The Challenge of Change

DR. CRANFIELD:

Gentlemen: Montreal claims our speaker of today as one of its native sons and with justifiable pride. The Port Arthur Collegiate Institute claims both the speaker and your chairman as graduates but not with equal enthusiasm which shows that in my time just before the depression, though desperate for things to be pleased about, even in a minor way, they gave me no medal. By 1945-46, even though he had to compete with V.J. Day and V.E. Day and the end of World War II on graduation he still attracted a good deal of attention though certainly not as much as deserved.

Our speaker however left this unglamorous world of my experience for the fascinating one of Radio, the Theatre, the Cinema and finally Television. He was associated with CFPA Radio in Port Arthur before he had reached his sixteenth birthday. He had gone through the Canadian scene of Radio and Theatre with the New Play Society in Toronto and went on to that Mecca of all entertainers and show people, New York City before he was twenty. He had not yet reached twenty-five when he had been a Stock Company Director/Producer in such famous places as Kennebunkport, Maine, the Long Island Tent Theatre and the Circle Theatre of Atlantic City. He had even been a ProducerDirector of Network Television Drama with "Cosmopolitan Theatre" for the Louis G. Cowan Agency and had tried his hand as a film Director and had still not lived a third of a century. Returning to Canada in 1952 he spent the next eight years with CBC with credit for such famous successes as "General Motors Presents," Proctor & Gamble's "On Camera", Ford Motors' "Playbill" and "Space Command". In these he was combined as producer and director.

He left CBC to join the opposition for he crossed the floor of the house to join Mr. Bassett, the leader of "her Majesty's loyal opposition" in T.V. His career here took him through posts of ever-increasing importance with CFTO TV (Baton Broadcasting) to his final position, there, as Vice President of Programming. He then left John Bassett to accept the post of Executive Vice President and General Manager of CTV Television Network Ltd and is now their President and Managing Director.

Perhaps I am being redundent but I would explain to some who may not know that in Canada all Television broadcasting is organized under the "C.B.C." or under "C.T.V.". The independent stations across Canada are banded together as the C.T.V. Television Network Ltd. They compete successfully with the Government operated (and 50 per cent subsidized) Network of C.B.C. and pay their way entirely on what they make from their advertisers. This central network headquarters is so skillfully managed that it commonly bids the better programmes away from CBC. In no other country is there a parallel. It is unique in the world in being able to exist in this fashion, undoubtedly due to the ability of its president.

As I present him to you he is totally involved in the communications medium for he is either President, or Vice President and Director of a full dozen associations and companies in this field. For example here are the ones of which he is president:

(1) CTV Television Network; (2) Avanti Management Ltd.; (3) CTV Atlantic Ltd.; (4) Channel Television Productions Ltd.; (5) Lancer Teleproductions Ltd. and (6) Phoenix Teleproductions Limited. Last spring when I was negotiating for his appearance here today he was a key spokesman and consultant in the planning of Regulations for the Broadcasting Act. You are therefore to listen to the voice of authority in Mr. Murray Chercover with his topic: "The Challenge of Change." Mr. Chercover.

MR. CHERCOVER:

Head Table Guests, Gentlemen: It is a great honour to be afforded the opportunity to speak to this impressive gathering today. After a review of some of your previous speakers, I almost panicked and ran, but my concern for the preservation of some of the values in our unique broadcasting system, which are severely threatened, caused me to reconsider.

I've chosen as my theme one which has become a favourite of mine--THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGE. It's quite remarkable how my changes have taken place in the basic structure of our Canadian broadcasting industry, not so say our society and our world, since I first spoke publicly using this theme a very few years ago.

First of course we've had changes in the basic legislation guiding broadcast policy--a new Broadcasting Act. More recently massive changes in the regulations under which we operate, not all of which may be truly in the public interest, but certainly changes which will result in profound revisions in the system as we know it.

Let me hasten to assure you that I for one, at least, accept that those responsible for these changes were well motivated and well intentioned. They may not, however, have been well informed.

To regulate a highly complex and delicately structured system such as we have in Canada requires more than good intentions--much more. Precise and accurate knowledge of all of the technical, economic and social effects of proposed changes must be married with the good intentions or the result will surely be chaos.

One of the difficulties I face today is to try to convey to you, without elaborate exposition, the nature of the crisis we all face. Time is always an enemy and after countless hours of direct testimony, response to cross-examination and consultation, I fear I may have failed to acquaint the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media, the Commons Committee on Broadcasting, Film and Assistance to the Arts and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission with the real condition of our industry.

