Canadian Radio and Television Broadcasting - Essay Example

The History, Justifications for, and Ultimate Impact(s) of ‘Canadian Content’ Regulations in Canadian Radio and Television Broadcasting [Institution] Table of Contents The History, Justifications for, and Ultimate Impact(s) of ‘Canadian Content’ Regulations in Canadian Radio and Television Broadcasting Introduction The ‘Canadian Content,’ generally refers to the requirements of the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission that stipulates that all radio and television broadcasters must air a given percentage of local content that is Canadian in nature. Derived from the Broadcasting act of Canada, Canadian content regulations have significantly enhanced the protection of Canadian culture and identity by making it mandatory for both satellite and cable broadcasters to broadcast content with Canadian originality. In this case, the regulatory body demands all media houses to air content that was at least partly produced, written, presented or contributed by Canadians. According to Allen (2009, p. 55), this is particularly based on the belief that ensuring Canadian programs on both the radio and television programs is an important way of maintaining and building the country’s culture and identity as well as promoting Canadians’ creativity. The Canadian content regulator CRTC has gone through a series of structural and functional changes beginning from the introduction of the regulations in the early 1920ss to the modern state instrument for content regulation. “To ensure that every element of Canadian Broadcasting system contributed towards the presentation of Canadian programming, the CRTC required that every broadcasting undertaking not only include certain Canadian services or content but also give them priority positioning”(Armstrong, 2010, p.109). Since the dawn of broadcasting, the Canadian broadcasting policy has always been to adapt to new technologies while at the same time ensuring that the system includes both private and public broadcasting, promotes Canadian content, reflects Canadian values, makes use of the reactive resources of Canada and is controlled by Canadians. This paper critically discusses the history and evolution, justification as well as the ultimate potential impact of the ‘Canadian Content’ regulations in Canadian radio and television broadcasting from the inception of the industry to the present. History and Evolution of ‘Canadian Content’ Regulations The history of the Canadian Content regulations dates back to the 1920s when the need to have a Canadian presence on the radio gradually arose as a way to counter the growing American influence on the radio and protect Canadian culture and identity (Armstrong, 2010). Although Canadian radio began licensing numerous commercial radio stations in 1922, the Federal government was increasingly concerned that many Canadian radio listeners were tuning to American stations while the development of the Canadian radio remained rudimentary. Faced with a massive influx of American radio signals and popular culture, the government established the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting in 1928 to advice on the future of Canadian broadcasting. Chaired by Sir John Aird, the commission submitted a report recommending a form of public ownership of the Canadian broadcasting in order to guarantee Canadian broadcasting. In 1932, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act was passed by the parliament resulting in the establishment of a publicly owned broadcaster, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (CRBC) whose immediate primary mandate was to control and regulate all broadcasting in Canada including providing an alternative to the U.S radio networks. However, CRBC only lasted up to 1936 and its mandate was soon taken over by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) known in French as Radio-Canada. Initially, the CBC/Radio-Canada was primarily responsible for the production of information and entertainment programming as well as the regulation of the Canadian broadcasting system in order to off set the impact of the American radio on the Canadian audiences. According to Armstrong (2010), “the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act not only established a CBC similar to BBC but also gave the CBS an authority to regulate the private sector broadcasting comparable to that of the previous CRBC”(30). This was largely intended to foster national consciousness and strengthen national unity. However, in 1957, the Royal Commission on Broadcasting recommended the establishment of a new urgency to help regulate the system. This paved way for the 1958 Broadcasting Act that created the Board of Broadcast Governors (BBG) responsible for regulating CBC and the private broadcasters. At the same time, the requirements for Canadian content were set out for the first time and it soon became the mandate of the BBG to ensure that the broadcasting system was Canadian in character and content. On the other hand, with the introduction of Television broadcasting in 1952, the concerns that many Canadians had increased access to American Television programming compared to Canadian television broadcasting quickly emerged and this eventually led to the adoption of a new Canadian broadcasting act in the year 1968. The modern day CRTC is charged with responsibilities derived from both the 1968 Act of parliament and the emerging trends in communication and broadcasting. The