42333 Transport 1810– 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
42333 Transport 1810– 1 COMITÉ SÉNATORIAL PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES COMMUNICATIONS TÉMOIGNAGES –UNREVISED-NON-RÉVISÉ OTTAWA, le mercredi 13 avril 2005 Le Comité sénatorial permanent des transports et des communications se réunit aujourd'hui à 18 h 10 pour étudier l'état actuel des industries de médias canadiennes; les tendances et les développements émergeants au sein de ces industries; le rôle, les droits et les obligations des médias dans la société canadienne; et les politiques actuelles et futures appropriées par rapport à ces industries. Le sénateur Joan Fraser (présidente) occupe le fauteuil. La présidente: Honorables sénateurs, bienvenue à cette réunion du Comité sénatorial des transports et des communications. Nous poursuivons notre étude des médias canadiens d'information et du rôle que l'État devrait jouer pour les aider à demeurer vigoureux, indépendants et diversifiés dans le contexte des bouleversements qui ont touché ce domaine au cours des dernières années — notamment la mondialisation, les changements technologiques, la convergence et la concentration de la propriété. J’aimerais accueillir très chaleureusement nos témoins. (The Chair: This evening we are pleased to welcome…) (anglais suit) DM April 13, 2005 (Following French — The Chairman continuing, très chaleureusement nos témoins.) This evening we are pleased to welcome representatives of CanWest Global, one of the country's largest, if not the largest, media operators. We have with us this evening Mr. Rick Camilleri, the president of CanWest MediaWorks; Mr. Steve Wyatt, vice-president and editor in chief of Global Television news; Mr. Gerry Nott, editor in chief of the Canadian news desk at CanWest News Service and CanWest MediaWorks Publications; and Mr. Scott Anderson, editor-in-chief of The Ottawa Citizen and vice-president and editor-in-chief of CanWest MediaWorks Publications; Mr. Jeff Elliot, known to us all, and Ms. Charlotte Bell. Thank you all very much for being here. Welcome. You know the normal pattern we follow. We ask you to make a brief opening statement, and then we ask you questions. Please proceed? Mr. Richard C. (Rick) Camilleri, President, CanWest MediaWorks, CanWest Global: Good evening, senators. Just to situate myself in the company, I am the president of CanWest MediaWorks, and in that position I am responsible for all of CanWest's Canadian media operations, including newspapers, television, radio, our web-based interactive operations and our other ancillary businesses. I very much appreciate that you have devoted an entire evening session for our appearance, and I know you will want to ask us many questions. Before you do, we have prepared some introductory comments which will include brief contributions from three of the senior practitioners of journalism on my team, who I will also introduce to you. I should mention that our written brief contains more detail on what they each do in the company. Steve Wyatt is our senior vice president of news and information, Global Television. Gerry Nott is our editor-in-chief of CanWest's content-sharing facility based in Winnipeg called the Canadian News Desk. I might also mention in this time in the interest of precision that Gerry is doing double duty at the moment filling in as head of our Ottawa news bureau. Scott Anderson is well known to you as the Editor-in-chief of the Ottawa Citizen and also serves as Vice-president and Editor-in-chief of CanWest Publications. 42333 Transport 1810– 2 Also here to help deal with questions is Charlotte Bell, Vice-president of Regulatory Affairs for CanWest Television and Radio, and Jeffrey Elliot, Vice-president of Corporate Affairs. We are aware that CanWest has been portrayed by many of your earlier witnesses as the poster boy for what is perceived by some as to what is wrong with Canadian media. I want to say at the outset that much of what you have heard about CanWest is either patently untrue or greatly exaggerated. We make no apologies for who we are, what we are, or the way we do business. Our purpose today, however, is to tell you that CanWest story, which is indeed a very good one and one of which we are eminently proud. Our impression is that much of previous discussion in the committee reflected nostalgia for things past, a romantic desire to restore Canada's media industry to what it once was. A persistent theme was that the ownership of Canadian media has become too concentrated, that the diversity of news, information and opinion available to Canadians has somehow diminished and that public policy remedies are required to restore the Canadian media industry to the utopian situation that existed in earlier times. Testimony from earlier witnesses who share that perspective has consistently lacked quantitative or empirical analysis. Their arguments rarely rose above anecdotal observations specifically constructed to support their own proposed remedies. Absence of supporting analysis did not, however, prevent discussion of several bizarre proposals. One such proposal was that the government should