revitalizing a media reform movement in canada

8/14/2019 Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canada

1/69

DigitalStrategy

CommunityTelevision &Journalism

Net Neutrality

Revitalizinga Media Reform Movement

in Canada

Bob Hackett & Steve Anderson

REVITALIZING A MEDIA REFORM MOVEMENT IN CANADAby Robert A. Hackett & Steve Anderson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5

Canada License. To view a copy of this license visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/


2/69

REVITALIZING A MEDIA REFORM MOVEMENT IN CANADA

is research was assisted by a grant from the Necessary Knowledge fora Democratic Public Sphere Program of the Social Science Research

Council with funds provided by the Ford Foundation.

e views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily

represent the views of any organization, including OpenMedia.ca,World Association for Christian Communication,

the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University,the Social Science Research Council,

or the Ford Foundation.

www.OpenMedia.ca www.waccglobal.org

ii


3/69

Robert A. Hackett (Simon Fraser University) andSteve Anderson (OpenMedia.ca, formerly Campaign for Democratic Media, CDM),

with contributions from

Philip Lee (World Association for Christian Communication), Tony Oliver (Simon Fraser Uni-versity), David Skinner (York University), Amber Woodward (Simon Fraser University), Marissa

Lawrence (Langara College) and Jacqueline Cusack McDonald (OpenMedia.ca).

2010

iii


4/69

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadaiv

Table of ContentsIntroduction & Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Partner Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1 Background 1

The Canadian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

An Emerging Media Reform Movement . . . . . . 6

The Context of Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 An Online Survey of NGOs 9

Organizational Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Sector Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Participation in Media Campaigns . . . . . . . . 11

Sources of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Organizational Challenges and Priorities . . . . . . 12

Organizational Activities & Strategies . . . . . . . 13

Organizations Main Achievements . . . . . . . . 14

Collaboration Between NGOs . . . . . . . . . . 14

Familiarity with Organizations and Concepts . . . . 15NGOs as Part of a Social Movement? . . . . . . . 16

Perceptions of Mainstream Media. . . . . . . . . 16

Other Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Internet Use and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Net Neutrality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Democracy and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


5/69

V

3 Interviews with NGO Representatives 23

Organizational Goals and the Media . . . . . . . . 23

Goals and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Achievements and Obstacles . . . . . . . . . . 24

Position in the Political Field . . . . . . . . . . 25

Opponents and Allies . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

A Social Movement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Perceptions of the Media . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Democratic Media Activism, Anyone? . . . . . . . 30

4 The Toronto Workshop on Media Reform 32

5 Conclusions 33

Obstacles and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Springboards and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . 34

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Appendix

I. Online Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

II. Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

III. OpenMedia.ca/WACC Workshop Minutes . . . . . . . 51

IV. Organization Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Media Dissatisfaction and Activism . . . . . . . . 21

Table of Contents


6/69

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadavi

What are the building blocks for anemergent coalition aiming to democra-

tize public communications in Canada? That is the central question that this report

aims to address. The collaborative research sum-marized here comprises an online pilot survey, in-depth interviews, and a strategy workshop withkey activists and organization leaders. The goal isto identify issues, allies, resources and frames thatcould facilitate campaigns and sustainable media

reform organizations, and to contribute to schol-arship on media reform activism that has emergedin liberal-democratic countries in the past ten years.

This is a collaborative project between SimonFraser University communication professor Rob-ert Hackett, and two NGOs (non-governmentalorganizations) OpenMedia.ca, formerly Campaignfor Democratic Media (CDM), and the World As-

Introduction

sociation for Christian Communication (WACC).

OpenMedia.cas national coordinator, Steve

Anderson and Director of Operations, JacquelineCusack McDonald took the lead role in arranging,conducting and transcribing interviews, and in con-ducting the online survey for this project. Jacque-line also formatted and designed this report withthe assistance of Marie Elliott on table graphics.

Philip Lee from the World Association forChristian Communication coordinated the work-

shop in Toronto, and provided a summary ofthat workshop, included as an appendix to thisreport. Professor David Skinner from YorkUniversity contributed to the Canadian Con-text section. Tony Oliver and Amber Wood- ward from Simon Fraser University helped

greatly to analyze and summarize the interviews.

& Acknowledgements


7/69

vii

Partner OrganizationsMidway through this project, Campaign for

Democratic Media (CDM) changed its nameto OpenMedia.ca (www.OpenMedia.ca). Thename change is partly credited to the prelimi-nary results of this study. To avoid confusion,we shall henceforth use the name OpenMedia.ca.

OpenMedia.ca is a diverse network of pub-lic interest organizations and people concernedabout media reform and media policy formationin Canada. OpenMedia.cas predecessor CDM wasformed in 2007 with encouragement from peopleat Free Press, the Media Democracy Coalitionand other American media democracy groups.With active support from academics, unions and

advocacy groups, OpenMedia.ca mounted sev-eral notable campaigns, linked existing mediareform organizations and is well-positioned toamplify the public interest voice in policy-making.

OpenMedia.ca has launched national cam-paigns such as Stop the Big Media Takeover,SaveOurNet.ca, and Community Media Now! Ithas taken on digital media issues, organized largemedia education events such as Media Democ-racy Day and created a strong presence politically,including staging a Net Neutrality Rally on Par-liament Hill. In 2008, OpenMedia.ca published aseries of reports during the election season: Me-dia and Culture: Where do the parties stand andFact vs. Fiction, making both available onlineas tools to inform citizens about important issues.

In 2009, OpenMedia.ca has expanded exist-ing projects and launched new initiatives. In July,SaveOurNet.ca along with key Internet experts,presented a strong case for maintaining the openInternet (Net Neutrality) in Canada at a historicCRTC hearing in Ottawa. It organized an InternetDance Party in Vancouver and several packed townhall events across the country to engage citizensin discussions about the future of the Internet.

Most recently, OpenMedia.ca hosted the Fresh

Media Festival in Vancouver on October 24, 2009.Fresh Media Festival was a one-day forum to cel-ebrate innovation and independent media and tore-imagine journalism in the 21st century. Work-ing with organizations, media-minded people andcitizens, this event explored the intersections of

media, art and technology through workshops,panels, roundtables, live performances and ahands-on, creative exhibition. The festival em-braced all forms of media including social mediaand the importance of citizen powered journalism.

The World Association for Christian Com-munication (www.waccglobal.org) is an interna-tional organization promoting communication

for social change on the basis of solidarity, dig-nity, equality, respect and human rights, and espe-cially the right to communicate. It operates glob-ally through its regional associations and throughits global headquarters, since 2006 located in To-ronto, where WACC plans to create an interna-tional Centre for Communication Rights. Its mostactive constituents include religious communica-tors, communities of faith (particularly the ecu-

menical movement), communication academics,and development and human rights nonprofits.

Most of WACCs work is related to the de-mocratization of communication and the mediafor strengthening democratic processes; com-munication and peace building; gender equal-ity in communications; the connections betweencommunication and poverty; and countering

stigma and discrimination associated with HIVand AIDS, particularly among faith-based com-munities. It tackles these through advocacy, edu-cation, training, networking, the creation andsharing of knowledge and project partnerships.

WACC works to expand the communicationspaces of vulnerable and marginalised groups andto influence communication policy-making. It also

directly tackles communication poverty, believing

Partner Organizations


8/69

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadaviii

What other groups or constituencies arepotential allies or beneficiaries of media re-form? How does the media piece fit, ifat all, into the priorities and strategies ofother progressive groups that logically havea stake in a more diverse, open media sys-tem? How aware are such groups of the rel-evance of the state of Canadian communi-cation rights and media policy to their work?

The scope of this project is small and it must be

considered exploratory rather than definitive. Wehope however, that our data and interpretationswill help to identify issues, allies, resources andframes that could give further traction to emergingmedia reform coalitions in Canada, the northernflank for progressive media struggles in the US.

In the sections that follow, we first briefly outlinethe methodology employed. Then we sketch out

the political and academic context of the study, andof media policy activism in Canada. Subsequentsections summarize our findings from each of thethree stages of research, and discuss some of theirimplications. We conclude with reflections on theprospects for a media reform coalition in Canada.

that the relative silence of the voices of peopleliving in poverty in public communication pro-cesses is a key dimension of their powerlessnessand is closely correlated with the extreme inequal-ities that underlie human development deficits.

WACCs work is currently organized undersix programmes: Recognizing and Building Com-munication Rights; Media and Gender Justice;HIV and Aids - Communication and Stigma;Communication and Poverty; Communication

for Peace; and Communication for Ecumenism.

The Necessary Knowledge for a Demo-cratic Public Sphere program, of the So-cial Science Research Council, with fund-ing from the Ford Foundation, provided acollaborative research grant for this project.

