A High Standard

LT.-COL. LEGGE: When Dr. Andrew Stewart came to Canada in 1924 he stayed for only a few months and then departed for Australia. He confessed that in those days he saw the new world "through the eyes of a young wandering Scot uncertain of his home or vocation". He wisely returned to Canada in 1925 and uncertainty of vocation soon left him because he followed a brilliant academic career which culminated in his Presidency of the University of Alberta from 1950-1959. As an intellectual Dr. Stewart has received degrees and honours from many Commonwealth Universities in Canada, Scotland and Australia. He is a fellow of the Agricultural Institute of Canada and of the Royal Society of Canada. In addition he has been President of both the National Conference of Canadian Universities and of the Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth.

His University activities brought him fame but little leisure, because the Governments of Alberta and of the Dominion of Canada have sought his services to inquire into the confusing problems which abound in Canada's miraculously unfolding economy. In 1948 he was a Member of the Alberta Royal Commission on Provincial-Municipal Relations and the next year he sat on the Alberta Royal Commission on Natural Gas. In 1955 the St. Laurent Government appointed him to the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, and in 1958 he was designated Chairman of the Price Spreads Commission on Food Products. Later in the same year, Dr. Stewart was selected for the difficult chairmanship of the Board of Broadcast Governors which is to control and license all broadcasting of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and of the privately-owned stations.

In many ways, Dr. Stewart's new Board reflects the complexity of modern Canadian life, which leads to the proliferation of all kinds of powerful administrative bodies. Such is their importance in Ontario that Premier Frost set up a public inquiry to decide if Boards and Commissions "shove the people of Ontario and their Government around". In the case of the new Board of Broadcast Governors we may be certain that broadcasting will be directed in the interests of a high standard of public service. With refreshing Scottish or Western-Canadian forthrightness he has proclaimed the doctrine that "a license (to broadcast) is a privilege". This means that present broadcasters may now have to show cause why their licences should not be cancelled. Furthermore, when the monopoly of the CBC in television is made competitive, then applicants for the rich privilege of entering the television field will be minutely scrutinized concerning their reputations, their financial responsibility, their record of achievement in other creative activities, and their plans for future programs. All of which promises to stimulate a higher standard of performance in these cynical days when apt critics can comment on singing commercials--"If it isn't worth saying, sing it."

Gentlemen, I am honoured to introduce to The Empire Club of Canada, Dr. Andrew Stewart, the Chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors, who will tell us how he proposes to regulate Canadian Broadcasting on "A High Standard".

DR. STEWART: It is a privilege, once again, to be the guest of The Empire Club of Toronto. I am not deceived by believing that the invitation to address you today results from the memorable nature of the address I made to you three years ago. I suspect that the earlier occasion was overlooked by those responsible for the present invitation. In the present approach no topic was suggested to me. However, it seemed a reasonable guess that the invitation bore some relation to my recent appointment as Chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors. I concluded also that, whoever is responsible for securing your speakers, felt that the members of the Empire Club would be interested in an early opportunity, first, to see what manner of a person had been appointed to this important position, and second, to receive an early pronouncement reflecting the views of the Board. Having accepted your invitation, I must, in one way or another, satisfy the first purpose. It may be that I shall disappoint you with respect to the second.

I am influenced, and limited, in what I shall say today by three considerations. First, my views with respect to the functions of the Chairman of such a Board as the Board of Broadcast Governors; second, the short time the Board has been in existence; and third, certain other speaking engagements which the Chairman has already accepted.

The Board consists of fifteen persons. Four of them (including two of the three full-time members) are drawn from the western provinces. There are three members from Ontario, four (including one full-time member) from Quebec, and four from the Atlantic provinces. They are, or have been, associated with universities, churches, the press, the professions, the business community, and organized labour. We have in the Board a group of able people, respected in their communities, with a diversity of experience as wide as the diverse character of Canadian life, and as representative as could be expected in a body no larger than this one. It is, I believe, the essential role of the Chairman to help the Board to fashion out of its diversity, a unity of purpose, a sense of direction, and a consistent policy which will commend itself to the people of Canada whom we represent and whose servants we are. The personal views of the Chairman, who happens to have been twenty-three years at the University of Alberta, are no more significant than those of any other member; the only views which have relevance are those to which the Board is collectively committed.

The composition of the Board was announced on November 11, 1958, and the Board has met on two occasions, one of which was occupied by public hearings, to deal with applications which had previously been referred to the Board of Governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but had not been disposed of by them. Consequently, there has been as yet little opportunity for the interplay of ideas out of which the kind of consciously integrated policy I have described could emerge. On many important aspects of policy I am not yet in a position to express even the tentative views of the Board; and for reasons I have indicated, I am reluctant to expose purely personal opinions.

