Converging in Parallel
[Format | Schedule | Participants | Location | About]
[Panel 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Panel 1: Canadian Voices in the Media
14:00 - 15:15 -- Thursday, November 9, 2006
Jump to panellist: Boggs, Killingsworth, Landry, Missen, Newman, Sutherland.
1. Jeff Boggs (Geography, Brock University). Canadian content policies seek to increase domestic success in both economic and speech markets. Should policy-oriented research on creative industry clusters take both goals into account? Indeed, can it?
Yes, it can and should. I see 'economic markets' as concerned with economic efficiency, while 'speech markets' are concerned with a diversity of ideas. Policy-oriented research on creative industries, including the work on creative industry clusters, needs to assess a policy's impact on economic efficiency and diversity of ideas.
How do Canadian content policies improve economic efficiency? Content policies insure a basic market share for Canadian content in two ways. Firstly, they foster attempts to achieve minimum scale economies in the production, marketing and distribution of content. Secondly, they maintain or expand basic competencies in producing, marketing and distributing content.
Canadian content policies increase the diversity of ideas by legislating restrictions on the use of imported content, thereby creating demand for 'authentic' Canadian content. This in turn might increase the diversity of content, which in turn might translate into a diversity of ideas, opinions, identities and representations about the world available to the Canadian public.
So should policy-oriented research on creative industry clusters take both goals (that is, increased economic efficiency and increased diversity) into account? Indeed, can it? While I certainly think that policy-oriented research should take both of these goals into account, I am not sure if creative industry policy (whether or not it is focused on the formation of clusters) can serve these two masters equally effectively. Certainly serving both of these goals makes the policy much more complicated.
This degree of coordination is difficult to attain. Were both goals operationalized at the same administrative scale, this might be possible. Instead, we see that creative industry policies implemented at various administrative scales: federal, provincial, and municipal. Policies implemented at the provincial scale to increase a cultural industry's economic efficiency could counteract a Federal policy to foster a diversity of content (and hence, ideas) in that same industry.
Let us imagine an example in which export assistance programs for book publishing led book publishers to publish books that will sell well in the US market. Let us assume that there are two ways to make a book palatable to the US market: imitate what sells well in the export market; or publish a title that is unique and faces no competition. Imitation implies a reduction in the diversity of ideas; novelty implies an increase. Assuming that these titles also would be sold domestically, a strategy of imitation reduces domestic success in Canadian speech markets: it does not add to diversity. However, a strategy of novelty increases domestic success in Canadian speech markets.
Under both strategies so long as the book sells, it increase domestic success in Canadian economic markets: more Canadians are being employed, competencies are being maintained if not expanded, and so on. However, in the first case, the goals of these policies are at cross purposes, while in the second case these policies' outcomes are in harmony.
Thus, it does make sense for policy-oriented research on creative industries (at whatever scale) to consider the goals of increased domestic success in economic and in speech markets. However, this research needs to recognize that these goals are at best contingently related: policies that foster more competitive creative industries may or may not foster increased content diversity.
2. Jamie Killingsworth (Sportscaster, CTV; Communication, Carleton University). The Cancon debate has evolved with the each new media platform, most recently satellite radio. What role, if any, has academic research played in providing evidence or other convincing roles in this debate-and what might it do to increase that role?
After publishing my first article in a peer-reviewed journal last year, I braced myself for the reaction. The article I wrote analyzed the regulation of Canadian specialty channels. The editor of the publication said the piece took "critical aim at the complicated relationship between the CRTC and specialty channels."
Surely the cultural nationalists would take exception with my conclusions. I expected someone to call my research misguided. Perhaps a specialty channel operator would make the suggestion that I had missed the point altogether? Or offer me a job as a consultant.
The truth is, I am still waiting for any reaction.
My bruised ego aside, the point is I think we tend at times to overestimate the impact our research has. That was the lesson I learned. I think it is naïve for the academic community to believe that the publishing of research will play a direct role in the debate over Cancon. The policy positions are entrenched and in my view these positions at times camouflage economic goals draped around the cause of cultural nationalism and identity.
However, I do believe that the academic community can--and does play--an important role in shaping the frames of debate with future generations. I can see the difference from the time I entered the classroom as an undergraduate to how I lecture undergraduates about the same issues. Today students are, at long last, receiving a critical analysis of Cancon policy. The cultural nationalist argument is not the only one presented. We are encouraging students to debate the very merits of Cancon policy instead of arguing within the paradigm as Ira Wagman suggests was the only debate that took place in the past. Keith Acheson and Christopher Maule have done an outstanding job demonstrating how protection of our cultural industries can have implications in other areas of the economy. Matthew Fraser has published a terrific book that exposes the inner workings of Canadian cultural policy to a wider audience. The work of these academics and others may not immediately alter existing policy, but I think this kind of material presented in the classroom is having an impact on the next generation, who are at least questioning the motivations behind Cancon and whether it is a policy that needs to be sustained or re-evaluated.