Following up Hackett and Carrolls (2006) re-

search on the politics of media activism, the proj-ect is informed by crucial questions such as these:

What groups have been directly active inmedia and communications issues recently?What are their resources and main priori-ties? What do they see as current threatsand opportunities on the policy agenda?


9/69

ix

The research comprised three basic elements.

First a list was prepared of Canadian NGOs indifferent issue sectors or movements that might beexpected to have a stake in media content or regu-lation, regardless of whether they were currentlyactive in media policy activism. We wanted to assess

how important communications policy and mediaaccess are to the leading advocates of social changein Canada, in the context of their main priorities,and whether they would consider joining cam-paigns or coalitions for democratic media reform.

Next we prepared and distributed an onlinequestionnaire to currently and potentially al-lied NGOs. A list of potential respondents to

the online survey was compiled, partly throughpersonal contacts established by OpenMedia.ca, but mainly (in the apparent absence of an af-fordable and authoritative directory of Canadianorganizations) through several online databases.1

For each organization, we sought to identifythe individual responsible for media relationsor policy development. Our list was intended to

include NGOs in each of the following sixteencategories: peace, environment, ethnicity, gender,religion, labour/trade union, independent media,technology, arts and culture, civil and human rights,First Nations, professional/service, general politi-cal and advocacy, foundations, charity/education,

and research think tanks. (These categories canof course overlap. In analyzing the responses, re-spondents self-identification with a sector, ratherthan our own initial categorization, was employed.)

Certain selectivity biases in this method mustbe acknowledged. Activists who chose not to

work through formal organizations would be ex-cluded, as would groups that were not listed in thedatabases, for whatever reason. We also omittedgroups that do not operate in English, a decisionthat would mainly exclude Quebec-based Fran-cophone organizations. These selectivity biaseshowever, are consistent with OpenMedia.cas owncoalition-building strategy of creating a networkof well-resourced NGOs in Anglophone Can-ada, one that could work with parallel networksor coalitions in the distinct society of Quebecand/or expand to this territory in the future.

Using our master list, and subsequent to ap-proval by Simon Fraser Universitys Ethics ReviewBoard, about 224 organizations were invited byemail to respond to our survey; ultimately, 57 ofthem responded. (See Appendix I for the letter ofinvitation.) Designed collaboratively by Hackettand Anderson, the questionnaire focussed on thepriorities, resources, strategies, challenges, partner-ships and achievements of each NGO, as well asits use and perceptions of digital and news media.(See Appendix I for the full questionnaire.) The

1. These included the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (www.cicic.ca/en/profess.

aspx), a list of national professional organizations; Charity Village (www.charityvillage.com/cv/nonpr/profas.asp), Canadian associations and affiliates, mostly non-profit; Sources (www.sources.com), a directory for jour-nalists and researchers, of experts and media spokespeople; Canadian News Wire Group (www.newswire.ca/en/), circulating press releases and information from more than 10,000 sources across Canada, and thus usefulin locating Canadian groups who routinely use news media dissemination as an organizational tool; Steward-ship Canada, Funders Directory (www.stewarshipcanada.ca/stewardshipcanada/funders/search.asp?sid=1&name=geographicalFocus&value=Canada20%Wide), a directory of environmental organizations across Canada;Canadian Peace Alliance (www.acp-cpa.ca/en/group_directory.html), a small directory of peace organizations;and The Independent Media Arts Alliance (www.imaa.ca/en/index.php/activity_members), a listing of IMAA

members, mostly locally based.

Methodology

Methodology


10/69

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadax

questionnaire was intended as an intervention andnot simply a positivistic social science method ofgathering findings like pebbles on a beach. Someof the questions are intended to stimulate thoughtand action, reflecting OpenMedia.cas intention touse this project as a springboard for mobilization.

The second branch of the research entailedeighteen telephone and in-person interviewswith key individuals in Canadian advocacy groups,selected by OpenMedia.ca on the basis of their

potential for future involvement.2 Hackett and Anderson designed a semi-standardized set ofquestions, roughly parallel to those posed inthe online survey, concerning the NGOs man-date, strategies, priorities, resources, achieve-ments, obstacles, opponents, allies, identifica-tion with social movements, relations with andperceptions of media, and involvement with

coalitions on communication policy. Each in-

terview was summarized and the most relevantportions transcribed in full. Student assistants Tony Oliver and Amber Woodward at SimonFraser University then summarized the data.

Thirdly, WACC arranged a workshop of 19 ac-tivists, advocates, academics, trade unionists, andindependent media producers, including manymembers of the OpenMedia.ca national steeringcommittee. Held on May 26, 2009, at WACCsglobal headquarters in Toronto, the meeting dis-

cussed current communications/media policy is-sues in Canada, current activities and campaigns ofOpenMedia.ca, the initial results from the above-mentioned online survey of NGOs, the work inthis area done by workshop participants them-selves, and potential future strategies and cam-paigns. WACC provided minutes of this meeting,which are attached to this report as Appendix II.

2. Chronologically, our interview respondents included John Urquhart, executive-director, Council of Cana-dians, January 29, 2009; Bill Huzar, president, Consumers Council of Canada, Jan. 30; Ian Morrison, spokes-person, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, Jan. 30; David Robinson, associate executive director, Canadian As-sociation of University Teachers, Feb. 1; Steve Staples, executive director, the Rideau Institute, January 19; Pat

Kerwin, treasurer, Doug Massey, executive assistant, Frank Saptel, vice-president, Douglas-Coldwell Founda-tion, Jan. 19; Joanne Deer, director, public policy and communications, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Radio &Television Artists, Feb. 5; Alain Pineau, national director, Canadian Conference of the Arts, Feb. 18; Ian Boyko,Campaigns and government relations co-ordinator, Canadian Federation of Students, Feb. 19; Charley Beres-ford, executive director, Columbia Institute, Feb 26; Kevin Millsip, executive director, Check Your Head, March20; David Beers, editor/founder, The Tyee (online newspaper), March 23; Irwin Oostindie, executive director,W2 Community Media Arts Centre, April 3; George Doubt, national president, Telecommunications WorkersUnion, April 3; Markus Stadelmann-Elder, media officer, Maytree Foundation, April 8; Alice Klein, editor/CEO, NOW Magazine, April 16; Alain Cossette, communications director, Public Service Alliance of Canada,

April 21; Joel Solomon, Renewal, May 21.


11/69

1

of Canadas broadcasting policy review processbetween 1985 and 1991 in seven issue areas,painted a mixed picture. Public consultation andfavourable public opinion can generate posi-

tive outcomes for public interest groups in for-mal policy. But sustained policy intervention bypublic interest groups is costly, difficult and spo-radic. By contrast, through their direct access toregulators and legislators industry groups canshape policy implementation and resource al-location, incrementally subverting or constrain-ing formally democratic policies (Raboy 1995).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Canadian communications

policy has long embodied elementsof a democratic public sphere

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The sheer organizational and economic weight of Big Media and Big Telecom, theircontrol over the dominant means of com-munication production and distribution,surely enhances that power, even if only bymaking alternative policies seem unrealistic.

What about digital new media? A review ofthe development of Canadas digital communica-tion infrastructure between 1993 and 2000 con-cludes that three landmark enquiries were stackedwith industry representatives, held few or no pub-lic consultations, and thus favoured neoliberalpolicy outcomes. Two further reports, by the Ca-nadian Radio-Television & TelecommunicationsCommission (CRTC), had far more participatorypublic consultations, but nevertheless generated

outcomes not responsive to public input. The

The Canadian ContextBecause the public interest elements historical-

ly embedded in Canadian communications policy

have been eroding in favour of private corporate in-terests, this project has responded to an urgent needto revitalize a media reform movement in Canada.

In the 1930s, Canada was home to one ofthe earliest and most successful communica-tion reform movements in the mass-mediatedworld the Canadian Radio League. The Leaguespearheaded a campaign to create a public broad-

caster (now the Canadian Broadcasting Corpo-ration or CBC) and was influential in histori-cally less successful efforts to resist corporatedomination of the radio spectrum in the UnitedStates (Peers 1968; McChesney 1999: 232-240).

Partly due to such citizen activism, Canadiancommunications policy has long embodied ele-ments of a democratic public sphere, including

public regulation and elements of public owner-ship in both broadcasting and telecommunica-tions; the common carrier principle in tele-communications; public access or communitybroadcasting; Canadian content rules in broad-casting; tax subsidies and incentives for culturaland media production; support for aboriginalpeoples and minority language broadcasting;public consultation processes in broadcasting

and telecommunications policy-making; and sub-sidies for public interest interveners in telecom-munications; and limits on foreign ownershipand (minimally) concentration and cross-mediaownership. (See e.g. Raboy and Shtern et al, 2008).

