defensive. This well serves commercial broadcasters who resent that they must share their audiences. Attacks on NPR and PBS have caused some serious reflections inside public broadcasting in the US. It also seems to be working in Britain.

With Sun TV's help, it will work in Canada.

Why A News Ombudsman?

The Organization of News Ombudsmen is meeting in Montreal for its annual conference May 15-18. In advance of that meeting, here is an except from a handbook for ombudsmen that will be published in the next few months:

 

Why should your media – or any media organization for that matter - have an independent news Ombudsman? And why would anyone want this job, which to the uninitiated, can seem like just being the in-house scold?

From the beginning, there is the idea – inherent in the position itself – that there must be something wrong with the news organization in the first place, or why would management bother to create this position?

This so-called “Ombudsman-as-a-presumption-of-guilt” is something that many journalists, when faced with the prospect of having to deal with an Ombudsman, assume that management is simply fed up with having to deal with complaints, so an Ombudsman has been hired to handle the traffic and catch the flak.

And the public might also be skeptical and see the creation of an ombudsman as a tacit admission that the newspaper or the broadcaster is admitting that it is a flawed enterprise.

While some of these assumptions may on rare occasions, be true, the reality is often quite different: all organizations – media or otherwise – can suffer from an affliction known as “groupthink.” This is the delusionary idea to which all organizations –media or otherwise - are occasionally susceptible to. It is the notion that inside the newsroom, whatever happens is for the best, in this best of all possible media. And that anyone who says otherwise, must be mistaken or an outsider who doesn’t understand how well intentioned the organization really is.

However a news ombudsman is not there to confirm the worst suspicions of the public, or of management or even from that perpetual source of gossip - the newsroom.

In truth, an Ombudsman is there as a counterweight or an antidote to the natural assumptions of any organization, that everything that happens is usually for the best and is done for the best of all possible motives. An Ombudsman is there to ask simple questions, like: “Are you sure?” And “How do you know?”

S/he is there to connect the public with the media organization to assure that the content produced is of the highest standards. The readers, listeners and viewers deserve no less.

Those of us who have done the job all have stories about what works and what doesn’t. This book is to help new and still active Ombudsmen navigate through the cross currents of 21^st century media organizations. Not every Ombudsman does the job in the same way. But some similar challenges and dilemmas occur. We’ll try to identify the most helpful ones. One thing all ombudsmen share: a powerful commitment to making journalism better by letting the public inside. There can be no finer goal. We in the Organization of News Ombudsmen believe that excellent journalism is predicated on that concept. It can be a tough place to be. But the future of journalism itself and whether journalism can serve democracy itself is ultimately what is at stake. 

That is why ombudsmanship matters. 

Corporate Influence in Media and Journalism Schools?

Last week I was on a panel sponsored by the School of the Arts and Contemporary Studies at Ryerson University in Toronto.

ACS is an inter-disciplinary department that blends the liberal arts with current events. The day was entitled "Arts and Minds" and as presented by the graduating class, the theme was "Corporate Citizenship and Accountability."

From what  I saw, it is an impressive program with some very sharp students.

My panel was entitled "The Dog That Did Not Bark: Is the Media Missing In Action On Corporate Accountability?"

My short version (to be blogged soon) was that corporate culture and media culture are mirror images of each other: if the media is asking tough questions (of itself as well), so will the corporate culture. It was a lively discussion.

I received the following email from one of the student attendees:

My name is Ryland Titley, and I was one of the student presenters at the Arts & Minds conference you recently took part in for Ryerson University. I was very interested in what you had to say, but missed my opportunity to ask you about one of the things you brought up, the idea of self-regulated journalism. Just for my own interest, I was hoping you could spare a little bit of time to answer a couple of questions for me!

From what I understand, self-regulated journalism is somewhat hard to find in the media today as a result of the increasing commercialization of networks and news providers, and you expressed a desire to see it return. My question is, does the responsibility to bring back self-regulation in journalism lie with the broadcaster, individual, or with the education of the individual? Can it lie with anyone but the individual?

Ryerson for example sees increasing support from commercial interests in many of its programs, would it be fair to infer that the school might feel some kind of pressure to align its instruction methods with the interests that are providing support, or do you think that institutions such as Ryerson can remain free of that pressure?

As I said, this is just for my own curiosity,but anytime you could spare to share your thoughts would be much appreciated!

Here is my reply:

Hi Ryland,

Thanks for your note and I am glad you found the session interesting. I did as well
and am so delighted that I was asked to participate.

Let me try to answer your question which is quite complex and layered.

First, the definition of self-regulatory journalism. 

SRJ (I guess we have an acronym now)
means journalism that is free from undue influences from politicians, advertisers and pressure groups. It allows for journalists to do their best work unencumbered by the worst of
those influences but always informed by the best of them.

Journalists are fierce guardians of their prerogatives to do their reporting without
fear or favor. That's the theory anyway. The reality is that none of us lives in an antiseptic
informational bubble. We are constantly being informed and when we are, we are
also being influenced. We need to be aware of that and act according to what
we believe it right, accurate and in the best interests of our audiences, who
deserve the best information we can provide to them as fellow citizens.