If the future generation of students ultimately decides that Cancon is a worthwhile policy, so be it. But I do believe we are seeing a discourse and debate emerge, one that is questioning the motivation and effectiveness of Cancon rather than simply arguing over how to categorize certain genres and what percentage of Canadian content is acceptable or unacceptable.
3. Normand Landry (Communication Studies, McGill University). How can policy research on diversifying Canadian media voices build on activist groups' experiences in ways that take the broadcast industry's economic structure into account?
Les pratiques et expériences de communication alternatives mobilisées par des acteurs du monde associatif et communautaire sont pertinentes, voire éclairantes, pour soulever des thèmes, des discussions et des débats peu discutés en regard à la structure économique des industries de la communication. Ces pratiques, de par leur existence et les discours qu'elles articulent, formulent des critiques des modes de fonctionnement de ces industries. Elles peuvent ainsi nous instruire sur les tensions engendrées entre en système médiatique répondant à une configuration spécifique d'économie politique de la communication et un ensemble de critères et de normes jugé nécessaire en démocratie.
Plus précisément, les pratiques et expériences de communication alternatives répondent à de puissantes barrières à l'entrée - tant économiques qu'idéologiques - dans le domaine de la communication, à l'exclusion généralisée des discours, des perspectives et des argumentaires économiquement non-viables pour les grands médias, et à une professionnalisation s'illustrant comme un puissant moteur d'exclusion citoyenne à la participation aux médias.
Il existe donc interrelations entre d'une part la structure économique des industries de communications canadiennes et d'autre part le développement d'expériences alternatives et autonomes en communication. Ces éléments se répondent mutuellement. Une analyse des expériences vécus par des médias alternatifs et des réseaux d'activistes des médias - notamment dans leur quête de financement, les difficultés rencontrées d'accès aux médias dits traditionnels, la formulation de discours peu ou non présents chez les médias dits dominants - peuvent s'aborder comme des externalités générées en partie du moins par la structure de l'industrie canadienne de communication. Les incohérences, manquements et contradictions propre au régime canadien de communication trouvent ainsi des réponses dans les domaines alternatifs et communautaires. La marginalité de ces domaines mine toutefois la portée de ces réponses.
Dès lors, la recherche orientée sur la diversification des voix et perspectives dans le domaine médiatique doit se pencher sur les expériences vécues par les organisations médiatiques et groupes d'activistes marginaux ou alternatifs en relation avec la structure des industries de la communication canadienne. Cela nous permettra de saisir à la fois les contraintes s'imposant à une plus grande ouverture et diversification médiatique et les opportunités que la structure actuelle de l'industrie génère.
4. James Missen (Canadian Conference of the Arts). How can evidence-based academic research contribute to advocating for creative producers, not just on big-picture matters, but in the day-to-day process of regulatory policymaking?
What might be best described as a "perfect storm" of change is on the horizon for Canada's arts and culture sector. Copyright reform; emerging technologies; the convergence of telecommunications and broadcasting; foreign ownership of production and distribution systems; international trade negotiations; the role of public funding for the domestic support of arts and the cultural industries, generally; the mandate and funding of the CBC; regulations for over-the-air television and commercial radio; the role and mandate of the CRTC -- all of these issues are, or will soon potentially be, the objects of study by the Department of Canadian Heritage, the CRTC, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the Ministry of Industry, and/or the Federal Cabinet. In some cases, the public has been invited to participate in consultations and hearings that began in September 2006, though crucial discussions will likely span over several months and years to come.
Decisions by the CRTC and the Government with respect to legislative and policy change have a dramatic potential to affect Canada's artists, performers, writers, and others employed in fields related to Canadian culture. Television, for instance: since the implementation of the CRTC's 1999 Television Policy (Public Notice CRTC 1999-97), while Canada's commercial, over-the-air television broadcasters' expenditures on foreign programs increased by 53 percent, their spending on Canadian programs rose by only 19 percent. This last year, in fact, commercial television broadcasters spent more on foreign programs than on domestically-produced programs ($612 million compared to $581 million, respectively). Insofar as Canadian broadcasting is concerned, Canadian artists, writers, performers and producers have benefited less from this key industrial sector's growth than their non-Canadian counterparts. Obviously, evidence-based academic research can contribute to advocating for creative producers, not just on big-picture matters, but in the day-to-day process of regulatory policymaking, as good arguments are always in need of support through the sharing of strong qualitative and quantitative data.
This fundamental questioning of some of the most important arts and cultural measures put in place over the past fifty years or more in Canada is happening at a time of important political change and electoral volatility. The lack of clarity characterizing the current Government of Canada's position on many cultural policy issues and reasonable concerns about their political philosophy concerning arts and culture should make this most important of exercises a common priority of the whole cultural sector, as it will likely establish the course for Canadian arts and culture for the long term in a way not experienced since the 1950s. One could easily argue that most Canadians involved in one way or another in the arts and the cultural sector will eventually feel the impact of this "perfect storm", thus evidence-based academic research can assist us in charting its course and, ideally, help to indicate means by which we can work collectively to navigate the elements.