Section 10 of the Broadcasting Act sets out the general objects and purposes for which the Board was established in the following words:

"The Board shall, for the purpose of ensuring the continued existence and efficient operation of a national broadcasting system and the provision of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service of a high standard that is basically Canadian in content and character, regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations, the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them and provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto."

This general statement lends itself to division into three areas. First, the provision of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service of a high standard. This is the matter I wish to talk with you about today. Second, ensuring the operation of a national broadcasting system and the provision of a service that is basically Canadian in content and character. This topic I shall discuss when I meet with the Canadian Club of Hamilton early in April. Third, the regulation of the activities of public and private stations and of the operation of networks of broadcasting stations. This will be the subject of an address at the opening of the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters in this city on March 23rd. Licences to operate a broadcasting station of a given power, on a given frequency, may be granted by the Minister of Transport after recommendation by the Board of Broadcast Governors. It would, I think, clarify some of the issues with respect to the regulation of the broadcasting industry if there were general acceptance and admission of the fact that this is one industry which cannot be left to unrestricted free enterprise. In principle, I suppose, It would be possible to leave the use of frequencies open to unlimited right of access. But surely the competitive solution to the allocation of these unique assets is completely impractical; not merely because of the wasteful nature of a process out of which only one contestant could possibly survive, but mainly because of the complete disruption of service while the process continued. It is this aspect of the industry which makes any analogy between broadcasting and other media of communication, for example newspapers, quite unreal. But, once it is conceded that the right to use a frequency in a particular area must be attached exclusively to one user, the enterprise becomes a public utility, and in such cases it is neither unusual nor improper to attach to the right some conditions and obligations.

However, this position does not logically lead to regulations respecting programs, which is the subject I wish to discuss with you today.

It is possible to detect two distinct approaches to broadcasting. Applicants for licences and operators of broadcasting stations tend to refer to "the market area". Elsewhere the same area may be referred to as "the area served". The "market area" concept seems to place the emphasis on advertising as a source of revenue for broadcasting stations, and on broadcasting as primarily an advertising medium. The concept of the "area served" appears to stress the provision of programs for listeners, and to recognize broadcasting as a general medium of communication. I do not believe that these apparently divergent views are incompatible or irreconcilable.

The message of the advertiser is a legitimate, and to a flourishing economy a necessary part of the total range of communications. It is a proper function of a broadcasting station within the concept of the "area served" to carry commercial advertising. Moreover, unless the listeners are prepared otherwise to pay for the costs of programming service, it is necessary for any broadcasting station to obtain sufficient advertising revenue to cover its costs of programming. Advertising is not an illegitimate intruder on the air, or indeed something which must be suffered preferably in the smallest quantities possible. On the other hand, however, advertising should not be the dominant factor determining the character of programming. Consistent with the concept of broadcasting as a medium of communication providing a general service to listeners, there is a limit both to the volume of advertising and to the extent to which the selection of programs may properly be determined by the advertising appeal.

In order that the costs of serving listeners with programs can be met out of advertising revenues, broadcasting stations must attract a sufficient listening audience. This is not the time or place for me to attempt to comment on the effectiveness of present techniques for measuring the listening audiences or the listener's response, beyond observing that there seems to be a general belief that these techniques are capable of considerable improvement. I do wish to take a look at the contention that the size of the listening audience, accurately determined, is a satisfactory measure of the extent to which a station is serving its public, and that an increase in the audience attached to any station reflects an improvement of service.

The argument, with which all of us are familiar, runs like this: to serve the public is to give the public what they want; the number of listeners is the best measure of success in providing what the public wants; the station which has the larger listening audience has proved that it is more sensitive to the wants of the public, and is giving better service. Changes in programming by a station which bring to it a larger listening audience represent, it is said, adaptation of the station to the wants of the public, and therefore a move in the direction of improved public service.

The argument appeals strongly to democratic sensitivities which have been created over a long period of time.. We should, therefore, give it our most careful consideration,, and should oppose it only on convincing grounds.

It is certainly not a convincing retort to point out that: the argument is inconsistent with the existence of a Board having powers as specified under Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act. However, in assenting to the Act, Parliament either did not know what it was doing; or was making an idle gesture, not expecting the Board to promulgate any regulations respecting standards of programs, the character of advertising, the amount of time that may be devoted to advertising, and other matters specifically referred to, in the Act; or as I believe to be much more likely, Parliament consciously denied the argument that broadcasting can be left to the normal criteria and judgments of the market place. And I am unwilling to conclude that Parliamentary approval of regulation of the broadcasting industry is merely another evidence of growing paternalism, a further eroding of basic democratic principles and procedures.

