Source : Ottawa Citizen

The CBC and its unions have thrust the third labour dispute in six years on the Canadian public. Is it time the government appointed a royal commission to take a hard look at the national broadcasting organization and its future?

This and the other CBC labour disputes were about many issues, including job security and short-term contracts. The first the union approves of, and the second it doesn't.

Job security is, of course, what everyone wants. It means, in most cases, that an employee can't be let go, demoted or transferred to another job. Ever. That is a state of grace enjoyed by few working people in Canada.

Most of us are subject to the wishes of our employers or the marketplace. The CBC says it is attempting to hire more people on short-term contracts to give the corporation more flexibility when it wants to terminate a program or alter the approach of a TV or radio network.

But at a deeper level these labour disputes are about who will run the CBC on a day-to-day basis and who will decide its future -- the employees or the managers? Right now, the employees have the edge. It is important that the managers win back control of the corporation and its programming for two reasons.

First, the CBC has too many employees for the jobs that need to be done, from technicians to research staff. For instance, non-CBC media people following election campaigns and other news events often comment that the CBC deploys two and three more people to do a job than its private competitors. Managers trying to run an efficient operation are hobbled by regulations written into union contracts years ago.

Second, those directing the CBC need the authority to ask for and demand fairness and balance in the presentation of news and opinion, something the CBC has failed to achieve in too many cases in the past. One of those is its coverage of U.S. President George W. Bush since he became president in 2001. While Mr. Bush won the first election narrowly, the second election was a solid victory.

Yet it appears to be an institution-wide assumption that whatever Mr. Bush does is wrong and whatever initiative he takes, such as the intervention in Iraq, is foolhardy and illegitimate. Yes, there are legitimate and strongly held views that the Iraq intervention is damaging to the U.S. in its world role, and especially in its relations with the Arab world.

But there are equally well-argued and widely accepted views that the Iraq intervention was necessary and has strengthened the U.S. position in the world and led to encouraging changes in the Arab world, including in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

But on CBC flagship programs, such as As it Happens, and even on regional programs hosted by lesser-known personalities, the bias against Mr. Bush is palpable. In short, the CBC lost its balance in portraying George W. Bush from the beginning of his presidency and never regained it.

The obvious question is: Why does the CBC use different criteria for assessing Mr. Bush and his actions than it uses for Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and his? And why is there such a clear anti-U.S. bias in much of CBC reporting and editorializing, compared with, say, its coverage of Canadian-British relations?

The CBC is not the only public broadcaster facing intense criticism for its institutional bias. The BBC recently was hit with a series of inquiries and charges it was biased in coverage of the Iraq war and other events.

Similarly, both PBS, the publicly supported U.S. television network, and its radio counterpart, National Public Radio, are being slapped for what some politicians and community leaders see as an unbalanced approach to many issues.

Balance and fairness are not easy to institutionalize in a public system. As anyone knows who works in the media and other sensitive institutions -- public or private -- it takes a huge amount of care and concentrated effort every day over many years to build up public confidence.

Unfortunately, both CBC TV and radio -- more TV than radio -- have lost the hard-won confidence of many, maybe even most, Canadians.

Knowing this, the challenges facing the government and CBC leadership are enormous and may be insurmountable. Having a labour dispute every two years won't bring about the needed changes.

The best solution is for the government to appoint two or three Canadians with vision to spend a year studying the challenges faced by the national broadcaster. Then, appoint a new slate of executives at CBC head office to make the necessary changes.

James Ferrabee writes a national column for the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) and for 47 years covered politics and economics for national newspapers here and abroad.

© Ottawa Citizen