regulatory body controls the broadcasting distributors, the internet providers and telephone services. In controlling broadcasting distributors, the CRTC regulates the fee charged by content distributors. However, Nicks, J. (2012, pg 117) criticizes the price regulation. Broadcasting experts urge the CRTC to allow market forces of supply and demand to set the prices of contents, (pg 119). Concerning the internet provider’s regulation, the 1968 Act gives the CRTC jurisdiction over content communicated via the internet. Several amendments were done in 1991 that completely changed the face of the regulator. These amendments charged the Canadian Television-radio and telecommunication commission (CTRC) with the responsibilities of strengthening the state’s social, political and economic structures through the maintenance of cultural fabric of Canada, Allen, G. (2009, pg 71). Despite the fact that the Canadian Content regulations had been contentious for a long time, a 1999 court ruling held that the CRTC has the legal mandate to regulate all forms of communication over the internet (Molot, 2005, p.713). Concerning telephony control, the CRTC is mandated to provide landline telephony in Canada. However, the CRTC is in the process of deregulation telephone services in order to allow a certain level of competition. Molot (2005, 720) has blamed the CRTC for the failure in Canada’s mobile phone industry. The regulatory body has only allowed three mobile network providers- Talus Mobility, Bell Mobility and Rogers Wireless - leading to consumers’ exploitation. The body has failed to regulate service quality, rates and business practices, (p. 722). The current Broadcasting Act contains three sections namely; the Canada’s broadcasting policy, the control power of the Canadian Television-radio and telecommunication commission (CTRC) and the policies and operating procedures of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, , Allen, G. (2009, pg 75). The broadcasting act declares that every element broadcasted in Canadian systems must contribute appropriately to the presentation and creation of Canadian programming. In addition, the act provides that all broadcasting processes should maximize the use of Canadian resources and creativity during creation and presentation of programs (Allen, 2009, p.73). Justification for the Canadian Content Regulations Although the Canadian content regulations have always been subject to considerable controversy and scrutiny since they came into effect, the Federal government has put a number of reasons to justify the establishment of Canadian content regulations. One of the major reasons used for the justification of the Canadian content regulations is the argument that ensuring Canadian programs on both the radio and television programs is an important way of maintaining and building the country’s culture and identity while at the same time promoting Canadians’ creativity. This is particularly in view of the increased competition from international channels such as American television and radio stations that bring with them the popular culture thereby threatening the existence of both the local Canadian culture and identity. In this regard, the Canadian Content’ regulations as a component of the Canadian broadcasting policy was primarily established in order to encourage Canadian expression through a diverse range of programming while at the same time ensuring that the Canadian regional, linguistic and cultural diversity is effectively reflected in the broadcasting programming. To ensure that the Canadian local programs and music are given sufficient airtime in the Canadian broadcasting channels, the CRTC developed content requirements for radio, television and distributors that made certain the various sufficient numbers of hours each of the category of broadcasting channels were required to dedicate to Canadian content. For example, the government of Canada, through the CTRC (Canadian Television-radio and telecommunication commission), introduced a quota system for all content broadcasted in the state. The quota system requires all media houses and broadcasters to air a minimum of 60% content with Canadian origin, (Molot, 2005, p. 58). The Act that created the Canadian Content quota allows the government agency in charge of media regulation to set rules, policies, procedures and legislation to achieve a certain public interest. In addition, the other important goals of the Canadian Content that have been widely used to justify the regulations include enacting standard media practices, encouraging fair competition during advertising and protecting public interests among other goals. The Canadian Content targets radio, television, press, music among others. One of the specific requirements of CRTC regarding the Canadian local content is that all radio stations must always ensure that 35% of the music they air every week is Canadian in nature. In addition, commercial Canadian radio stations are required to ensure that at least 35% of the music they air from Monday to Friday between 6.am and 6.pm is Canadian while the ethnic radio stations must guarantee not less than 7% of the music they air every week is Canadian. On the other hand, televisions are also required by CanCon regulations to achieve a minimum of 60% Canadian content in the overall broadcasting of both the private, ethnic and satellite television networks. Another important rationale that has been widely used to justify the establishment