None of these policies fundamentally al-tered the commercial and corporate domina-tion of Canadian media, however, and they are

threatened by recent developments. An analysis

1 BackgroundBackground


12/69

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canada2

prise a sea change in media structure (Skinner2008: 42; Skinner, Gasher, and Compton 2005).

Current IssuesWhile there have been a number of key issues for

media reform building in Canada over the last fewyears, since Fall 2008, the recession has both exacer-bated those concerns as well as opened up new ones.

In the face of falling advertising revenuesand large payments on the debts incurred in es-calating concentration of ownership of the lastdecade, Canadas big media corporations havemade major cuts to the newspapers and local tele-vision. The Canadian Media Guild estimates thatsome 3,000 media workers were laid off betweenJanuary and April of 2009 alone. At newspapers,layoffs and budget cuts lead to centralizing pro-

duction and narrowing specialized and local cov-erage. In terms of local television, there is somequestion as to how profitable these stations mightactually be, but with national and regional adver-tising revenues plunging, the networks are lookingfor a number of regulatory concessions. These in-clude: collecting a fee for carriage of their signalsfrom cable and satellite distributors; reductions inthe amount of local programming these stations

are required to produce; and rollbacks on thepercentage of programming the networks are re-quired to purchase from independent producers.

For their part, the regulators would like to seethe networks spend less money on purchasingforeign (U.S.) programming, which recently hitan all time high and outstrips their expenditureon Canadian programs. While attempting to work

these issues out, the CRTC is expected to grantthese stations one-year license renewals instead ofthe usual seven. Meanwhile, the House of Com-mons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritagehas been holding similar hearings, asking ques-tions about the different pressures on local broad-casting and exploring suggestions as to how thefederal government might address the situation.

In the face of these cutbacks, finding ways

CRTC did not dare oppose the Canadian govern-ments overall neoliberal model and, as a result,

the development, deployment and exploitationof information and communication technolo-gies was largely given over to powerful corporateactors (Barney 2005: 106-107; Barney 2004: 67).

Across media sectors, a series of mergers andacquisitions since 1998 has aggregated over halfof all Canadian media revenues in the hands ofthree firms (Winseck 2008: 31). Under the banner

of convergenceand internationalcompetitiveness,such media con-centration has metwith regulatory ap-proval. The prin-ciple of Canadian

ownership is beingreconsidered byStephen Harpersfederal Conserva-tive governmentand has been erod-ed by regulatorydecisions allowingincreasing Ameri-

can minority own-ership of Canadianmedia companies (Moll and Shade 2008). Regula-tory and funding support for the CBC has beenwhittled down. Community broadcasting, thoughrecognized as one of three pillars of the broad-casting system, continues to struggle with minimalresources. The CRTC is considering de-regulatingthe cable, satellite, and telephone companies thatcontrol television distribution (CRTC 2007). Pro-posed federal copyright legislation (currently with-drawn) threatened to restrict users rights of fairdealing. In the crucial field of new digital media,the issue of web-based Canadian media contentremains unresolved, and escalating violations ofthe principle of net neutrality threaten to createan increasingly tiered Internet (Anderson 2008).

As in the U.S., such developments potentially com-


13/69

3

port or subsidies for new media broadcasting, it isnot clear what effect the new definition will have

on independent, community, public and privatemedia that broadcast online. Media reformers willwant to ensure that independent, community andpublic media outlets are included in any future pro-grams created to support new media broadcasting.

The new media ruling marks another occa-sion where the CRTC has refused to deal withCanadas prevailing digital divides based on

geography (rural, remote, inner-city), ability(cognitive, physical), class, age, gender, and eth-nicity. However, perhaps the most significant as-pect of the CRTCs new media ruling is its callfor a national digital strategy. While theCRTCs ruling on new media essentially delaysand sidesteps many of the key issues raised atthe hearing, it also sets the stage for a high pro-

file debate over Canadas national digital strategy.With pressure building, in June 2009 Industry

minister Tony Clement hosted a Digital EconomyConference to discuss the possibility of a nationaldigital strategy. In 2010, the policy-making processconcerning Canadas digital strategy promises tobe a crucial and highly contested space to raise theabove issues and much more. Chairman of theNational Film Board Tom Perlmutter, capturedthe essence of the issue in a recent interview say-ing a digital strategy has to look at how we posi-tion ourselves into the future, how we positionourselves so that were able to deal with all of thethings that have to do with the technology, withinnovation, with productivity, with education,with issues around the digital divide between thehave-nots and the haves (Perlmutter, 2009: 1).

Calls for a digital strategy will likely becomemore vociferous considering Canada has fallenbehind many European and Asian countries interms of Internet access, speed, and cost, mov-ing Canada from 2nd to 10th place within the30 OECD countries (OECD, 2008). Canadasbroadband connection speeds have also fallenbelow the OECD average, and now rank 27th

in terms of cost versus speed (OECD, 2008).

to support innovative local and national pub-lic interest journalism should be at the top of

the reform agenda. Rather than yield to the de-mands of the large private media corporations,efforts should be placed on developing new in-dependent mandate-driven or not for profitcommunity media outlets and building supportfor increased resources for the CBC in this area.

As the impacts of the recession on localmedia occupy headlines, a number of impor-

tant longer standing issues continue to worktheir way through the system. These include:Canadas digital strategy; net neutral-ity, and community television broadcasting.

In February 2009, the CRTC held hearings onwhether to roll back their 1999 decision to exemptthe Internet from regulation. While some Inter-net applications, like Voice over Internet Protocol

(VOIP) are now regulated, the vast majority ofwhat passes across the Web, including broadcast-ing, is not. Some of the questions that were underconsideration: What is new media (read Inter-net) broadcasting? What might be its impact on theCanadian broadcasting system? What regulatorymeasures and/or incentives are needed to boostCanadian broadcast programming on the Internet?

On June 4, 2009, the CRTC decided to continueto exempt new media broadcasting services fromits regulation and monitor trends as they evolve(CRTC 2009). The ruling also indicates that forthe time being, the CRTC will not create the muchdebated New Media Broadcast Levy, whichwould subsidize Canadian new media content andpotentially Internet access, through a small levyon the revenue of big Internet service providers.

Under the previous definition of broadcastprogram, websites might be seen as a form ofbroadcasting, but only if they do not consist pre-dominantly of alphanumeric text. The CRTCsnew media ruling did expand the definition ofnew media broadcasting undertakings to encom-pass all Internet-based and mobile point-to-pointbroadcasting services. In lieu of regulatory sup-

Background


14/69


According to OECD, for countries to remaininternationally competitive, Governments need

to promote competition and give consumersmore choices. They should encourage new net-works, particularly upgrades to fibre-optic lines(OECD, 2008). In the 2009 Federal budget, theConservative gov-ernment pledgedto commit $225million over the

next three yearsfor broadband tounserved com-munities (Depart-ment of FinanceCanada, 2009).By contrast, Aus-tralia, which has asimilar geograph-

ic breakdown toCanada, is re-portedly commit-ting AU$4.7 bil-lion to a similar initiative (LeMay, 2007). Notonly is the Conservatives commitment rela-tively weak, it also does little to get Canadi-ans hooked up to next generation networks.

Mobile Internet and phone access promisesto be another important aspect of the digitalstrategy debate, and should be high on Canadasmedia reform agenda. Mobile devices promise tocomprise an increasingly important point of ac-cess to the Internet as well as traditional phoneservices. New policy in the public interest con-cerning wireless access to the Internet is perhapsthe most promising opportunity to close thedigital divide since the invention of the Internet.

The Canadian cell phone market is highly con-centrated with more than 95 per cent belonging toRogers Communications Inc., Bell Canada Inc. andTelus Corp., notably the most profitable wirelessservices in the developed world (Nowak, 2008). Areport by Merrill Lynch found that the Canadian wireless market was the most profitable of 23

developed countries surveyed. Despite Canadas wireless markets profitability, the OECD found

that Canada has the third-highest wireless ratesamong developed countries and Canada is fallingbehind on usage, ranking last for cell phone usersper capita. In 2008, the CBCs iPhone index com-

pilation comparedcosts of the iPhonein 21 countries andfound that the device

was most expensivein Canada and Italy.

Canadians facehigh prices, poorservice and highlyconstricted choice;a reality that mostCanadians are, in

fact, aware of. Morethan half of re-spondents (53%) ina 2009 Angus ReidPublic Opinion

poll reported that they believe Canada is one ofthe most expensive countries in which to use acell phone (Angus Reid, 2009). If this publicopinion can be harnessed to an intervention in

the government spectrum auction, taking placesometime in the next two years, Canadas wire-less market could take a 180 turn. The dismalstate of the wireless market, coupled with highlycritical public sentiment, suggests wireless couldbe a fruitful subject for a media reform cam-paign - a campaign potentially connected to newpolicies focused on Canadas digital strategy.

