Speeches and Interviews

Montreal, November 25, 2006

To adapt or to disappear: the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century

Notes for a speech by Sylvain Lafrance, Executive Vice-President of French Services, CBC/Radio-Canada, at the annual convention of the fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Good morning.

First of all, thank you for inviting me to speak to you this morning. The last time I attended an FPJQ convention was in Quebec City a decade ago. I remember it well. At the time, people were debating the role of senior managers in the FPJQ. Should they or should they not belong?

The question being asked in this opening session is an intriguing one. "To adapt or to disappear"? We're invited to reflect on the environment that's emerging and on the challenges awaiting journalists and information media. I'll share my thoughts on these matters this morning. I'll also speak about how we at Radio-Canada view our role as a public broadcaster in the 21st century and how we're convinced we're in a better position than ever to rise to the challenges ahead.

The discussion this morning is very interesting. When we speak about the media, it seems we tend to dwell a lot on technology. It's time to go beyond that. If we want to really reflect on what journalism in the 21st century will be, we also need to focus on issues of democracy and culture.

Beyond simple matters of technology and economics is a range of elements today that influence how citizens experience democracy and culture. These elements should make us think about the role of journalists and the media in general in society.

Within our society is a factor we might call "global fragmentation." It encompasses different forms of fragmentation and affects politics, society and culture more and more each year.

Of course, media fragmentation is one form. Think of the hundreds of television channels and of satellite radio with its dozens of stations. How many platforms around the world broadcast CBC/Radio-Canada services, including Radio Canada International, our radio and television programs, our Galaxie services and so on? I'd say hundreds or maybe even thousands. Radio Canada International alone has over 450 partners worldwide. So, yes, we have thousands of platforms, which only proves how hyperfragmented the media have become.

This hyperfragmentation obviously has an impact on many things, particularly business models in the world of television. Also consider the fragmentation directly related to new technologies. New cellphone applications, for example, have increased media fragmentation by cutting into services once provided by traditional media alone.

Other more social fragmentations are taking place. For instance, one of the most significant events in radio is the expanding notion of proximity. At radio conventions across the United States, people are always saying that the three most important things in radio are localism, localism, localism. In other words, geographic proximity has enormous importance in radio because when you live in the same area—the same town, city or region—you have common interests.

But today, thanks to new technologies, proximity has taken on a broader meaning. You can be close to someone because you share the same religion, political views or sexual orientation, or even the same interest in a particular make of car or boat. You can be close to someone for myriad reasons. And you can now communicate with that person in under 15 minutes through different means like the Web or cellphones with their text messaging options. The notion of proximity has totally changed. This has had a major impact on the traditional balance between regional, national and international. I don't mean to say that regional stations no longer have their place. Rather, they are simply one of the possible alternatives today.

Another form of fragmentation may affect journalists more directly. I'm referring to the explosion of news sources. Today there's a huge number of sources in the world of journalism, and this poses a problem for the credibility of the sources. Cellphones themselves have become a key source of audio, video and photographic information. This multitude of sources or fragmentation creates a new dynamic we must take into account.

Also, a more social, political and religious fragmentation has arisen partly from the combined effects of globalization, immigration flow and rising insecurity. This is causing a profound change in the social fabric and raising important questions for the media.

In light of all this, the media have entered a new phase. Oddly enough, we were worried 10 years ago about the media being overly concentrated in the hands of large conglomerates. Today we're worried mostly about the media being overly fragmented. It seems we're always afraid of something. But it's interesting to see how we've shifted from a risk of being hyperconcentrated to a risk of being hyperfragmented.

With all these factors in mind, I'll put forward five basic principles to help us analyze the situation more closely.

First, the birth of any new technology always comes with founding myths. In other words, we always conceive of far-fetched possibilities for new technologies. One example that springs to mind occurred in Canada in the newspaper industry. In the fifties and sixties, a royal commission on media was held. The Canadian Newspaper Publishers Association had sounded an alarm. In their report, which is easily found online, Canadian newspaper publishers wrote that newspapers were doomed to disappear within five to 10 years because of a technology emerging in the United States, the fax machine, which would let people receive documents by telephone. Since Canadians would be receiving their newspaper by fax within the next five years, printed newspapers would vanish. Although technically feasible, faxed newspapers never came to be. Granted, the fax machine has had an illustrious career, but not as a means for delivering newspapers.

I can also give examples from outside the world of media. I remember being told 20 years ago that I'd be able to roast a chicken in a microwave oven. Well, a decade later, we learned that microwaves were useful mainly for heating up food.

When VCRs hit the market 20 years ago, our programming departments were supposed to fold because people could tape and do their own programming. Worse, when video cameras came out, some predicted the collapse of the film industry because people would be able to make their own movies instead of going to movie theatres. Technically, such shifts were possible.

Consider the Internet wave that hit in the late nineties, the phenomenon of customizing media, and the advent of citizens' media. Obviously, these phenomena exist (in fact, the Internet has certainly taken its slice of the media pie). Nonetheless, we attribute uses to new technologies that, though technically feasible, never pan out. We forget to take into account how the public will actually use the technology. Faced with important technological options, people ultimately decide what works for them and what doesn't.

So my first principle is this: new technologies come with myths. Secondly, , I'm convinced that the major issues in the media industry and especially in journalism are not technological, economic or related to business models.

The major issues are democracy and culture. These are the issues we must first mull over because how people experience democracy and culture has evolved enormously since the turn of the century. