Source : Media @ McGill

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced that it was establishing a new approach to media ownership. This was a direct response to the Diversity of Voices Public Hearing held in Ottawa in September 2007. The changes proposed are primarily to ensure that no one person or group maintains control of a given market and this regardless of the type of media.

Overall, this is most likely a welcome decision based on the comments that emerged from the public and community sectors, as well as from unions, lobbyists and special interest groups. Private broadcasters hoping to increase their share of the "Canadian pie" will be the exception. Nonetheless, it seems concessions on their behalf (or for the CRTC to save face) have been made to ensure previous decisions are upheld.

When determining what ownership policies, if any, should be put into place to ensure diversity of programming in the private sector, the CRTC considered the competition thresholds established by the Competition Bureau for banking services. On the outset this would seem logical given that banks are enterprises of federal jurisdiction and could offer an appropriate framework for comparison and application.

The new CRTC framework does not permit post-merger combined market shares of more than 45% in a given market. Post-merger combined market shares between 35% and 45% are to be monitored closely and applications for those owning less than 35% are to be expedited. According to the CRTC, CTVglobemedia and CanWest MediaWorks Inc. own 37.4% and 26.3% of total audience shares (discretionary services and over-the-air television) respectively, while the French audience shares are held by Quebecor (32%) and Astral (23.2%). Is it only a coincidence that the audience shares are within the parameters of the proposed framework? Why not use an example from the transportation industry, such as aviation, which is also under federal jurisdiction? The truth is the decision to use the banking example is not the problem, but rather the lack of explanation related to the decision which tends to encourage scepticism due to a lack of transparency.

Another interesting aspect of this announcement was the CRTC's decision not to include the Globe and Mail and the National Post in its assessment of cross-ownership. Instead, it decided to limit its focus to local newspapers, thereby excluding these two nationals from the analysis. Furthermore, it limits the types of newspapers to include even further by not considering free dailies such as the 24 hours distributed in most Canadian urban centres. Is this just another coincidence or was the decision made to protect the large conglomerates from the new policies? It is no secret that these conglomerates are the same organizations who own the television shares. The National Post is a CanWest publication, the Globe and Mail is owned by CTVglobemedia and the 24 hours is owned by Quebecor. Should the CRTC have considered these newspapers in their analysis, the outcome would have been much different.

While appreciating the fact that a historic moment took place when the CRTC followed through with the Diversity of Voices Public Hearing, it is important to recognize that it was unlikely for it to go back on its previous decisions and even more unlikely for media outlets to critique a decision that is in their favour. Therefore, the obvious was stated: the CRTC has established policies to "protect" the Diversity of Voices for the future.

© Media @ McGill

Related Documents:

October 16, 2007 - Podcast - FRIENDS presentation to the CRTC on the Diversity of Voices proceeding

September 21, 2007 - Policy Brief - Presentation to the CRTC Diversity of Voices Proceeding [PN CRTC 2007-5+41]
FRIENDS tells the CRTC BDUs have a huge impact on diversity of voices and should be a focus of the CRTC's review.