get into the newspaper business and launch a not-for-profit public newspaper along side the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Other witnesses called on the government or the broadcast regulator or the Competition Bureau to intervene in the media industry to require a separation of ownership as between broadcasting and newspapers. Still some others suggested a need for government incentives to reward so-called independent newsrooms that would presumably publish news and information that government regards as appropriate. Fortunately, several witnesses, including many respected academics and others involved directly in journalism, eloquently rebutted such assertions pointing out the utter folly of such intrusions into the media by government. In initiating the study in 2002, the committee itself offered no analysis of its own to support its apparent concern that media ownership had become too concentrated, or that the diversity of opinion had somehow diminished, or that convergence or globalization and technological change had somehow damaged the quality, quantity or diversity of news, information and opinion available to Canadians. It is fascinating that in calling for an end to cross-media ownership, particularly as it relates to newspapers and television broadcasting, not a single witness has even asserted that there has been a decline in the quality of news reporting on Canadian television. Certainly no evidence was presented to the committee of a decline in the quality or diversity of news reporting on television. Similarly, no evidence was presented to the committee that the quality or quantity of reporting, analysis and opinion published in Canadian newspapers has in any way diminished from earlier years. Conversely, more than one witness compared the quality of Canadian large city and national newspapers very favourably with those published in cities of comparable size in the United States, ranking Canadian newspapers today as among the best in the world when compared with any newspapers of similar circulation size. Of course it will always be the case that individuals or groups, particularly those representing special interests, will disagree with or be offended by opinions in editorials and columns, or the depiction in newspapers and television news stories of events that run counter to their particular point of view. CanWest newspapers have received their share of such criticism, as have other Canadian media. Indeed, if no one was offended by what they saw or read in the media, that in itself would be a telling comment on whether the media was doing its job. The starting point of every call for change is an assertion that ownership of newspapers in Canada has become too concentrated. 42333 Transport 1810– 3 Even a rudimentary examination of the statistical facts will demonstrate the opposite. Claims of growing concentration of media ownership, which appear to have formed the raison d'être for the initiation of this committee's review are simply not based on empirical facts. On the contrary, the biggest challenge facing all media in Canada, big or small, including both television and newspapers, is indeed media fragmentation. The availability of more media, including more television channels in Canadian homes, increased availability of local and distant newspapers via home delivery, at the newsstand or via the at Internet, introduction of free newspapers in major Canadian cities, including Metro Ottawa just two weeks ago here in this city, taken together have greatly increased competition for newspapers and television from other media. Less visible to those not involved in the business side of media is that fragmentation not only dilutes TV viewers and newspaper readers by spreading them around many more media platforms, but it also, more importantly, dilutes the revenues necessary to sustain media businesses. Just as consumers spread their loyalties around more choices, advertisers allocate their spending across a wider selection of media. The increased availability of media provides advertisers with greater flexibility to calibrate and target their ad buys to reach audiences with desired demographic characteristics. For example, the golf channel is probably a pretty cost-effective way to advertise government clubs and government balls. Revenue fragmentation represents a very real challenge to the sustained quality and economic viability of Canadian media, as owners are forced to seek more efficient and cost-effective ways of delivering a better quality product to a dwindling customer base. Consolidations that have occurred and will continue to occur among Canadian media companies, including cross-media consolidations, are a natural and strategic business response as individual companies seek to maintain and protect a diminishing share of total industry advertising revenues. Thus increased concentration of media ownership is indeed a myth. Reduced diversity of voices in news and information is simply not true. Calls for a government mandated breakup of Canadian media companies to make them smaller and less able to compete are ill-founded and profoundly unrealistic.