5. David Newman (Communication, Simon Fraser University). What assumptions underlie Canadian policies and institutions that evidence-based comparative screen policy research would challenge?
My thoughts are but preliminary on this and are, in part, based on experience from outside of Canada. There is one of two imperatives underlying most screen policy: either cultural or economic, though these categories are not mutually exclusive. Let me approach the question by giving some examples and comparisons.
Economic: recent increases in tax incentives at the provincial level in Canada suggest that the underlying rationale is one based on 'the lowest cost location will attract the business.' The New Zealand experience suggests that this is somewhat simplistic. Though it is important to offer incentives to even be considered as a possible location, it is not necessary to be cheapest location to attract production as other factors come into consideration. Evidence-based comparative research could disaggregate the factors underlying the attractiveness of particular locations and incentive regimes for particular forms of production.
Cultural: there is the implication in the Canada content regulations that quotas are necessary to protect local content on television screen. That may be so, but when New Zealand signed onto GATS it did not include any exceptions for broadcasting, resulting in it having to find alternatives to quotas to ensure New Zealand content on television was not crowded out by cheaper imported content. Although it continues to struggle with low levels of locally produced programming, the three national free-to-air channels managed local content in the region of 50%, 20% and 20% respectively. This has happened from New Zealand structuring a regime that has resulted in increasing levels of domestic content, without the use of quotas.
Recoupment is standard practice among government funding agencies around the world when investing in a domestic screen production. The argument is that the funding agencies are investors and so have a right to a share of the returns. The result is that many productions are not sold well and producers rarely see any additional revenues from the production. The returns to the funding body are frequently a fraction of the original investment. In the UK, changes to recoupment requirements have resulted in increasing levels of sales and returns to producers, providing them greater levels of funds to reinvest in other productions. A comparative study of this may suggest alternatives to the current Telefilm recoupment policy that may result in a reinvigoration of the production sector.
Box office distribution of domestic films in New Zealand and English-language films in Canada show significantly different results. There is the assumption that Canadian distributors are the best option for Telefilm-supported films in Canada and requiring their use supports the local distribution industry. In New Zealand where both local and Hollywood distributors are operating there are no restrictions. On occasion, New Zealand films are distributed by Hollywood majors. The results tend to lead to a higher profile openings wider releases and higher earnings at the box office. Further comparative study of the evidence from both countries may suggest alternatives in the Canadian situation.
6. Richard Sutherland (Communication Studies, McGill University). What evidence-based research is required to demonstrate the success or failure of Canadian content policy in the area of music? Which parties are best-positioned to usefully undertake such research?
Canada's music industry is often seen as one of the major beneficiaries of Canadian content regulations. Canadian content in radio broadcasting is among the most lauded of Canada's cultural policies. No doubt it has played a significant role in Canada's music industries, although not to the extent some might suggest and certainly not in any straightforward way. Both the music industry and radio broadcasting (and the relationship between the two) have changed significantly since these regulations were first introduced. The policy environment has also shifted significantly over the past 35 years in the context of increased globalization and a commitment to international trade. It is worth asking what the original aims of this policy were and whether these aims have been accomplished. What evidence based research do we need to demonstrate success? Who is in the best position to determine this?
That depends on what constitutes success. If the point is simply to establish a Canadian presence on the airwaves then the answers to both questions are fairly easy. We can easily ascertain that most radio broadcasters play approximately 30% Canadian content, just as the regulation demands and it is likely the CRTC which is in the best position to determine the extent to which their regulations are being followed. But this is a relatively modest aim and a great deal of Canadian content regulations' perceived success is that it is supposed to have accomplished more than this.
If the aim is greater sales of records by Canadian artists and/or composers then the answers to our questions grow more complicated. Services such as Nielsen Soundscan, can measure (and correlate) both record sales and airplay. However, even as these techniques have become increasingly refined, the different means of promoting records have multiplied and radio's role in selling recordings has generally diminished. Tight play lists, 'classic' formats and the general cautiousness of radio programmers mean that many of the Canada's crop of successful indie acts, such as Arcade Fire or the New Pornographers receive very little airplay from Canada's commercial stations. Other media such as the Internet appear to have played a more significant role in promoting these acts. In any case, many of those artists whose recordings are most popular and receive the most airplay, such as Shania Twain or Avril Lavigne, might well have received anyway. This was the case even before Canadian content regulations.
If the aim is to foster the growth of strong domestic recording industry, then the answer is yet more difficult to determine. Canadian artists are not necessarily associated with the domestic industry. Above all, to attribute the industry's success solely or even primarily to radio airplay is simplistic to say the least. This does not mean that Canadian content was never significant, nor does it mean that it has no legacy. Although its fortunes have varied over the years, Canada has certainly had a viable domestic recording industry since at least the early 1970s. But the extent to which this is attributable to Canadian content regulations is extremely hard to measure.