In any event, I thought about today very carefully and came to the conclusion that I could only deal with the options and choices we must face on a principle or philosophical basis; and assure you that the facts which support my case have been demonstrated--and can be again given the interest and the time.

A very old and very wise man who literally grew up with the motion picture industry, and became one of the legendary giants recently said to me, "The only constant in our business is change." I'm sure it wasn't original with him, but it was impressive. But I could only respond with, "My friend, you ain't seen nothing yet."

We are all caught in an exploding technology in the field of communications. Each of us in our daily business affairs experiences it. The geometric expansion of knowledge which requires that we all spend so much of our time acquiring new information just to be able to make everyday judgments and decisions . . . now the ogre of rampant technological change for its own sake looms as a real threat to our society. We are, I believe, in danger of being stampeded by technological options into losing sight of our objectives and ultimately our ability to fulfil those objectives.

Let me ask a question. If we had known in the early 1900's when the automobile was a toy--a novelty--the profound effect it would have on our society, on ecology would we, in all conscience, have allowed it to become what it has? I very much doubt we would have voluntarily sacrificed the very air we breathe, perhaps the future of our children--to our peculiar romantic identification with personal transportation. And today's and tomorrow's generations must pay the price . . . they must undo the damage provide clean, economic and rapid mass transit, return the cities to the people . . . rather than maintain them as gigantic parking lots for our automobiles.

What has all this to do with television today, and particularly in Canada? We have the technocrats holding out the prospects of multi-channel Cable Television (CATV) systems, facsimile reproduction in the home, shopping services, laser transmission, satellites and satellite to home, two way services, cassettes, and on and on . . . like handfuls of gaudy beads offered to early natives in exchange for the vast wealth of their natural heritage . . . in this case perhaps our very identity.

The basic thrust of the Broadcasting Act of such recent vintage as 1968 is to strengthen and preserve the separate identity of Canada . . . clearly a massive challenge, allocated solely to broadcasting, living as neighbours to the giant nation on our southern border. Incidentally, this is not a severe problem for Australia or Great Britain, because they are separated by vast distances from other signal sources and a multiple choice of signals are not accessible to their viewers as they are here; for over 65 per cent of Canada's television homes have direct access off air to one or more American signals with or without the assistance of CATV. Neither is the adjacency of the British Isles to the continent a problem because English speaking viewers somehow don't demonstrate a passion for viewing Dutch, French or other language originations.

Now we face a conundrum. A year ago, in the interest of preserving our identity and emphasizing the east/west flow of programming, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission decided that it was profoundly in the public interest to drastically decrease the volume of American programmes available to Canadians via the Canadian licensed broadcasting system.

Today, not quite a year later, both the Secretary of State and the Commission have made it clear that it is also profoundly in the public interest to ensure that all Canadians have access to all American programmes via CATV. (I should qualify that by saying only those Canadians with CATV services available to them.)

And now we have Senator Davey's Commission. That report merely reiterated the existing bias in spite of conflicting research. Surely we could have saved all that tax money and simply written the report without all the public discourse. In view of the surveys conducted with the public which established that a remarkable 90% of the Canadian public were happy with their media services, which reconfirmed that television was the dominant and most important source of current news, and which indicated the general consensus that Canadians are better informed today than they were five years ago.

Against this expression of confidence, how can one justify the changes demanded by the Commission, or Senator Davey. Perhaps it's that syndrome which occurs with governments and their agencies, and critics and academics. The inevitable desire, in the words of the Secretary of State, to ensure that "the culture of the elite must be brought to the masses."

How can these conflicts be reconciled? I don't really know.

First, the massive increase in domestic programming imposed on us requires the expenditure of huge sums of money at precisely the same time as the rapid expansion of CATV is fragmenting the Canadian audiences and diminishing the industry's viability.

If alternative sources of financial support were available, then the service could be maintained. But, with diminishing audiences, the justification for such support--whatever its source--would be difficult to find.

The efforts expended during the past ten years, which repatriated the Canadian viewers from their historic predilection for viewing U.S. border stations, will be wasted. Graphic and dramatic evidence is available to demonstrate the vastly increased penetration of U.S. stations in cable equipped households, as compared with non-cable households. The logical question is why this rush to develop cable? Ostensibly to meet public demand.

Well, let's not be naive. There certainly has been a demand for alternative viewing choices in those remote and smaller uneconomic markets with only a single service--a demand incidentally which is hopefully to be met by direction of the CRTC on an accelerated timetable, while hopefully preserving the economic viability of the incumbent licensees, and hopefully meeting the new regulations, and facing the expansion of cable--piling straw upon straw on the already sway-backed camel.