of the Canadian content regulations is to protect Canadian artists and develop local talents. The Canadian Television-radio and telecommunication commission (CTRC) argues that the regulations are intended to give voice to the talents in Canada, develop and share their experiences in order to preserve the Canadian cultural identity. For example, in the 1950s when radio and television stations began to become popular with the public, Canadian airwaves was quickly dominate by American and British hits and very few Canadian artists were unable to break through. As a result, CRTC decided to take action to guarantee a level playing field where the Canadian artists would be able to complete fairly with their more developed and established competitors. The traditional approach to supporting this argument has largely been based on the fact that the availability of the spectrum is currently limited that therefore broadcasters must ensure that they adhere to the given set of minimum hours and percentages of local content as a way of promoting Canadian culture and identity. The government’s move to justify the allocation of varied frequency assignments is chiefly attributed to the perception of airwaves as a public resources plus spectrum scarcity. Besides, the government has used the two concepts to justify its intervention in program content with the aim of fulfilling goals such like fairness and balance and to censor any material that does not match home consumption. Basically, the theme that is common place is that broadcasting differs from any other cultural form in a style that justifies government regulation. Of all the variations, the feature that is deemed to be most significant is the idea that the individualized features of broadcasting stem are pegged on two historical assumptions: airwaves form part of the public resources and spectrum scarcity limits market entry (Armstrong, 2010). Although there is a theoretical possibility for everybody to air their views via print by setting up a blog spot or introducing a press, the restricted number of frequencies that can be availed to the broadcasting stations has given the implication that gaining access to the electronic media can only be left to few members of a community (Edwardson, 2007). According to Vipond (2011), airwaves are regarded as a public property and this has been used to justify the need for government involvement. As such, users of the utilities have to be determined by people’s representative instead of the market forces. Besides, the government also needs to take part in the regulatory process for the reason that a coordinator will be needed among users from different spectrum and the coordination exercise will occasionally be inclusive of usages within other countries. It is through the regulation that individuals who are granted licenses become public trustees. Often times, they will follow on a responsible manner of use of the frequency associated with the airwaves. Of utmost importance is that they must never use the frequency to present narrower perspectives of different viewpoints that they will be channeling via the media facilities. In most cases, the owners of the broadcasting stations have to makes sure that every listener will be informed by a desperate point of view if any matter is to be presented. At equilibrium, the public’s right to hear outweighs the broadcasters’ right to fully govern their property or entirely exercise freedom of expression. The Canadian extension regarding this argument bears the opinion that the geographical and historical position of the country necessitates the need for an intervention approach that will protect the national goals. Interestingly, opponents of regulation have not changed their minds about the scarcity of evidences that point to the notable aftermaths of the existence and use of the TV sets. Canadian content regulation has also played an integrative role of aggregating over these broadcasting units whole subscription packages. The licensed broadcasting houses were not required to adjust their programs airplay on the internationally-based services offered by them. This impacted negatively on the international broadcasts and airplays in Canada. Most of Canadian the broadcasting houses were required to have a minimum number of Canadian produced channels with at least 85 percent Canadian-based content on their services. The Canadian content (MAPL) system’s role worked automatically in the qualification of musical selection. This selection was to fulfil at least two conditions of aggregation. First condition was the musical composition and secondly the artists. Both the composition and artist was to be ultimately Canadian based. Finally, the Federal government ha also justified the establishment of the Canadian Content with the argument that ensuring that Canadian content is in the airwaves is creating thousands of jobs for thousands of Canadian citizens. For example, it is widely believed that a large number of Canadians have been employed by media houses in order to facilitate the production of content that meets the CRCT threshold. Some have been absorbed by radio and television stations as presenters, while others are engaged in theaters and production houses as actors and directors. Furthermore, the CRCT body employees another number of Canadians who work as officers in the body. Nicks (2012 p.177) estimates that the CRCT employees over a thousand officials while the media industry engages over forty thousand