Net neutrality is another urgent matter requir-ing policy attention. At the 5th Canadian Telecom-munications Forum, representatives from bothBell Canada and Telus indicated an interest in pro-viding a priority access fast lane to the Internet forthose content providers who can afford extra fees.However, on October 22, 2009 the CRTC issuednew rules that are intended to prevent Internet Ser-vice Providers from discriminating against certain


15/69

5

types of traffic and content. Furthermore, boththe New Democratic Party and the Liberals now

have official policies supporting Net Neutrality.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It is imperative to maintainpressure on the CRTC and elected

ocials to ensure that Internet

trac is treated equally. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

These are huge milestones in the effort tokeep Canadas Internet open, but at the mo-ment, several ISPs continue discriminatory traf-fic throttling practices. The CRTC guidelines put

the onus on the consumer to file a complaint andto prove that ISPs are unjustly throttling traf-fic. Furthermore, while political support for NetNeutrality has grown rapidly, there is still no in-dication that a Net Neutrality law is imminent.Consequently, it is imperative to maintain pres-sure on the CRTC and elected officials to ensurethat Internet traffic is treated equally. In 2010, NetNeutrality supporters will need to push the CRTC

to enforce its own traffic management guidelinesby either submitting a formal traffic manage-ment compliant or convince Industry Minister Tony Clement to mandate regular complianceaudits of ISP traffic management practices.

Community broadcasting is also on thepolicy agenda in the near future. While framedin Section 3 of the 1991 Broadcasting Act

as one of the key elements of the Canadianbroadcasting system, community broadcastinghas not been very well supported in Canada. With private local broadcasting in crisis, thereis room for a much expanded role for both ra-dio and television community broadcasting.

In 1997, community channels became op-tional. Cable companies have since professional-

ized the now optional channels to make them

a competitive advantage rather than a commu-nity resource. The result is that fewer than 10%

of Canadians can access a community chan-nel to express themselves or make a program.

In 2010 the CRTC will review the communi-ty television sector and will collect citizen inputthough Consultation 2009-661. The CanadianAssociation of Community Television Users andStations (CACTUS) proposes that the money al-ready spent on community channels as a license

requirement ($116,000,000 in 2008), be liberatedto an independent production fund whereby com-munities could apply to run these channels them-selves. The production fund could support com-munity media centres that would provide training,equipment for sound recording, television pro-duction, web design, broadband streaming, andshare resources with other community organiza-

tions that specialize in communications, such ascommunity newspapers, libraries, and theatres.

Helping develop a broad vision for communitybroadcasting and working to ensure that adequatesources of funding are available to support that vi-sion are key projects for reform. There is also po-tential to integrate efforts to support communitybroadcasting into a larger initiative to re-imagineand re-invent journalism in the face of journal-ism cut backs and increasing media concentration.

Two other seemingly less immediate concernsare also worth noting, the first being the switch todigital television. With the deadline for switchingin Canada scheduled for August 31, 2011, privatebroadcasters are already looking for ways to avoidwhat they perceive to be the costly conversion oftheir over-the-air (OTA) broadcast transmitters.But while, for the most part, they would like to seethe elimination of this service, the conversion todigital promises to free up space in the radio spec-trum and opens up the possibility of increasingthe number of OTA signals, and thereby diver-sity within the system. While the cost of conver-sion presents particular challenges to communityand not-for-profit broadcasters, finding ways to

meet those challenges and exploit possible oppor-

Background


16/69


quality and quantity of Canadian programming.Several smaller under-funded organizations lob-

by on telecommunications issues and copyrightfrom a consumer-rights perspective, and severalunions have developed detailed policy propos-als and collaborated with other organizationson policy-oriented campaigns (e.g. Communica-tions, Energy & Paperworkers Union 2004). In1996, a common front called the Campaign forPress and Broadcasting Freedom (named after a

long-standing British media reform organiza-tion) campaigned against press concentration inthe wake of Conrad Blacks takeover of South-am newspapers. At the local level, media activ-ists have organized an annual Media DemocracyDay since 2001, in Vancouver and other cities.Other progressive advocacy groups and networksnot centrally concerned with communicationspolicy have often supported media reform.

A recent entrant to Canadian media reform isone of the partners to the present project the World Association for Christian Communica-tion, an ecumenical group which has promotedcommunication rights internationally for severaldecades. In 2006 WACC transferred its globalheadquarters from the U.K. to Toronto, where itis seeking Canadian partners for media reform,

and developing a global web portal as a clearing-house for information on communication rights.

These groups have worked in relative isolationfrom each other, however, and policy processestend to treat them as (at best) individual stakehold-ers rather than representatives of the larger publicinterest (Skinner 2004). But increasingly they arelooking to collaborative models like the Media &

Democracy Coalition in the U.S. With encourage-ment from experienced people at Free Press, theMedia Democracy Coalition and other Americanmedia democracy groups, and a nation-wide net-work of Canadian organizations and individuals,the other NGO involved in this project, Open-Media.ca, was formed in Summer 2007 to seekcommon ground for specific campaigns. With ac-tive support from academics, unions and advoca-

tunities is another important project for reform

The second concern is a possible mergingof Telecommunications and BroadcastingActs. Given ongoing convergence at both thetechnological and corporate levels, industry andgovernment officials have hinted at the possibil-ity. While such a merger would raise a number ofpublic interest issues, perhaps the biggest concernis what would happen to the cultural objectivesnow contained in Section 3 of the Broadcasting

Act. Those objectives set out the public interestin broadcasting and are the product of decadesof struggle. Any discussions of new legisla-tion should be closely monitored in this regard.

An Emerging Media Reform

MovementIt is not difficult to see the broader democratic

values that are at stake in the above-mentioneddevelopments: access to, and diversity of, citi-zen-relevant information; community-building,at both local and national levels; domestic con-trol over Canadas communication policies and

institutions, as a prerequisite for citizen partici-pation in policy-making; universal access to thekey means of public communication, as a basisfor equality and participation in society, cul-ture and politics; accountability of media in-stitutions to publics and to policy goals. These values, all highly relevant to democratic gover-nance and citizenship, are at risk of further ero-sion in current policy developments, particularly

with a federal government arguably more com-mitted to neoliberalism than any in the past.

Fortunately, there are signs of resistance. Que-bec has a long history of support for participa-tory, community and movement-oriented Frenchlanguage media (e.g. Raboy 1984). In AnglophoneCanada, an advocacy group called Friends of Ca-nadian Broadcasting has worked since 1985 to de-

fend public interest principles and to promote the


17/69

7

tions; and fragmented identities and weaker senseof pan-Canadian nationalism, associated with

strong regionalism, cultural and linguistic dual-ism, and Quebecs distinct society. Diversityas a policy goal in Canada hinges around linguis-tic, regional and political/ideological axes as wellas race and ethnicity (Beaty and Sullivan 2006).

That said, while the current report is intendedto shed light on the terrain for media reform inCanada, we also intend to make a modest con-

tribution to the more general literature. Socialmovement theory (SMT) forms one intellectualbackdrop for this proposed project. There areseveral major traditions in SMT, from Smelsersclassic but now unfashionable structural func-tionalism, to Meluccis (e.g. 1996) emphasis onnew social movements challenges to the alleg-edly state-centered old left, Foucaults radicalpluralism, and neo-Gramscian hegemony theory(cf. Carroll, 1997; Hackett & Carroll 2006). We arenot wedded at the outset to any particular SMTtradition, but given our concerns with the mobi-lization, framing, political opportunities, alliancestructure and sustainability of media reform, oursurvey and interview questions are inspired par-ticularly by the Resource Mobilization tradition.This model suggests that successful movements

need to find ways to reduce the costs of mobili-zation, to identify opportunities within the politi-cal environment, and to provide collective actionframes that identify shared grievances, villains,allies, and remedies (e.g. Klandermans 2001).

As background, our work has also been in-formed by Pierre Bourdieus field theory (e.g.1993). A field is an institutional social universe

with its own relatively autonomous logics, and re-sources for which agents compete; yet it is situatedwithin a broader field of power, notably com-prising state and capital (Benson & Neveu 2005).Some pioneering work has applied field theory inmapping the stakeholders and trajectories of me-dia activism itself (Hanke 2005; Klinenberg 2005).Hackett and Carroll (2006) considered the impacton media activism of communications institutions

cy groups, such as the 60,000-member Council ofCanadians, OpenMedia.ca has already mounted

several notable campaigns, linked existing mediareform organizations, and is well positioned toamplify the public interest voice in policy-making.