The principle of regulation of broadcasting incorporated in the new Act is not, among democratic nations, peculiar to Canada; nor is it new in Canada. In all democratic countries the broadcasting industry is subject to regulation. Since the inception of the industry in Canada, the issue of regulation has been repeatedly investigated and subjected to the judgment of public opinion; it has been as frequently endorsed. Experience leaves no shadow of doubt that the people of Canada are not willing to leave the development of broadcasting to unregulated market forces. This is a fact which must be accepted.

The argument that service to the public is to be judged only by the number of listeners attached to broadcasting stations rests implicitly on the assumption that public wants are created in a vacuum, and that the media of communication do not themselves play any consequential part in determining the intensity of particular wants or the general expression of wants. When we talk about the expression of wants it is essential that we distinguish between the period of time we have in mind. If we are thinking of a short period of time, it may be correct to suppose that the wants of people are substantially given. On the other hand, over a longer period of time, the wants of people clearly change, and do so under the influence of a variety of forces brought to bear on them. I suggest that the difference between the attitude of Parliament and the attitude characteristic of many operators of broadcasting stations results in part from the length of time over which their concern extends. It is not surprising if the conduct of an enterprise which aims to write off its investment in five years is considerably influenced by the opportunities for short-run gains. To do otherwise would require a substantial measure of restraint. Governments are perhaps not wholly oblivious to short-run considerations; but a responsible parliament must look far ahead.

Earlier I referred deliberately to our democratic sensitivities "which have been created over a long period of time". People are not born with an innate preference for any particular set of social institutions or patterns of behaviour in a complex society. If this were so, and the natural, unaffected tendency were to favour the kinds of institutions and the mode of life characteristic of western democracies, the establishment of the democratic forms in the newer nations now emerging would be infinitely easier than it is proving to be or will prove to be over a longer period of time. The evolution of our way of life is a matter of long history; a record of blood, sweat, toil and tears. The widening acceptance of those things we hold most dear has been achieved by a variety of means--the exercise of enlightened authority, angry and organized attacks on entrenched power and established error, the silent testimony of the example of dedicated individuals, the inspiration and persuasion of the few who have spoken to, and for the inarticulate many.

Education has played an important part in the process. The content of education in the schools, and indeed in the universities, is not drawn out of thin air and without reference to the generally accepted scale of values. Whatever our theories of education the fact is that the educational process contributes to the development of attitudes which are not those calculated to destroy the fabric of our society. Education serves a social purpose, viz., the reasoned adjustment of behaviour to a set of generally acceptable values. The line between education and propaganda or indoctrination is frighteningly faint. The authority of the classroom is acceptable only if exercised with restraint, if the appeal is to reason, there is a respect for the human mind and spirit, a constant willingness to subject to frank criticism both the basic values and the means by which society attempts to give expression to them, and a recognition that democracy is a process of becoming which depends upon the opportunity for, and acceptance of responsibility for one's behaviour. Under these conditions education imposes neither inflexibility nor uniformity, and under its influence both the scale of values and the modes of expression experience modification over time.

But education is not the only instrument for the preservation and progression of ideas. The attitudes and wants of people are constantly being shaped by a variety of influences brought to bear on them. One of the most potent influences of the twentieth century is the broadcasting medium. It is utterly inconceivable that this force which today occupies so much of our time, outside of work and sleep, is not and will not continue to have an appreciable effect on the kind of people Canadians are and will become over a period of time. Someone must give thought to the direction in which we are moving.

I am convinced that the principle of regulating the content of broadcasting can be successfully defended. However, it is in my opinion true that regulation could be more disastrous than its absence. The justification of regulatory authority must be found in the manner in which it is applied. Under the Broadcasting Act the public have a protection against the abuse of authority. The Board of Broadcast Governors is responsible to Parliament. But the machinery would be incapable of effective operation unless the Board observed some principles of regulation recognized as consistent with the public good, and contributing, in the long run, to the betterment of service.

Where authority is invoked, it should be applied with restraint. This is likely to happen if the members of the governing body remember that legislative authority does not confer infallibility, and that it is an excess of their function to endeavour to make others over in their own image. These cardinal sins can, I think, be avoided if the members of the Board have and retain a proper respect for the human spirit, and bear constantly in mind that the operators are themselves primarily intermediaries or agents. If the regulations do apply to them in the first instance, in the final analysis it is the listeners who are affected.

More specifically by restraint I mean offering a sufficient latitude to give play to the ingenuity, imagination and initiative of program directors to meet the wide range of tastes and preferences of listeners individually and in different areas, always within limits that are tolerable. I do not mean by "tolerable", non-controversial. Non-controversial broadcasting is impossible. It could not be achieved by uniformity. The variety of broadcasting service called for by the Act, and desirable in principle, means inevitably that some programs will irritate rather than please some listeners. The Board will be concerned if it does not hear of such instances.

