Source : Ottawa Citizen

From funding cuts to public backlash, Robert Rabinovitch's seven years at the helm of CBC have not been dull. He talks candidly to Chris Cobb as he prepares to step down from the public broadcaster's top job

Former federal bureaucrat turned businessman Robert Rabinovitch retires at the end of this month after seven often-turbulent years as president and CEO of the taxpayer-funded CBC and its parallel French-language service Radio-Canada.

Montrealer Rabinovitch oversaw major changes both within the organization and in radio and TV programming. Early in his tenure, he faced an unprecedented, all-party political backlash on Parliament Hill when he cut existing local and regional supper hour and late night TV news programming in16 communities across the country. Angry public and political reaction forced him to back down and CBC eventually replaced the 16 regional shows with the hybrid national/local news show called Canada Now, which, by Rabinovitch's own admission, was a failure. The late-night shows were never replaced.

Four years prior to Rabinovitch's appointment, the CBC was hit with a $400-million budget cut by the Chrétien government and the corporation was still dealing with the physical and psychological fallout when he took over. Since his appointment, federal funding to the CBC has risen to slightly more than $1 billion annually -- which he says is not enough.

He sold millions of dollars worth of CBC real estate and in several cities consolidated operations in single buildings, including the new broadcast and administration centre on the Sparks Street Mall in Ottawa.

Rabinovitch, the longest serving CBC president in the past half century, reflected on the past seven years with Chris Cobb, who covered his entire tenure for the Ottawa Citizen.

Q. You started the job in 1999. What surprised you most in that early period?

The CBC was on life support. It was the beginning of the 21st century and it wasn't prepared for the cuts it had to absorb and wasn't functioning like a $1.6 billion business. I but didn't realize the depth of their problems. It was dysfunctional and had been more or less leaderless for awhile; there had been internal conflicts and the place was a series of personal fiefdoms. The most pleasant surprise was the loyalty of the people and how committed they were to public broadcasting.

Q. So what did you do?

I set up a structure. English radio didn't speak to English television but the worst was French radio, which would broadcast criticism of French (CBC) TV all the time. So the people weren't speaking. And head office was a shell that put numbers together and presented them to government. So it didn't function like an integrated public broadcaster. But I could build on the people and was able to put together a group of talented senior people.

Q. You sold a lot of CBC real estate. Why?

There was no understanding of the assets buried in the company. We complain, quite rightly, that we still don't have the money necessary to do more quality programming and take the programming risks we would like to take but we did have assets -- a lot of aging buildings and a lot of land. So we milked the assets and with that we modernized the plants -- like Ottawa where we integrated five or six operations into one (on Sparks Street). We did it in Edmonton, Quebec City, St. John's and Vancouver. The government didn't give us a damn cent. We did it all with our own money."

Q. You've been through three governments. How would you assess their commitments to the CBC?

They are all the same. I can't honestly say what the Conservative government would do if it had a majority but there has been a lot of benign neglect. They all say the same thing: that they support and believe in the public broadcaster but they don't come up with the money. And every one of them has asked for a review of the CBC mandate, including one right now, and at the end they shrug. I just appeared before the House of Commons committee and it was like a love in. They all said nice things."

Q. But MPs weren't very nice to you after you cut supper hour regional newscasts. Was cutting them a mistake?

"Yes, but understand the context. Literally within my first week, the head of English TV told me that the network had never absorbed cuts from the 1995 federal budget. We had to cut 670 jobs. That was my welcome to the CBC. I also had to eliminate a systemic budget shortfall of about $75 (million) to $80 million. I didn't know enough to challenge the advice I got that we protect the core national news service (The National) and cut the local. And by the time I got here, the local service was not very good and really bad in terms of audience share. So it was suggested that we do like in the States, national news show at 6 p.m. Canada Now didn't work because we have a star service and that's The National and nobody would sacrifice to make the Canada Now service better -- and rightly so. But I learned that without a strong local service ultimately your national service will wither. It's why radio does so well."

Q. But not all the regional news shows were bad. What about the Maritimes where the ratings were high and the most vigorous backlash came from?

"Right. People from the Maritimes wanted us to keep running services in the Maritimes and cut other areas of the country. It was a self-serving argument. The population is moving from east to west so it made no sense.

Q. You have been accused to weakening Canadian content in prime time on the main CBC-TV network. Is that a fair criticism?