The Context of ScholarshipMany readers of this report will be familiar with

some of the recently burgeoning academic litera-ture, both case studies and theoretical overviews,on media reform as a social movement in the US,and at the transnational level (e.g. Dichter 2005;Klinenberg 2004; Klinenberg 2007; McChesney2004; McChesney & Hackett 2005; McChesney,Newman & Scott 2005; Opel 2004; Thomas 2006;Napoli 2007). There is also now a substantial lit-

erature on alternative/citizens/radical media asanother fundamental (and we would argue, com-plementary) route to media democratization andsocial transformation (e.g. Couldry & Curran 2003;Downing et al 2000; Hanke 2005; Rodriguez 2001).

Little in this area has been published on theCanadian context, however. There is a growingcritical literature on Canadian media policy, con-

tent and structures (e.g. Babe 1990; Beaty and Sul-livan 2006; Edge 2007; Hackett and Gruneau etal 2000; Moll and Shade 2008; Skinner, Gasherand Compton 2005; Raboy 1990; Winter 2007),but little of it focuses on policies or strategies forbuilding a more democratic media system. And we cannot simply extrapolate from the U.S. lit-erature, given some important differences in thelandscape for media reform. Compared to the

U.S., Canada has a more strongly institutionalizedpolitical Left, labour movement, and social demo-cratic element in the political culture; a strongerthough beleaguered public service broadcaster;historical though contested support for cul-tural sovereignty vis--vis the powerful pull ofAmerican media industries; a much higher degreeof media concentration; a weaker libertarian tra-dition; far fewer philanthropic funding founda-

Background


18/69


as a field with distinct characteristics notably, po-rous boundaries, a high capacity to intrude upon

other fields, and vulnerability to influence frompolitical and economic fields. Is this perspectiveconsistent with the evidence offered in this study?

If media democratization comprises a field,what is its scope? Scholars have drawn a distinc-tion between grassrootsactivism, and policy-oriented national-level

advocacy (e.g. Mueller,Kuerbis & Page 2004;Napoli 2007). Othershave categorized dif-ferent forms of mediaactivism on the basisof their origins, lo-cus of activity, tactics,ideological perspec-tives, and/or objectof change (e.g. Hackett & Carroll 2006: 54-57;Opel 2004). This project focuses on media re-form (defined by its intention to achieve institu-tional change of existing media) as a subset of thelarger field of media democratization. Specifical-ly, we focus on policy-oriented advocacy groups,not the entire media democracy movement, but

always mindful of the actual and potential links.

In particular, we wanted to address a theoreti-cally and politically vital question: Is media reformbest framed as part of other movements per-haps as a movement nexus (Hackett & Carroll2006: 199) or rather, as a distinctive indepen-dent identity (Napoli 2007:51)? If the latter,

then a strategy of appeal-ing to the instrumentalcommunicative needs of

other movements maybe less successful thana more universalizingappeal to democraticand humanistic values(solidarity, dignity, equal-ity, community, racial,social and ecological jus-tice). Such a framing/al-liance strategy suggests,

in turn, an especially critical role viz., consci-entizing constituencies for media justice forprogressive communities of faith, like WACC,that nurture ethical values (Powers 2005).

In the next two sections, we offer evi-dence from our survey and interviewsthat may help to address these questions.


19/69

9

inequalities within the sector may well contributeto different organizational cultures, and differ-ent levels of commitment to the existing field ofstate-recognized, politically legitimized advocacy.

That said, a cross-tabulation of organizationalbudget size with past and likely future participationin media/communication campaigns or coalitions(Q21, 26) revealed a striking contrast. Groups with budgets under $250,000 were much morelikely to participate than their wealthier counter-parts. In the past five years, twelve (57.1%) of the21 smaller groups confirmed their participation insuch campaigns, compared to just six (28.6%) ofthe 21 larger groups. Similarly, asked to estimatethe likelihood of future engagement on a scalefrom 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely), the small-er groups averaged a score of 4.19, compared to3.11 for organizations with budgets of $250,000or more.3 This finding suggests two points. First,from a methodological viewpoint, organizationswith smaller budgets and presumably fewer staff

may have been more likely to respond to oursurvey if they already had an existing interest inmedia and communications issues. Second, stra-tegically, it would be important for a Canadianmedia reform coalition not to overlook the po-tential for support from and collaboration witha variety of small but dedicated organizations.

Sector ParticipationOf the 224 organizations that were invited to

participate in our survey, 57 did so a responserate of 25.4%. In terms of self-identified mainarea of focus, (Q3/4) the NGOs were distribut-

We will now summarize some of the emergentpatterns.

Organizational SizeCompared to some of their US counterparts,

the NGOs that responded are mainlymodest insize, though there is a wide distribution. The medi-an category of membership size is 500-999. Seven-teen of 57 NGOs had under 500 members, 18 hadover 1,000; 14 are not membership-based. Nonehad more than 100,000 signed-up members. (Q4/5)

Interestingly, this picture does not changemuch when the NGOs identified the number ofpeople on their main contact email list (Q5/6). This suggests that the groups make little dis-tinction between membership and inclusionon an email list, and/or that the groups do notcommunicate regularly with publics or potentialsupporters beyond their formal membership.Indeed, at least one major organization told us

informally that it emails action alerts only to aminority of its own members, expressing an un-willingness to add to their supporters inbox clut-ter. OpenMedia.cas experience corresponds tothat of other groups: NGOs regard their emaillist as a hard-earned resource, and a kind of trust.

In terms of annual revenues, the median isabout $250,000 (Q6/7). Thirteen have budgets of

over $1 million, ten have $250,000 to 999,999, tenhave $100,00 to 249,999, and fourteen have lessthan $100,000, including nine with under $25,000.One can surmise two points. First, few organiza-tions appear to have surplus funds available forcampaigns unrelated to their primary mandates,and some cannot afford paid staff at all. Second,

2 An Online Survey of NGOs

3. The response dont know was tabulated as 3, the middle point on the scale.

An Online Survey of NGOs


20/69


are those accustomed to supporting research (po-litical advocacy and research/policy institutes),

but others have a fairly clear stake in communi-cations policy independent media, arts/culture,and arguably gender: in struggles for womensequality, in particular, media representations loomlarge. There is an ongoing tradition of feministactivism around media issues e.g. Canadas Me-diaWatch took a lead role in coordinating the firstGlobal Media Monitoring Project (1995) pro-

moted by WACC, a project that takes a contentanalysis snapshot of womens representationin news media every five years. (Now that Me-diaWatchs funding has declined, that coordinat-ing role has since been assumed by WACC.) Theparticipation of faith-based groups, perhaps en-couraged by WACCs sponsorship of the proj-ect, is encouraging. This suggests an often over-looked constituency for media reform perhaps

on the basis of universal human rights andethical values, as well as by religious denomina-tions more immediate need to find new ways toreinvigorate communities of faith in a culturalclimate of declining intermediate organizations(like community churches) and the rise of mass-mediated syncretic belief systems (Hoover 1994).

By contrast, the minimal participation of

peace and environmental groups is disappoint-ing, but is consistent with impressionistic evi-dence. With some notable exceptions, groupsin this sector tend not to theorize or prioritizethe connection between dominant media, onthe one hand, and consumerism and militarismin the culture, on the other. It is also likely thatsome NGOs in these sectors feel that they havewon some respect and space in the media, which

they do not want to jeopardize through cam-paigns perceived as hostile to corporate media.

The low participation of ethnic/vis-ible minorities may reflect a preference to

ed as follows: Media, 14; Arts/culture, 8; Labour/union, 6; General political advocacy, 6; Research

institute/think tank, 4; Religion, 4; Gender issues,3; Professional association/service organization,3; Civil and human rights, 3; Foundations, 2; Envi-ronment, 1; First Nations, 1; Other, 9; Unstated, 2.No respondents situated their groups in the peace,ethnic, technology, or charity/education sectors.

This is a small sample, and the results mustbe taken as suggestive rather than definitive.

Nevertheless, the proportion of organiza-tions within each NGO sector that chose tocomplete our survey, shown in Table 1, couldbe taken as a rough indication of the poten-tial for future engagement in media reform.

Implications:

Some of the high responders to the survey

4. Particular caution must be taken in interpreting this table. Not only are the Ns small, but the two columnsare not strictly compatible. The N s are unavoidably based on our own sectoral categorization of the groups

that we contacted, whereas the proportion responding used the respondents own self-categorization.

A O li S f NGO


21/69

11

Table 3 shows the average score (from 1 to5) from each sector, on the likelihood of fu-ture participation. Tables 2 and 3 confirm theimportance of independent media and arts/culture groups for media reform coalitions, but

they also suggest that trade unions and humanrights advocates are high percentage pros-pects. The above results also raise questionsconcerning framing and messaging. Would dif-ferent wording or framing be more appealing tothe groups who reported that they would be un-likely to participate in media reform campaigns?