Finally, by restraint I mean recognizing that the end object is to render regulations ineffective by narrowing the divergence of performance in particular cases from the progressive norm. I have referred to the operators as primarily agents. They are indeed more than this. Authority will no longer prove onerous on operators if the regulations commend themselves as sensible to the majority, and if the industry builds up a tradition of self-government and self-restraint. This is a young and dynamic industry. It is to be hoped that it will draw to it young men of quality motivated by the desire to play a conspicuous and proud part in the building of their nation. It should be the object of the Board, to provide them with opportunity and encouragement, and to make their path plain.

The Board's regulations will not create high standards. At best they will set a lower limit to the extent to which they may diverge or deteriorate. But this is a negative contribution. Someone said to me recently "You are now in the driver's seat". The analogy is both false and offensive. My reply was "All we can do is to prescribe the rules of the road". All analogies are dangerous; but let us pursue this one. The operators are the drivers, their facilities the automobiles, the programming their performance on the road. The regulations of the Board are the traffic regulations. Negatively, they are designed to prevent accidents; positively, to make it possible for driving to be a pleasant experience for everyone. The object is defeated if drivers have no respect for the law; but even if they respect the law, this does not necessarily make driving a pleasant experience for all. The extent to which this is achieved depends on the technical efficiency of the automobiles, the physical condition, knowledge and competence of the drivers, and above all their personal qualities of courtesy and good manners. It is the quality of management which will determine the standards of the industry.

May I conclude by indicating why I believe that the standard of the programs offered to and accepted by Canadian listeners is uniquely important at this point in our history. Broadcasting presents an image of ourselves. It is we who are seen on the television screen; our voice is heard on the radio.

The principles and institutions of political, economic and social democracy have found their most complete expression in what we loosely call "the North American way of life". This way of life, or culture, is today being tested as it has never been before. It is being tried before the bar of world opinion. There is no debate on abstract principles of social philosophy. The evidence on which judgment will be reached is the record of performance. The test is that of achievement.

The major occurrence of the first half of the twentieth century was the appearance and establishment of a new social system based upon substantially different concepts and practices. The outstanding development of historical significance in the second half of this century is the emergence of the new nation states of Asia. We are concerned that these new independent peoples should pattern their development after our ways. First, because we believe in the ultimate superiority of our system and, therefore, a contrary choice would be disturbing and even offensive to us; and second, it is a legitimate and proper concern in terms of our own long run self-interest, and perhaps even survival. We should not assume that peaceful coexistence is possible only if all, or nearly all major nations adopt the same social behaviour. Nevertheless, we are probably right in supposing that there would be fewer areas of friction between ourselves and other peoples who are like-minded to us.

The opportunity for self-determination on the part of the populous and potentially powerful nations of Asia, presents them with immediate and continuing problems of choice. The problems can be presented in an oversimplified form. It is unlikely that peoples with long established and differing traditions will all develop in the same way. But in a broad sense the choice is that of following the direction of our culture or that of the U.S.S.R.

We have been amazed, perhaps the correct word is shocked, by the evidence of the capacity of the centralized system of the U.S.S.R. to generate a rapid rate of advance in physical productivity. To discuss the reasons for the Russian achievement would take us too far afield today. The explanation probably lies primarily in the heavy weight given, in both the philosophy and practice of the U.S.S.R., to science and technology; and their ability constantly to keep their productive resources in full use. Be that as it may, the choice of the newer nations will be influenced by the evidence of the relative capacities of the two systems to sustain a rapid advance in physical output; and, in view of the low levels from which they start, this may well be the dominant consideration.

However, the physical or quantitative aspects of our culture--the kilowatts generated, tons of steel produced, satellites put into orbit, the number of automobiles, refrigerators, washing machines, television and radio sets per household--these are not the only criteria by which we are being or will be judged. We will be judged as well by the quality of our way of life, and the evidence of that quality is found, among other things, in what we communicate to one another through the broadcasting medium.

We do not need to know what the Russians are doing. It should not be our object to pattern ourselves after others. It would be interesting, although perhaps not reassuring, to know what others think of us. What is needed most is

that we stand back, take a good look at ourselves, and ask two questions. First, do we really like what we see; and, second, can we honestly feel that others would wish to be like us. This frank re-appraisal, perhaps "agonizing reappraisal", of the image of ourselves which is carried by the domestic--not the international--transmitters, is the first step toward the progressive elevation of our standards of performance, and a necessary condition of deserving the emulation of others.

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by Dr. James Parish.