Canadians. Creation of jobs, in conclusion, contributes to the Canadian economy by giving revenue to the government. Potential Impacts of Canadian Content Regulations One of the major impacts of the establishment of the Canadian Content regulations is reduced competition from external broadcasting channels. The Telecommunications Commission and Canadian Radio-television (CRTC) regulates the prices that are charged by broadcast distributors. In this case, the regulatory body has completely eliminated competition in the media business. Due to lack of competition, Allen (2009) declares that consumers are denied quality media services. In other countries where media players are allowed to operate with minimum government interference, high- class media practices are engaged so as individual media houses can gunner a large number of viewers, (p. 121). Although the primary objective of the CanCon regulations at the time of its formalization in 1971 was to promote the Canadian cultural identity by encouraging and enhancing the exposure of the Canadian artists such as musical performers, composers and lyricists to the Canadian audiences, the current most visible impact is the secondary objective of the regulation which was to protect the Canadian entertainment industry including both its production and creative elements. This is likely to be attributed to the fact that it is often more easily to measure the secondary objective of the regulations through the sales of local content as well as the success of prominent Canadian entertainment stars in the world stage. Following the introduction of the CanCon regulations in the 1970s, the immediate observable impact was an increase in the number of generic artists who tended to imitate their American counterparts. With regard to its impacts on the Canadian cultural identity, the Canadian Content regulations have significantly contributed to the development of a vibrant cultural sector, characterized by a dynamic cultural media industry, the development of numerous cultural institutions, a growing music industry and increased export of Canadian culture particularly through the film and television industries. However, critics have argued that CanCon requirements have significantly restricted the choices of the Canadian television viewers and radio listeners since any increase in the presence of the Canadian programs in the airwaves often come at the expense of the popular international programs. This is particularly because of the limited number of the channels that can be allocated to the TV or radio distributers in each local area. In addition, the Canadian content deprives viewers the privilege and liberty to watch their programs of choice. Allen G (2009, p.132) laments that the CRTC has the mandate to allow or disallow certain programs in the distribution channels. The Canadian content by-law first role was the regulation of the percentage of information and content to be aired. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications commission (CRTC) derived this Act majorly to facilitate ethics in the Canadian broadcasting system. An informational content in the broadcasts were charged with specificity. Going over board as per information provided in relation to this broadcasting act was considered a violation of law. The provisions in the “Canadian content” allowed for at least partly produced, written presented or overly information contributed to by the persons from Canada. This role greatly reduced misinformation and misconceptions which were earlier on associated with Canadian media houses. In his description of Canadian Broadcasting Policy, Armstrong (2010) describes how the revolutions within the media have prompted for change in some of the policies that are centered on media regulation. At face value, it appears as though the Canadian might find a great challenge using the idea of spectrum capacity as a justification of its intervention in the media content. However, variation of people’s financial capabilities necessitates the presence of a body that will still grant rightful usage of airwaves. In essence, technological advancements like the possibility to expand signal capacity via digital expression, satellites and cables have rendered spectrum scarcity as a less powerful tool for justification of its intervention in content regulation. That notwithstanding, a body still needs to make sure that the advent of the sophisticated tools used by the media channels does limit media channels that are not in a position to acquire the superb tools, and this is where the government comes in. This is particularly because television is becoming so powerful that it can never be worthwhile disregarding the social implications that surround its continued existence. Initially, the Canadian broadcasting system contributions to the country’s affairs were partially represented legally. With the emergence of Canadian content regulations, all the broadcastings systems contributions have been aptly upheld. There has concurrently been an appropriate manner their creation and presentations in relation to their programming niche. The MAPL system devoted Canadian music airplay equally into the broadcasting system. The Canadian music airplay was assumed to retain the reputations of Canadian broadcasting system. Lastly, both commercial and Canadian corporation’s broadcasting systems were equally represented through the same license charges. The Broadcasting Act gives mandate to the CRTC to prioritize signals with