That obligation to create SRJ free from the more pernicious influences can only
be done in combination of journalists, media management and the public. 

That threesome is unstoppable and is about the best guarantee we have that
the journalism we consume is reliable, trustworthy and worth supporting.

How we create that unbeatable combination is the challenge: journalists need
to know who they are serving; media organization need to understand that they
have a sacred trust to convey that information without guile or hidden agendas;
the public needs to be vigilant that the journalism they obtain is always truthful,
contextual and accountable. 

Working in concert (ideally with an ombudsman in place), seems to me to be about the closest we can come to that noble ideal.

Can universities and specifically journalism schools adopt this model? I think
that often they do. But we need to be conscious of any attempts to influence
curricula in ways that are less than transparent and that may arouse suspicions.

As governments diminish their financial support for post-secondary education and as universities struggle to maintain standards, there could be commercial elements that may see
opportunities which may go a long way to legitimately helping the process along.
But universities that partner with non-academic funding sources need to ensure
that there is no undue influence. That process also needs to be made public.

A couple of personal examples: I have held two endowed chairs.

One was at the Missouri School of Journalism and the other at the Ryerson School of Journalism.

In the former, the chair was endowed by ABC News and the latter, by Rogers. In neither
instance was I ever approached by either media organization. Instead they allowed
(appropriately in my opinion) the schools to be the administrators of the fund.
In effect, both operated at an "arm's length" relationship.

I did get an email from a student at Ryerson at the beginning of my appointment
accusing me of being "pro-Rogers" (whatever that meant). But I never once sensed
any pressure from the donors, the university or the department to
be pro-ABC or pro-Rogers. Or "anti-" for that matter.

So it can work. But your skepticism is timely and worth noting.

Public Broadcasting is Saved! Now What?

Once again, public broadcasting's near death experience has come and gone.

The budget has been passed by Congress and is expected to be signed by President Obama. For nervous pubcasters, the relief is palpable: the proposed cuts to NPR and the phasing out of support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 2013 have vanished.

For now.

This version of a pre-Easter resurrection should give all supporters of NPR and PBS some relief. But it might also be an opportunity to think about how best to approach the next inevitable crisis. Public broadcasting's opponents may have lost this round. But they will be back. It's too soon for pubcasters to return to normal programming and usual attitudes.

It's useful to examine who are the friends of public broadcasting and who aren't.

In the former category are the people who have public broadcasting hardwired into their cultural makeup. Especially at NPR, they are the ones who listen to, pay for and define themselves as "NPR listeners." They will be there for public radio, come what may.

In the latter category are the ideologues for whom all forms of public financing are anathema. There is not much that can change them or their attitudes.

In between are some interesting expressions of the "could-be" supporters category.

I have heard from a number of people (many in journalism) who might fall into the first group. They know public radio and they admire it, but not uncritically. But they often find it slightly off-putting. Not in content, but in tone. That criticism surprised me, but perhaps I am so connected to public radio, that I no longer hear it with fresh ears.

When pressed to explain further, they say public broadcasting sounds "elitist," "I'm smart and you're not," "hectoring." One senior executive at a commercial network told me that NPR's slow delivery and "o-v-e-r  e-n-u-n-c-i-a-t-i-o-n" sounds patronizing to her - as if the listeners were slightly retarded...Professional jealousy? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

If these remarks had come from the usual public broadcasting haters, they might be more easily dismissed. But coming from people who should fit the audience profile, it was surprising. And a little disconcerting.

It would be helpful to determine what is it about the public broadcasting tone and delivery that evokes this. My first guess is that the conversational quality of great radio is being lost in the drive to create perfect scripts. Hence the lecturing quality. But more on that in another posting.

And while the budget has brought relief and allowed public broadcasting back from the edge, this is an opportunity for serious self-examination. In that spirit, some suggestions:

• Should public broadcasting change? 
• If so, how? If not, why not? 
• Would any change validate the criticisms of the haters? 
• Can an evaluation be done without sullying the great accomplishments of American public service journalism? 
• Or is the goal of being all things to all audiences simply unobtainable in an world of multi-platform media? 
• And does public broadcasting need a better champion who can articulate the values of public broadcasting in a more forceful and effective way?

A fellow pub radio denizen at NPR once remarked about the culture of public broadcasters: "The unexamined life is just "jake" with them." Unfair.

But if the public broadcasting system doesn't take this time to give itself a hard look, there may just be more than an element of truth to that jibe.

Canada's Political Debate: Not Ready for Prime Time?

Last night, the English-language debates among the four Parliamentary party leaders were broadcast in Canada.

Tonight, the French-language debate will take place - one day prior to the originally scheduled broadcast. It was moved up by a day, so as not to conflict with something truly of importance in Quebec, the first Stanley Cup playoff between Montreal and Boston.

Hockey-mad Quebeckers (like their counterparts in the rest of the country) would have ignored the debates almost entirely. So it was a smart move by the broadcast consortium.