No. We have not changed it one iota. We have been criticized for lightning up the program in prime time but all the programs are Canadian or co-productions like The Tudors. Some people don't like our reality-based programs. One MP told me that Canadians want the BBC model, but the BBC, better than anyone, knows that you've got to have lighter programs to run into your heavier programs. A public broadcaster can't be an elitist organization. And that was our problem. We were too bloody serious. All our programs were deep and dark."

The perception is that there are too many Hollywood movies and American shows on CBC.

"There is not one American show after 7:30 or eight o'clock at night. And the movies are on in the summer, basically replacing hockey. Some people have a problem with the lighter shows, like Dragon's Den, but younger viewers love them."

Q. You lost CBC's rights to the Olympics. Was that a blow?

"It was. I was very upset. But they aren't the draw they once were although in Vancouver they will be. I like the Olympics because it pulls people together but not at the price the Olympic Committee said they were worth. We bid $93 U.S. million for 2010 and 2012 and CTV bid $153 million. They had very bad intelligence. They should never have bid that much. It would have been a bad joke if I'd gone in and bid $160 million. Our guys are as good at selling ads as anybody else and $93 million was a break even number.

Q. CBC Radio is enormously popular and has changed under your tenure. Aside from what we hear, what changes did you make?

"We pushed radio into recognizing that they have a quality product that people might not want to listen to when they put it in the air. We were skewing programming that was much older than the listening population on both Radio One and Radio Two. The result has been a tremendous number of iPod downloads. We were accused of dumbing down radio to get a bigger audience. That's not true. We attracted a new audience of 18-35 year olds to programs like Ideas and Quirks and Quarks. I had to help people understand that these technologies weren't a threat but a way to reach another audience. We have more than one million downloads a month and it is a brand new audience.

Q. In your presentation to the Commons Committee on Nov. 27 you used the word "company" a lot. Specifically that CBC is a "content company." Is this really the way Canadians see the CBC?

"You have to start by understanding that we are a $1.6 billion enterprise and there is no reason why we shouldn't run as an efficient company. Our product is public broadcasting but we are a company. It's an attitude thing. I'm a suit and my job is to get as much money as I can, and make sure it is well spent, so the creators can do their thing."

Q. Why does the CBC matter?

"It's one of the last and most important instruments that tie the country together, one region into another. Our job is the production of Canadian content. Look at the number of hours of documentaries and drama, in English and French, we produce. We tell Canadian stories and give a Canadian interpretation of what's going on."

Q. What's you biggest regret as head of CBC?

"The time went so fast and I had to spend too much time at the beginning getting basic management operations in place. I'm sorry it took so long to do that and I wish I had a couple of more years. But it is time for me to go."

Q. And your biggest satisfaction?

I take great satisfaction in our TV and radio ratings. In the past two years English TV has had some of the best numbers ever. We're only a point and a half behind a company like Global and we have no American content to drive us. So we've been doing something right. But my single biggest accomplishment has been getting the place to think of itself as an integrated company. Everybody used to talk about the profligate spending at the CBC and how badly managed the place was. You don't hear that now. So if there is going to be a debate about the CBC let it be about substance and not how the place is managed."

Q. Your competitors would like to see commercial free CBC-Radio Canada TV. Is that ever going to happen?

Our total TV advertising revenue, French and English, is $330 million. On the French side, it is $110 million and $220 on the English side. More than half of it comes from sports. Governments have not given us one extra cent. We need $50 million to extend radio service to the eight million people who don't get it so would taking us out of ads be the best use of money? I'm not sure it would. If that were the condition then sure, I'd take it but let's talk about the best thing to do with the money. Ads are not necessarily a bad thing either. They keep you focused on your audience.

Q. What are the biggest challenges facing your successor (Montreal lawyer Hubert Lacroix)?

"This business is changing dramatically. Funding in its various forms will be a critical thing. It's a constant battle. And the day-to-day reality of managing a complex company and sometimes a lack of understanding within the corporation of how dramatically this environment is changing."

Q. And what's next for you?

"I'm still very involved in McGill and chairman of their board and I'm on the board of the McGill University Health Centre. I'm done as a CEO but I might pick up a couple of boards and travel. I turned 65 and my wife and I are going to become twentysomethings . While we've still got knees, we are going skiing for two months in Europe -- something we should have done when we were in our 20s.

Q. With backpacks?

"No, not this time. We've rented a Peugeot.

© Ottawa Citizen

Related Documents:

December 16, 2007 - Rabinvotch Mistaken on Hollywood Movies
Letter to the Editor, Ottawa Citizen correcting inaccurate comments by former CBC President Rabinovitch about Hollywood movies on CBC Television.