original Canadian content. In this case, channels which broadcast non- Canadian content are denied approval for distribution. In support of the CRTC, Nicks (2012 p.135) argues than liberalized trade in television and radio stations overwhelms the Canadian market whose size is comparatively small. In addition, free trade in signal distribution would prevent the CRTC from upholding its duty to foster national dialogue (p. 141). While the Broadcasting Act protects the Canadian local content, experts declare that the regulations sum up to censorship. Through censorship, the CRTC suppresses crucial information and public communication that are deemed to cause public discomfort against the authority (p. 144). Another possible impact of the establishment of Canadian Content regulations is increased job creation in the Canadian radio and television broadcasting from the industry. For example, a large number of Canadians have been employed by media houses in order to facilitate the production of content that meets the CRCT threshold. Some have been absorbed by radio and television stations as presenters, while others are engaged in theaters and production houses as actors and directors. Furthermore, the CRCT body employees another number of Canadians who work as officers in the body. Nicks (2012 p.177) estimates that the CRCT employees over a thousand officials while the media industry engages over forty thousand Canadians. Creation of jobs, in conclusion, contributes to the Canadian economy by giving revenue to the government. On the other hand, the regulations have also resulted in the current instability in the Canadian mobile and communication industry. Communication and broadcasting experts have blamed the CRTC for the current chaotic state of the mobile gadget industry. The regulatory body has approved only three national mobile operators. The Broadcasting Act from which the CRCT draws its power mandates the regulatory body to control all activities in and around the mobile telephony Nicks (2012 p.176). The Act requires the CRTC to prevent any carrier from offering services at higher rates or very low levels of quality (p. 177). The Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) is one of such channels. The body got the regulatory powers under the 1968 broadcasting Act. The act charged the body with the tasks of regulating and supervising every perspective of the Canadian broadcasting system, and the duties have never stopped despite the updated 1991 act taking charge. From its introduction, the CRTC has tackled numerous decisions even though it has occasionally operated on limited resources. However, the CRTC has failed to regulate service quality, service rate and business practices. The misconduct and ill practices in the industry have led to unfair competition and elimination in the industry. Smaller mobile network operators have time in memorial failed to penetrate the frustrating market which is saturated with unfair competition and unprofessional practices (p. 178). Finally, Canadian Content regulation laws are also widely believed to have contributed to increased number of programs with Canadian content thereby limiting the consumption of foreign content. From the onset, the main objective of Canadian Content regulation has always been to ensure that the biggest percentage of programs aired in Canada is of Canadian originality. The Broadcasting Act from which the CRCT draws its mandate states that 60% of all content distributed in Canada should be wholly or partly written, presented, produced or contributed by Canadians Molot (2005 p.115). The provision has prompted content producers and distributors to engage the Canadian artists in coming up with programs that meet the strict threshold. Furthermore, the requirements have increased the level of activity in the theater (p. 116). Increased activities in the theaters translate to the creation of Jobs through acting, production and distribution of Canadian contents (p.117). Conclusion In conclusion, the Canadian content regulations have gone through a series of structural and functional changes beginning from the introduction of the regulations in the early 1920s to its current present state. Although CanCon regulations have always been controversial from the very time the law was devised and many people have questioned the reasons for creating the regulations, the regulations have significantly enhanced the protection of Canadian culture and identity by making it mandatory for both satellite and cable broadcasters to broadcast content with Canadian originality in order to promote Canadian values and make use of the reactive resources of Canada and is controlled by Canadians. References Allen, G. (2009). Communicating in Canadas past essays in media history. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Armstrong, R. (2010). Broadcasting policy in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Barrow, C., & Barrow, P. (2012). The business plan workbook (Seventh ed.). London: Kogan Page. Edwardson, R. (2008). Canadian content: Culture and the quest for nationhood. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Molot, M. (2005). Driving continentally: National policies and the North American auto industry. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. Nicks, J. (2012). Slippery pastimes reading the popular in Canadian culture. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Vipond, M. (2011). The mass media in Canada. Toronto: J. Lorimer & Co. Read More