I was asked to comment on CP24, the all news local cable channel in Toronto, owned and operated by CTV, Canada's largest and most successful commercial network. CTV is in turn, owned by Bell Media.

It was a lively affair, with CP24 running tweets from viewers in a crawl underneath the live coverage of the debate. The tweets were much more lively than the debate itself, and as usual, it allowed the viewers to ignore the program and concentrate on the smart and smart-alecky remarks at the bottom of the screen.

As a piece of television, the debates were substance-rich, which meant they were lousy TV. As Trina McQueen, the former head of CBC News and CTV remarked, if a political debate is to be good TV, it should resemble "So You Think You Can Lead Canada."  None of the above seemed to have much rhythm last night.

The party leaders talked about taxes, Canada's declining international reputation, immigration, crime and health care. The Prime Minister was on the defensive on every subject, but, as others have noted, his steely eyed lack of affect allowed him to play the role of "teflon man."

The opposition leaders occasionally scored a rhetorical point or two.

NDP leader Jack Layton was best in this version of "Question Period." He ought to since he's had more Parliamentary experience. Gilles Duceppe, the separatist leader of the Bloc Québecois had nothing to lose, so his shots were pretty good. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff seemed to be channeling his inner academic which allowed him to lecture in a rather unconvincing way. Like my prof in early modern English history, he said some interesting things, but will they be on the exam? Prime Minister Stephen Harper was...well, his usual self.

Television is probably the last place where we should expect clarity on political matters. The leaders were caught between trying to be substantial in a medium that mostly disparages content. The audience they were seeking wasn't the voters, but the political journalists and commentators who would give one or none the thumbs up or down later that night.

The conclusion was that Harper won, simply by not blinking. Layton won by giving the NDP supporters the illusion of victory which again - won't turn into seats in the House of Commons on May 2nd.

Duceppe was there as a foil for the others, although he did get off a couple of zingers at Harper's expense.

Ignatieff was solid, but in the end just not compelling. Which is so surprising.

I remember him when he was on the BBC as a commentator in the late 1980s. He was smart, fast, cerebral and hip. Katherine Whitehorn in The Observer called him "the thinking woman's crumpet.

Have a look here and you'll see some of those qualities.

Coming back to Canada seems to have drained all that energy out of him. Can he shake off his handlers and go back to what he once was? With only two weeks left in the campaign, it doesn't look likely.

Last night's debates probably didn't change many peoples' minds. The issues and the leaders haven't made that magic connection with the voters. But it was a virtuous and civic couple of hours.

Compared to our fellow North Americans south of the border, I guess Canadians should consider themselves lucky to be so bored.

NPR's Condition: A timely warning for the CBC

An article in today's Toronto Globe and Mail caught my eye: Simon Houpt writes about how the new so-called "Fox News North" - aka, Sun Media is targeting the CBC in anticipation of its debut onto Canadian television next month.

Using its newspapers as a launching pad, Sun Media is going after the public broadcaster on a number of issues: media bias, subtle Liberal Party advocacy disguised as neutral journalism in the midst of an election campaign and general wastefulness.

A media cat fight is always good to raise circulation and ratings. While Sun Media will do what comes naturally, it is worth noting that similar attacks on NPR and PBS have been going on for some time, with Fox News as the primary attack dog in this fight.

Now NPR and PBS are on the defensive, partly due to some ham handed managerial moves that served to reaffirm media notions of lefty elitism in the ranks of the public broadcaster. NPR is now functioning without a President/CEO (she resigned), a senior VP of News (she was fired) and the senior fundraiser (he quit).

This has been building for a few years, and NPR has frequently been the target of conservative pressure groups especially on hot button issues like the Arab-Israeli conflict. And Fox News has always been more than ready to carry their water.

NPR refused to engage in these fights, (one wag described NPR's response as "bringing a tote bag to a knife fight"), leaving it to their Ombudsman to defend what was defensible and to dismiss what was absurd. In my time as NPR's Ombudsman (2000-2006) I found myself engaging with many of these groups, on the assumption that logic and common sense would prevail. I wonder now whether that was the correct strategy, when the goal of these groups was to destroy NPR, not to improve its coverage.

NPR was a growing target for many of these groups. I fear that the threat was misread by management who now have to deal with it. NPR is seen as a soft target by conservatives, and in some ways, it is. When public radio in the US had a small and relatively insignificant audience, it was easy to ignore. Many of the attacks were motivated by commercial interests as NPR continues to expand and eat the lunch of other media.

The CBC will now face some of the same tactics which is to discredit a federally funded organization for purely ideological reasons. The Canadian public broadcaster has come under attack before, mostly columnists in the Toronto newspapers. When I was Managing Editor of Radio News (1991-1997), CBC Radio was frequently savaged by columnists especially in the presumably moderate Globe and Mail for elitism, snobbery and bias. This, at a time when CBC ratings were on the rise. CBC management refused to engage, thinking that a pissing match was infra dig.

But if there are lessons to be learned from what is going on in Washington, the CBC better learn how to defend itself. And soon.