CBC-TV in the Balance
by licensed television critic Farrell ChildeCanadians' opinions of the television services of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are highly polarized, which is a common state for public opinion to be in these days. On one side are those who consider CBC-TV to be an utter waste of public money, while on the other are those who believe it is one of the foundations of Canadian culture and an indispensable bulwark against Americanization. I wonder which group actually watches the CBC? If either does. But that's beside the point, as is so much of what Canadians think and do.
To evaluate these competing claims about the CBC, we need a standard with which to assess them. A good choice, because it states the official expectations of the CBC, is the CBC's own standard, as stated on its website. That standard is the Broadcasting Act, 1991.
The act states that "the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains." My initial reaction to this standard was "Game over!", since there's almost nothing on television, CBC television or real television, which satisfies it. However, sober second thought persuaded me that there is sufficient confusion about the meanings of information, enlightenment, and entertainment (people think Canadian Idol is entertaining, for example), that any television service could satisfy it. Furthermore, the act does not specify how many people have to be informed, enlightened, or entertained. So, even if, as often seems to be true, CBC programs are informative, entertaining, and enlightening only to the people who produced them, the CBC would still have met this standard.
Luckily, the Broadcasting Act goes on, listing several characteristics that CBC programs (known in the TV world as programming) should have. First of all:
Hmm. This is a network whose idea of distinctive Canadian programming is Coronation Street. At 7:30 pm. Flaming Nora!, as we used to say down at the poutine works.
- "The programming provided by the Corporation should be predominantly and distinctively Canadian."
As I have noted elsewhere, even when the CBC produces its own programs they are often pallid copies of foreign series. Life and Times, for example, was a hamhanded impersonation of Biography.
The centrepiece of CBC's fall schedule is The Greatest Canadian, which is its version of a program originally produced in the UK and licensed from the British. And guess what? – the ten finalists for the honour of being chosen as the greatest Canadian include two employees of the CBC! What a coincidence, eh?
The premise of this series is so lame that I have been avoiding it. I did inadvertently see a bit of Rex Murphy's paean to Pierre Trudeau, one of the finalists (I am not joking). According to Mr. Murphy, Mr. Trudeau was the first to encourage immigration from countries outside Europe. In doing that he was simply misrepresenting Canadian history, since the prime ministers who were most clearly responsible for this were John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson.
Mr. Trudeau's government even broached the possibility of re-restricting immigration to "traditional" sources. Apparently Mr. Murphy has forgotten that, although he certainly seems old enough to have been aware of this initiative when it occurred. Then again, he is a professional commentator, so perhaps we shouldn't hold him to a higher standard than that to which other public commentators are held. Still, misrepresenting Canadian history does make programs un-Canadian.
Okay, there was Canada: A People's History, although those of us with normal thresholds of boredom couldn't take it for more than a few minutes at a time. And again it was derivative of foreign sources, namely the Burns brothers' documentaries about American history. In naming the series for the francophone market the CBC also lost sight of its mandate. In French it became a popular history rather than a people's history.
Well, that's a bit vague, but on the whole the CBC has been more successful at being regional than at being Canadian. CBC-TV features not only programs about regional interests but extensive regional production as well. CBC-TV's success in achieving this goal while failing to achieve the previous one suggests that those who say Canada is a collection of regions rather than a nation are right, which suggests that all that slagging I did of the CBC in the last section is beside the point. Like the CBC's "predominantly Canadian" programs.
- "The programming provided by the Corporation should reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions."
Say what? I'm sure the CBC has no more idea what that means than I do, if indeed it has any meaning at all, so they get a pass on that one.
- "The programming provided by the Corporation should actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression."
They do have English networks and French networks. The English news programs satisfy this requirement, if one allows that the reflection of needs and circumstances is a reflection rather than an image. That is, it may be distorted, just like the news coverage on the commercial networks. As for the perennial accusations of bias at CBC News, I'd say they might have a point if there were any unbiased news on the Canadian airwaves. Furthermore, the accusations often are questionable. Basically CBC News favours powerful peoples' interests, just as the private networks do. They just favour different powerful people.
- "The programming provided by the Corporation should be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities."
As for reflecting the needs and circumstances of francophones, there's precious little anywhere on Canadian TV which does that.
English TV gets more money and has higher production values. Well, there are more English, eh? Yeah, but TV shows aren't cheaper to produce because their audiences are smaller.
- "The programming provided by the Corporation should strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French."
On the other hand, the French entertainment programs probably stink less. Radio-Canada has managed to have the top rated series in Canada in any language, an achievement which has eluded CBC-TV.
Since we don't have a shared national consciousness and identity (for which perhaps we should be grateful) we can conclude that CBC-TV has failed in achieving this objective. More detail about the competing identities which ravage Canadians' consciousnesses is provided by our staff's collection of essays, Canada in 4 Nutshells. Consideration of those essays will lead us to be kind in assessing the seriousness of the CBC's failure here, especially now that they have reverted from their spineless branding in French as SRC to the more nationally conscious Radio-Canada.
- " The programming provided by the Corporation should contribute to shared national consciousness and identity."
It's available throughout Canada. Without any definition of efficiency or appropriateness, concepts which to many people are more along the moral line than the functional, I'm not going to pass judgment on them. CBC-TV does have a lot of shows which get big results from small budgets – for example, Red Green, On the Road Again, and most of the Radio-Canada schedule.
- "The programming provided by the Corporation should be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose."
The CBC has failed to achieve this objective. I have no figures to report here, but white people do seem to be over-represented on CBC-TV programs – news, entertainment, and sports alike. But then again, outside the big cities (in Canada there are three – count 'em, three – big cities) Canada does seem to be dominated by white people, so perhaps the Corp's programs do reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of most of Canada.
- "The programming provided by the Corporation should reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada."
However, I'm not letting them off that easily. An area in which significant improvement could be made is the representation of aboriginal peoples. As another article here observes:
(The) English Canadian media, despite the presence of aboriginals throughout the country, routinely depict aboriginals as living only in the far north or on reserves. The CBC is happy to make programs about the problems of urban black youth, but the existence of urban aboriginal youth is not even acknowledged.The only show I know of which does acknowledge this is Moccasin Flats on – surprise! – the Aboriginal People's Television Network. CBC-TV could do aboriginal people and the rest of us a favour by picking up this show and giving it a real budget. Moccasin Flats is produced by two of the redoubtable Podemski sisters, who haven't been around long enough to work up a list of well-heeled contacts – when they started producing the show they were both still in school. To be fair, CBC-TV aired a pilot in which Tamara Podemski portrayed a young aboriginal urban person – who had returned to the North.As for Inuit, don't hold your breath waiting for them to appear on the main CBC network in anything but rare news stories about substance abuse. As for Métis, you won't see them at all.
Oh, well. My hobbyhorses are getting tired, so I guess I should reach a conclusion. Is CBC-TV an utter waste of public money, or is it one of the foundations of Canadian culture and an indispensable bulwark against Americanization?
No. It is neither. If only more people realized that.
CBC-TV in the Balance © John Fitzgerald, 2004
November 24, 2004
Click the banner or click here for ACTUAL ANALYSIS
Reviews | Home