SOURCES OF FUNDING

Asked to rate the importance of various sourcesof funding (Q7/8), Table 4 below shows the percent-age of NGOs that rated each as very important5:

work through their own media and communi-ties, rather than to engage with social change

organizations perceived as white-dominated.

Charities also did not participate. This may bean untapped potential. Consider Britains PublicVoice media reform coalition, one that has takenon the defence of public broadcasting in particu-lar. Its constituencies include charity groups thatneed media access for visibility and public service messages (Hackett and Carroll 2006: 120).

PARTICIPATION IN MEDIACAMPAIGNS

A cross-tabulation of self-identified sec-tor (Q3) with past and likely future engagement with media campaigns (Q21, 26) broadly cor-roborates the above ranking of sectoral partici-

pation, with a few exceptions. While the sampleis small, the following ranking of groups thathad affirmed their engagement in campaignsor coalitions in the past five years is suggestive:

5. Percentages and frequencies reported in these tables are often not additive; they may total well over 100%,

as multiple responses were permitted.


R it li i M di R f M t i C d


22/69


ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGESAND PRIORITIES

How does the media piece fit into the man-date of Canadian NGOs? We can extrapolate from what they tell us about their current challengesand priorities. Forty-six of the organizations iden-tified their top two priorities for the next threeyears. Our categorization of their open-endedresponses suggests the following breakdown:

Before media reformers leap with excitementat the prominence of public awareness and policyadvocacy in the communications and cultural field,we should note that all 12 such responses arosefrom NGOs already engaging in media produc-tion, media education or advocacy, or representing

Implications:

While comparative data would be usefulto interpret these results, the survey does sug-gest the importance of government in sustain-ing NGOs in Canada, with potential influenceon NGO agendas. The pursuit of governmentfunding may be part of the reason for the cur-rent apparent conservatism of the environmentalmovement, but it also gives these NGOs a vest-ed interest in intervening in government policy.

On the other hand, 36% said government fund-ing was not important at all, once again suggestinga bifurcation between elite/state-oriented and op-positional/independent or small marginal groups.

Many organizations have succeeded in build-ing a base of support from individuals. Supportfrom foundations is important, but probablyless so than in the US. Overall, the importance

of external sources other than products/services marketed by the NGO itself, implies ahigh degree of financial vulnerability and a gooddeal of effort absorbed by fund-raising, con-tract-chasing, and/or membership servicing.

13A O li S f NGO


23/69

13

Financial vulnerability is one theme that emergesfrom this identification of NGO priorities and

challenges. When sources of potential fundingwere mentioned in connection with fund-raising,government support, grants, foundations and en-dowments were the most frequently mentioned,more so than market-based or commodified rev-enue streams. These are NGOs, after all, not busi-nesses. The exception would be some of the mediaorganizations, such as magazines whose readership

reach is both a political goal and a revenue source.A second theme, albeit one primed by the sur-

veys framing, is the awareness and relevance ofmedia. Several groups outside the media field notedmedia factors as problems, such as advertising costsor audience fragmentation. As noted elsewhere,media profile usually enhances recognition andsupport from funders, publics and policy makers.

ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES/STRATEGIES (Q9/10)

Respondents were asked how often theirNGO engaged in each of 13 listed activi-ties, in pursuit of their goals. Table 7 belowshows the average rating for each activity (from1 = never, to 4 = often), and the proportionof respondents listing each activity as often.

Implications:

NGOs in these sectors expend considerable re-sources on organizational self-maintenance, andon reaching the public through media that arerelatively self-controlled and have relatively lowdistribution costs (websites and reports). In some

cases, the responding NGO is itself an indepen-dent, community or alternative media orga-nization. Less energy is expended on direct en-gagement with the political/legal system, or withtrying to gain access to the dominant media (e.g.by sponsoring media-oriented events or develop-ing relationships with journalists), apart from thelow-cost activity of issuing news releases. While afew groups that we surveyed may have ideologi-

producers and workers in arts, culture and mediasectors. Arguably, however, access to the public fo-

rum is relevant, at least indirectly, to the prioritiesof non-media NGOs, as they pursue funding, or-ganization-building, public visibility and advocacy.

That impression is reinforced when weconsider the 48 responses to an open-endedquestion about the major challenges or ob-stacles faced by each NGO (Q11). Thesecan be categorized into the following themes:

Individual respondents also noted the difficul-ty of representing diversity within their own sec-tor, unfavourable demographic changes amongstsupporters, and general systemic obstacles.




24/69


least one comment in each of the following (post-coded) categories (the total is thus non-additive).

Access to public communication is clearly rel-evant and useful with respect to most of thesegoals, particularly public campaigns, outreach,and (in some circumstances) gaining a seat atthe table. Almost certainly, however, NGOstypically pursue such access through their ownmedia, and/or conventional media relationsstrategies, rather than the more indirect strat-egy of reforming media structures and policies.

COLLABORATION BETWEEN NGOs(Q12/13, 13/14)

The shortage of resources by individualNGOs reinforces the advisability of collabora-tion in mounting campaigns. Fortunately, theorganizational culture in Canada seems favour-able to coalitions. Asked how often their NGO

engages in collaborative projects or campaigns with other organizations (a 5-point scale fromNever to Constantly), only 13% of our re-spondents say they never or seldom doso; 55.5% say they do so often or constantly.

With what organizations do our respondentsmost frequently partner? Are there any organiza-tions engaging in frequent partnerships with other

NGOs and thereby acting as a potential hub for

cal antipathy toward engaging with the establishedpolitical or media system, it is likely that the re-verse is the case. Many NGOs would undoubtedlywelcome a seat at the policy-making table or space

in the dominant media, but are limited by shortageof resources (time, staff, money): NGOs are hard-pressed to mount and sustain ongoing public andpolitical campaigns. Notably, only a small minori-ty of the groups engage in confrontational tactics,such as demonstrations. Even though such tacticsmay be economically inexpensive, the politicalcosts and benefits may be deemed unfavourable.

ORGANIZATIONS MAINACHIEVEMENTS (Q10/11)

Fifty-one respondents offered thoughts on theirgroups main accomplishments or achievementsin the previous five years. This was an open-endedquestion that allowed multiple responses. Table 8shows the number of respondents who entered at

15An Online Survey of NGOs


25/69

15

with people, groups and concepts related to theenvironment and media reform (Q14/15). To

what extent are Canadian NGOs already famil-iar with the media reform movement in Canada?

Comments: The fact that over a quarter of respondents

declared themselves familiar with a fictitiousorganization, the Canadian Institute for Pub-lic Interest Media, cautions us not to take thescores at face value; perhaps respondents arelikely to over-report their own knowledge andaccomplishments. Nevertheless, the last-place

ranking of this fictitious entity reinforces thevalidity of our survey instrument and the useful-ness of the findings for comparative purposes.

Generally, environmental entities outweigh me-dia democracy. Compare Suzuki and McChesney,or global climate change and communication rights.That is hardly surprising, when one considers therelative salience and perceived urgency of the two

issue-fields in public, policy and media agendas.

networks of progressive activism? Hackett andCarroll (2006, chap. 11) suggested that media ac-

tivism itself might perform the role of articulatinga shared grievance for progressive social move-ments and providing an arena for them to cometogether, at least in the US. Media activism, theysuggested, might constitute a movement-nexusrather than a movement in itself. In Canada, how-ever, a similar role might be played by a progres-sive political party, such as the social democraticNew Democratic Party (NDP), or by trade unions,which are proportionately larger than in the US.

But such appears not to be the case. Our re-spondents identified a total of 56 organizations aspartners in the previous three years. Surprisingly,only three groups are mentioned more than once the National Anti-Poverty Organization (twice),the Vancouver-based Independent CommunityTelevision (twice), and OpenMedia.ca (Campaignfor Democratic Media) or its annual Media De-mocracy Day (5) a finding which must be im-mediately qualified by OpenMedia.cas role in se-lecting the respondent list. Speculatively (since wedid not ask this question specifically), there maywell be networks or organizations that progres-sive NGOs frequently turn to for information oradvice in forming coalitions, such as the Canadian

Centre for Policy Alternatives (mentioned onceas an organizational partner), or the Council ofCanadians, the largest progressive umbrella groupin the country. Neither the Council, nor the NDP,were mentioned by respondents as an active part-ner. The survey does not reveal an organization thatacts as an active hub for collaborative campaigns.