But the so-called public demand in markets now served by both national services is clearly a demand created by clever entrepreneurs--and not incidentally the hopeful future licensees of cable operations in those areas--not a demand which spontaneously welled up from the hearts of Canadians not so fortunate as to live in Toronto or Vancouver and have access to U.S. signals automatically.

If our intent was and is to preserve and strengthen our national identity and fulfill the objectives of the Act, technology has many answers:

For example--we could have adopted a different technical standard when television was first licensed in Canada, which would have precluded reception by Canadians of foreign signals, or, we could license each receiver sold, and dependent on its location, require the tuner to be so constructed as to be unable to bring in the foreign channels.

But none of these options, or many more I could identify, are politically acceptable. Besides, the less ethical amongst us could make a fortune with black market converters to enable viewers to receive the signals of their choice.

What then are the real options?

First, recognize that quality and quantity are not synonymous. CTV has over the past five years concentrated its resources and the bulk of its programme budgets on improved News Services, better journalistic endeavours dealing with the issues which are or should be of concern to Canadians, and on an admittedly moderate number of Canadian entertainment programmes . . . and to and behold we've been able to compete. The Canadian audiences invariably tune to Canadian News and Information Programmes when they have the choice. Some of our entertainment offerings have found such favour as to rival the most popular imports.

While our costs related to foreign programme purchases over the past four years have risen only 7.5%, our expenditure on Canadian programming in the same period has risen by 80.5%. For the current season alone we have budgeted for a heavy 36% increase in Canadian programme budgets. Surely these facts would justify a qualitative approach. But spreading all our resources over a vastly greater volume of programming is almost a guarantee of a deterioration of quality.

The Australian Broadcasting regulations recently revised their regulations . . . there too the intent has been to emphasize their own identity. However, one of their key policies is to create incentives for excellence. . . by providing extra credit for programmes in certain categories.

We made similar suggestions to the Commission, some of which I'll briefly outline.

One--an extra credit for programmes where costs are of necessity high.

Two--an extra credit for programmes which are designed to orient or inform Canadians, or to stimulate public dialogue on issues which are or should be of concern.

Three--an extra credit for programmes which through merit or quality, or even the ingenuity of the sales approach, achieve penetration in foreign markets; and thereby contribute revenue flow to Canadian artists and the Canadian programme production industry.

Another option--obviously heretical--would be to free the private broadcasters from the restrictive, and in my view, unproductive regulations. As the Commission has expressed its faith in the ingenuity of Canadians and acknowledged that regulations by themselves cannot make programmes, allow us to compete freely with the least possible quantitative or administrative regulation and, as it were, to give free reign to our Canadian ingenuity.

I believe the public, and even the Commission, might be happily surprised at the results.

If cable must come, then even while recognizing the concern about concentration of media control, ownership of cable should as a policy be given first to broadcasters who must bear the ultimate burden for our national identity even if this has to be done through some form of trust to ensure independent programme control in the public interest, at least the vast sums of money which will ultimately flow to this new service could be diverted to the programming needs of the country.

Perhaps we should throw off the influence of the hardware merchants and technocrats, and however painful break off our love affair with cable. Or, if cable is truly to be the key to a happy, productive urban society, accept the responsibility of operating CATV as a public trust and revise current policies accordingly. Create a new utility in the public sector to ensure that access will be universal, for under the current system--those who need it . . . the poor, the disenfranchised, the uneducated, and those remote from the heart of the urban centres . . . will be the least likely to have access to it.

The alternative may well be to destroy the only existing system which can reach the majority of Canadians--the licensed transmitting undertakings we currently operate inter-connected nationally on a network basis.

We must finally accept the reality that the hardware and the distribution system are irrelevant . . . that programmes, their content and choice, are everything. Canada must make a choice. The priorities of the Act . . . a mixed system of public and private elements providing a dual national service in English and ultimately in French . . . or . . . a new and perhaps attractive option--a proliferation of cable systems and channels, primarily for the purpose of providing vast choices in numbers of programmes (many if not most from the United States). For we do an imperfect job of programming two channels nationally now--with fragmentation the resources available to fill the increased demand for programmes will be diminished.

For my part, I'll choose the principles enunciated by the Broadcasting Act . . . the preservation and strengthening of our national identity. If this is not to be the Government's choice, then let's stop the sham--remove the regulations and change the Act . . . and the devil take the hindmost.

The gratitude of the Club was expressed by Mr. Arthur R. T. Chetwynd.