Mediacheck

Time to Let Foreigners Own Broadcasters?

Think Canadian owners assure protection of our culture? Think again.

By Michael Geist, 8 Mar 2011, TheTyee.ca

TV with maple leaf

How best to protect and promote Canadian culture on airwaves?

Related

In recent weeks, a political consensus has begun to emerge on the benefits of removing restrictions on foreign ownership in the telecommunications sector. Implementing such reforms faces at least one major political stumbling block that is only tangentially related -- the spillover effect onto the broadcasting sector.

As Canadian telecom operators, broadcasters and broadcast distributors become single entities -- Rogers combined with City-TV, Quebecor's ownership of Videotron, Sun Media and Groupe TVA, Shaw having purchased Canwest Global, as well as Bell in the process of merging with CTVglobemedia -- the biggest hurdle may well be fears about the cultural impact of opening up telecom companies to foreign buyers.

While the link between broadcasting and Canadian culture is obvious, the connection between Canadian broadcasting ownership and Canadian culture is tenuous at best.

Canadian law currently features both foreign ownership restrictions and content requirements. The foreign ownership rules generally limit licensees to 20 per cent foreign ownership (up to 33 per cent for a holding company). This covers all types of broadcasters including television, radio and broadcast distributors.

The Canadian content requirements apply to television, radio and specialty television stations. Television stations must carry a certain percentage of Canadian content, with additional requirements for "priority programming" that includes Canadian dramas, documentaries, music and variety shows. At least 35 per cent of music played on radio stations must be Canadian in order to meet Cancon requirements.

Many observers appear to assume that Canadian ownership and content requirements go hand-in-hand, fearing that a foreign-owned broadcaster would be less likely to comply with Canadian content requirements. Yet there is little reason to believe this to be so.

Not much enthusiasm for Canada

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's active involvement in setting Canadian content requirements is a direct result of Canadian-owned broadcasters regularly seeking to limit the amount of Canadian content they are required to broadcast. Producing original Canadian content is simply more expensive than licensing foreign (largely U.S.) content. These fiscal realities -- and the regulations that have arisen as a response -- remain true regardless of the nationality of the broadcaster.

Foreign-owned businesses face Canadian-specific regulations all the time -- provincial regulations, tax laws, environmental rules or financial reporting -- and there is little evidence that Canadian businesses are more likely to comply with the law than foreign operators.

Cultural businesses may raise particular sensitivities, but broadcasters that are dependent upon licensing from a national regulator can ill-afford to put that license at risk by violating its terms or national law.

In fact, a review of other developed countries reveals that many have eliminated foreign ownership restrictions in their broadcasting sector but retain local content requirements. For example, Australia has no foreign ownership restrictions on broadcasters (Canwest was once the majority owner of one of its television networks), yet employs a wide range of local content requirements.

Find better ways to guard our culture

The same is true in many European countries -- Germany has eliminated foreign ownership restrictions but retains daily regional programming requirements, Ireland has no foreign ownership restrictions but establishes programming requirements for each broadcast licensee, and the Czech Republic has dropped its foreign ownership restrictions but relies on broadcasting licenses to mandate local programming.

In the absence of content requirements on private broadcasters, some countries rely more heavily on their public broadcasters to be a key source of domestic programming. For example, Norway does not have foreign ownership restrictions but has established regional programming requirements for its public broadcaster (in addition to local programming expectations in the licensing process).

Although few are calling for Canadian broadcasting to be opened to foreign ownership, the reality is that the cultural concerns associated with greater foreign ownership are vastly overblown. As a growing number of viewers venture outside the traditional broadcasting system for their news and entertainment, the cultural community must find better tools than foreign ownership restrictions to help support the creation and broadcast of Canadian content.  [Tyee]

5  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • dave49

    1 year ago

    Really...

    Really? Look at what happened to our newspaper industry under what amounts to monopoly ownership. Our broadcasting industry is so small in comparison to the size of the conglomerates that would want to add us to their portfolio. I harbour no illusions about benevolent foreign owners.

    Besides, what is left to sell off? Not a heck of a lot. Most of what we identified ourself by when I grew up is no longer in Canadian hands: nickel, steel, aluminum. At least we still have the wheat board, but Harper would like to kill that.

  • Amelia Bellamy-Royds

    1 year ago

    Dave49:

    Your comparison doesn't make sense. Geist isn't arguing that foreign owners would be "benevolent", he's arguing that they would still have to comply with the same content restrictions on their licenses. In contrast, there aren't any licensing requirements or restrictions on newspaper content. The public service aspect of local news coverage only perseveres so long as corporate owners see a connection between quality local news and advertising market-share.

    Furthermore, as has been demonstrated by the Wind mobile debate, removing foreign ownership restrictions may actually increase competition against the oligopoly of establish Canadian telecom companies.

  • gstark

    1 year ago

    This Is Dangerous For Canada

    The ruling elite in Canada want to be as free to manipulate Canadian discourse as their American buddies are.

    This push is part of a multi-faceted effort that includes the ever-greater concentration of ownership, the diminishment of support for quality content creation and non-ad minutes (actual content time) per broadcast hour on the CBC, and the Harper government's recent attempt to gut the ban on false or misleading news (Konrad von Finckenstein said the CRTC only did it because it was ordered to).

    In a word they want election shaping powers like those used by Murdoch/Fox News in the US and around the world.

    If the foreign ownership restrictions are weakened, Murdoch will be here in a jiffy - using false and misleading news to frame issues to suit his agenda.

    The Harper crowd would clearly benefit from such an outcome.

    Informed votes are the bedrock of democracy.

    It is astonishing to me that Canadians as a whole seem to be unaware of the ongoing erosion of the source of that informing, The News.

  • Dan the socialist

    1 year ago

    I am sure Harper will allow

    I am sure Harper will allow more foreign ownership. Like the law will have to be changed for Wind to stay (unless the SCOC hears the case and overturns it) in business since the court ruled against them being in Canada due to foreign ownership.

    Plus then what is up with the Value for signals since it seems the cable/satellite own most broadcasters??

    I do not want foreign ownership but the likes of Bell, Rogers own everything from TV to satellite to internet providing to cell phones and more and have abused that privilege and scammed the people so maybe it is time???

  • Lolo Fleet

    1 year ago

    On the one hand

    One the one hand, there is no reason to believe that by virtue of an owners Canadian citizenship, a company would operate any differently than with a foriegn owner. Conrad Black being a prime example. On the other hand foreign ownership restrictions ensure diversity in media ownership world wide.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.