FAMILIARITY WITH ORGANIZATIONSAND CONCEPTS

Even if neither media activism, nor any othersector, appears to constitute an organizationalhub for progressive advocacy in Canada, the ex-tent of familiarity with media reform issues is en-couraging. We used a Likkert scale (1 to 5 points)for respondents to self-report their familiarity

!"#$%&'(&

)"*+$+",+!-&.+!/&0%$%1!%2

&34$+!1"$&%5!+!+%0&

%67879& && &&":;(&0?&@&&&&)AB8C8A>DE(&)*$,

2A:8F&0GHGI8& & J(K'& & 'L(M1A6.?N7&OC=PAC& & J(JQ& & 'Q(J

OC=PAC&


26/69


spondents identify could all be consideredprogressive. But it is not obvious that in Cana-da, arguably in contrast to the US, media re-

form functions as a nexus between them.

PERCEPTIONS OF MAINSTREAMMEDIA

The importance of media was considerablyrecognized, often combined with participantsdissatisfaction regarding coverage of their own

NGOs and issues: 84.6% agreed that the qual-ity and diversity of Canadian journalism affectstheir organizations work (Q19). Thirty-six re-spondents offered supplementary comments.Many of these reiterated complaints about su-perficial, biased or sensational coverage; lack ofquality or diversity; over-dependence on officialor corporate sources rather than the grassroots. A few complained about reporters themselves:

they were not well-schooled in relevant is-sues, were more concerned to be TV anchorsthan investigative reporters, were members of adominant culture without sensitivity to genderor minority issues. More frequently, respondentsrecognized that traditional media are very re-source stretched, and specialized reporters aretoo few. A few mentioned media concentration

or conflicts of interest arising from ownership.

But it is encouraging that at least half of re-spondents are familiar with the key (non-fic-

titious) Canadian media democracy entities more so than with their US counterparts (FreePress and its co-founder, the well-publishedauthor and professor, Robert McChesney).Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and rabble.ca appear to have gained substantial recognition.

Two implications arise. First, the brandname of US media reform organizations may

not carry much weight as a means to attractthe support of Canadian NGOs that are notalready part of the media reform movement.

Second, there is room for growth. As oth-er NGOs and publics become more awareof media democracy concepts, campaignsand organizations, perhaps such aware-ness can be translated into increased support.

NGOs AS PART OF A SOCIALMOVEMENT?

Most of the respondents consider their advocacy work to be part of one or more socialmovements: 66% said Yes, and a further 24.5%Sometimes. This finding has positive implica-

tions for mobilization (as a movement im-plies a long-term, sustained effort at socialchange), and for collaboration (as a movementis broader than a single organization). For pur-poses of framing campaigns and identifying al-lies, it is important to know what movements theNGOs identify. Of 57 respondents, 32 identifiedone or more movements, as shown in Table 10.

Implications:Encouragingly, media democracy is (increas-

ingly?) recognized as a movement in its ownright though different ways of labelling it per-sist. Finding a common or umbrella frame re-mains a challenge, as experienced media reformactivists are well aware (e.g., O Siochr 2005).

The other movements with which our re-



27/69

17

dia have quite deliberately dropped, such as unionsand womens rights; The poor quality, lack of

diversity and lame insight provide constant inspi-ration for my work and provide a context to show what media could be like. [Politics, Re-Spun]

When asked their view of coverage of theirown organization and its issues, 22% said theywere very dissatisfied, 40% somewhat dissatisfied,and only 26% being moderately or very satisfied(Q17). Twenty-nine of the respondents made

more detailed comments about mainstream media:mainly negative (15), while 4 were unqualifiedlypositive, 5 mixed, and 5 other. Table 11 summa-rizes the main critical/negative themes (Q17b):

Implications:

There is no single focus to the respondentsdiscontent with dominant media. For framing acampaign around democracy and journalism, thethemes of lack of resources, and the decline of lo-cal journalism, are likely to resonate more readily

than hostile bias or framing. It is difficult to escapethe accusation that bias is subjective, in the eye ofthe beholder; it could be divisive, in that potentialcoalition partners could perceive bias differently;and it could be construed by journalists as an attackon their own professional integrity particularlyin the absence of extensive documentation by anongoing media analysis institute. Canada has no

counterpart to the progressive US media watch-

An NGO advocating artists right to access copy-righted material argued that Mainstream media

are stakeholders in the legislation to which we areopposed, therefore mainstream media coverage isskewed to favour entertainment industry desires.

A few respondents more explicitly ex-plained the relevance of media, both posi-tive and negative, to their own work:

* Diversity of journalism gives us op-portunity to pitch different story anglesfor the same issue e.g. a business angle, aFirst Nations angle, science, environmentetc. Yet the decline of newspapers isdisconcerting for our organizationspresent model of communication andadvocacy. [An environmental NGO]

* If Canadians dont know their artists, itmakes it much harder to advocate on theirbehalf, and to get public support. [Cana-dian Artists Representation (CARFAC)]

* Many of our members are on the fring-es and require knowledgeable and carefuljournalism to bring these practices andinnovations to light. Smaller orgs gain

when the quality and timing of the report-age is favourable. [An arts organization]

* We have to work harder (for no pay)to disseminate information that countersthe mainstream media spin, contribut-ing to frustration & risk of burnout.[Edmonton Small Press Association]

NGOs that produce journalism themselves hada distinct take. For the Professional Writers Asso-ciation of Canada, quality and diversity in journal-ism allow our members to earn a living, improvetheir craft, and take pride in the work. For someof the independent media, the very deficienciesof corporate media are an opportunity: StraightGoods.ca covers many areas that mainstream me-

!"#$%&YY(&

5O4_0&1,+!+1+0*0&4)&*"+50!,%"*&*%2+"

YM&`&*?F8A&8;6=>?&=G>&=>;A68HA78=6&=>&8NNG?Na&=>&F=6_7&VA9&&& &&&&?6=G;R&A77?678=6

&J&`&*?F8A&CA?N=G>N&86&=G>& ?CF

&M&c&*?F8A&NR8V

&M&c&/=N78C?&W>AB86;a&P8AN&=>&N?C?&G6F?>N7A6F86;

&Q&c&.?&=G>N?C:?N&?&?WW=>7&8W&X?&XA67?F

&&&&&&&&P?77?>&A;?

&Y&c&*?F8A&A>?&7==&?C87?`=>8?67?F&86&7R?8>&N=G>


28/69


dependent media suggests that an initiative thatcombined the two might be fruitful if a common

frame or grievance can be found. A campaignthat puts forth a positive vision for indepen-dent and public media as a partial solution to thecutbacks in traditional media, may be attractiveto a broad constituency of NGOs and citizens.

Internet Use and Access

There was even more unanimity with regardto the Internet: 88% said the Internet is veryimportant to their work (Q24); 80% agree thatit is very important that all Canadians have ac-cess to it (Q26). For both questions, 0% of therespondents indicated that these issues are notat all important, and every respondent agreedthat Internet access for Canadians and for their

own work is at least moderately important.Comments pertaining to the importance of

the Internet to respondents work suggest thatthe Internet is viewed as important for very tan-gible and instrumental reasons. Common com-ments to this question include the importance ofthe Internet for: Research, public access, mobili-zation, outreach, education, advocacy, collabora-

tion, building community, and networking. Forexample, one respondent wrote, This is how we distribute reports, gather research and in-teract with the public. Many of the commentswere also highly emphatic. One comment read,Critical! As a national organization the Internetis a key means of communication / collabora-tion / organization. Another respondent simplystated, It is our oxygen. Such comments sug-

gest that an initiative that tapped into these feel-ings could generate a lot of energy from NGOs.

In terms of the broader issue of access tothe Internet in Canada, comments were gener-ally more social and abstract. Common themesinclude the importance of Internet access forequality, citizenship and democracy. For exam-ple, one comment read, ability to play a role in

dog, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

The themes of corporate control and me-dia concentration could be linked more readilyto cutbacks and resource shortages, rather thananti-labour, conservative, or pro-corporate bias.This does not mean that media reformers shouldignore the analysis of the political economy ofcorporate media, in fact, it is a crucial intellectualunderpinning for public interest policy regard-ing the crisis of journalism and the democratic

development of new media (McChesney 2007).

OTHER MEDIA

There is some sentiment that CBC cover-age is better (44%) than other media; 8% feltCBC was worse, and 26% the same. This sug-gests there is some ground for advocacy in

favour of public service broadcasting, a con-stituency that has been effectively mobi-lized by Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

Independent media also received a vote ofconfidence. 51% said that independent me-dia have been quite or very helpful to their work; and 37.3% sometimes helpful (Q23).

As per table 12, of the 57 respon-dents, 30 made one or more additionalcomments about alternative/indie media.

Implications:

High levels of support for both public and in-

!"#$%&YQ(&

5O4_0&14**%5!0&45&"$!%,5"!+E%&*%2+"

QT&`&O?6?>ACC9&V=N878:?&


29/69

19

are aware that high bandwidth uses of the In-ternet that they rely on like video, are more un-

der threat than lower bandwidth activities com-mon to NGOs, such as web posts and email.

DEMOCRACY AND MEDIA

How do the NGOs rate Canadas mainstreammedias performance of their role in a democraticsociety? Over half (55%) rated Canadian medias

democratic performance as poor or very poor,though 45.1% rated media as average or better(Q20). Most of the 24 respondents who offeredadditional comments were critical. Several themesstand out and resonate with the potential agendafor media reform. First, 13 respondents pointedto aspects of corporate control, media concen-tration, and/or state policy. Biased or inadequatecoverage was the second most frequent critique(mentioned by 10). In some cases, but certainlynot all, such bias linked to corporate control,but others linked to resource constraints (thethird most common theme of critics), or to cul-tural power differentials. (There are echoes hereof the debate between political economy andcultural studies traditions in media scholarship.) These quotes illustrate the varying positions:

* News coverage lacks quality analysis,political context and diversity of voic-es outside of a dominant, white, heter-onormative and middle-class points of view [Canadian Association of Com-munity Television Users and Stations]

* Mainstream media in Canada are cor-porations therefore their responsibilitiesare to their profits not the truth. Coverageof issues such as the environment, copy-right, Israel/Palestine, gay marriage, hand-guns, etc. is all editorialized to benefit theinterests of the corporation, not the pub-lic at large. [Appropriation Art Coalition]

* It is not the fault of the journalists. They

production of Canadian culture should not bedetermined by technological, financial and geo-

graphic barriers. Another respondent wrote,Its now a crucial medium for communica-tion; effective citizenship depends on access.

Participant responses to Q24 in relation toQ26, reveals a positive correlation between theimportance of the Internet to the organizationswork, and the likelihood of their joining a mediareform campaign. While it is only a small sample,

those who rated the importance of the Internet totheir work as less than very important, more of-ten reported a lower likelihood of joining a mediareform campaign. The same correlation is evidentbetween the few who did not rate Internet accessas very important (Q26). Of the 9 respondentswho did not think Internet access was very im-portant, the average rating concerning their likeli-ness of joining a future media reform campaign,was a full point (3.10) lower than those who didthink access was very important (4.13). In sum,those who see the Internet as important to theirwork or as important in general, were more likelyto be interested in campaigning for media reform.

Net Neutrality

A full 98% agreed that Net throttling wouldnegatively affect their work (Q25). Most com-ments cited the potential effect on outreach ac-tivities and the potential financial impact on theirorganizations. One comment that captured thesesentiments well reads, Censorship and two-tiered pricing is detrimental to any organization with limited resources (time, money etc.). An-

other comment read, Access to our work wouldbe more difficult or we would have to pay moremoney for faster service...either one is not ideal.

Judging from the comments, media organi-zations seemed relatively more concerned aboutNet Neutrality relative to non-media organiza-tions. Media organizations are probably moreconcerned with Net Neutrality because they




30/69


and minority ownership; less concentra-tion; restriction or regulation of monopo-

lies; broadcast licences for non-corporateentities; ceilings on foreign ownership andownership in a single market; net neutrality;legislated separation between content pro-viders and distributors; more local control.

Better journalism and content (17);greater diversity in storytelling and pro-duction strategies; less sensation, celebrity

and car crashes; more investigation, origi-nal programming and newsgathering; moreanalysis or positive news; less bias, moreself-reflection and education; better cover-age of marginalized peoples and countries.

Regulatory and financial support forindependent and community media(11): e.g. a cap on copyright tariffs for

non-profit media; radio frequencies re-served for community use; mandatoryfree carriage of alternative media contenton other platforms; ISP levies; commu-nity channel levy, controlled by indepen-dent community production groups (i.e.not cable companies); discounted postalrates. Only two mentioned people be-ing and doing their own media, withoutreference to some form of state support.

Better funding and public resourc-es for public service media (9), par-ticularly public broadcasting/CBC, butalso real journalism internet sites.

Improve media personnel (2): me-dia training for youth; better ethnic,

cultural and gender representation.Other regulatory measures (2).

Miscellaneous other measures (4): labour-funded progressive news outlet; morerespect for writers and their rights; and(from a denominational publication)boycott information on the internet!

are stretched beyond belief as they arenow having to provide content that can be

used in multiple media formats at the sametimeOver the past 15 years, convergencebetween traditional mediaand the tele-com/broadcasting industry has resultedin a substantial narrowing of viewpointsand stories [Telecommunities Canada]

* The concentration of corporate me-dia ownership, particularly in Vancouver,

undermines the ability of a free press tocontribute to democratic discourse. Andeven without such concentrated ownership,too many of the largest media owners arestaunch neoliberals passing themselves offas objective and neutral. [Politics, Re-Spun]

These themes suggest somewhat divergent em-phases for media reform: reduce market concen-tration; replace corporate ownership with publicor community ownership; subsidize journalism;and/or change the cultural background and as-sumptions of journalists and their publics. Theseapproaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive,however. Interestingly, and possibly in contrastto their American counterparts, Canadian NGOs

do not appear to put much faith in market forcesand greater competition as an antidote to concen-trated corporate control. Indeed, Media Actionexplicitly rejects this approach: Media corpora-tions concern with market forces, competition,creating an ostensible landscape of innovation,often leaves the public interest by the wayside while creating inferior and boring products.

A parallel range of views is evident when re-spondents addressed specifically how they wouldlike to see the media changed. Thirty-nine re-spondents offered their thoughts, sometimes indetail. They can be categorized into these themes:

Structural changes in media (18 respon-dents): broadcast licensing; more diverse



31/69

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Encouragingly, there is wide-spread support for using the instru-

mentality of the state to achievedemocratic reform of media.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(2); we are a charity and thus have to be carefulabout political agitation (1); and from the MetisNational Council, understandably in light of his-torical experience, The Metis Nation must have afull and meaningful role in directing any campaign.

Does dissatisfaction with the performance ofmainstream media help lead NGOs to engage incampaigns to improve the media? Yes, but not uni-formly. Respondents who had participated in mediacampaigns during the past 5 years were somewhatless satisfied with media coverage of their groupand its issues (averaging 2.1 on a 5 point scale), thanrespondents who had not (2.53 average score).

Similarly, media campaign participants ratedCanadian medias democratic performance lower(2.04 average) than did non-participants (2.65).

With respect to the likelihood of future par-ticipation in media reform campaigns, there isa nearly linear relationship with dissatisfaction with medias democratic performance. Thoseleast likely to participate gave the medias dem-ocratic performance an average score of 4 (outof 5); rather unlikely, 3.25; possibly, 2.125; ratherlikely, 2.0; and very likely, 2.18. There is a small

group of respondents who rank Canadian me-dia as quite good, but who nevertheless arequite likely to participate in future campaigns.

There is also a relationship (though not sostrong) between future likely participation, anddissatisfaction with media coverage of respon-dents own NGO: 48.4% of those dissatis-fied with media are very likely to participate,

Implications:

Encouragingly, there is widespread support forusing the instrumentality of the state to achievedemocratic reform of media. Perhaps not sur-prisingly from a sample of institutionalized advocacy groups, many of them seeking to influ-ence government policy, there is little evidenceof hardcore libertarian or anarchist/autonomistsentiment. At the same time, a careful readingteases out issues that could be divisive for media

reform coalitions, such as copyright (free accessvs. revenues for creators) and the relative empha-sis on public subsidies and political support formainstream journalism, for public service me-dia, and for independent or community media.

MEDIA DISSATISFACTION ANDACTIVISM

What conditions are likely to induce NGOsto participate in media reform campaigns?

The small scale of this project permitsonly limited bivariate analysis, but we wereable to explore the hypothesis that dissatisfac-tion with mainstream media is likely to corre-late with greater involvement in media activism.

Our sample is fairly evenly divided betweenparticipants and non-participants. Of those surveyed, 50% have previously engaged in cam-paigns or joined coalitions that aimed to influencethe media or change communication policy, in thepast 5 years; 40.4% have not (Q21). (See Tables 2and 3 above, for a breakdown by NGO sector.)

Respondents are equally divided on the likeli-hood of their participation in future such cam-paigns: 50% said it is rather or very likely; 38%said possibly or dont know; 12% rather or veryunlikely (Q27). Thirteen respondents offered fur-

ther comments, mostly explaining reasons for reti-cence: Such campaigns are not within our mandate(5 respondents); it would depend on the contentof the campaign (3); our resources are too limited

y


32/69

23Interviews with NGO Reps

8/14/2019 Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement

revitalizing a media reform movement in canada

Documents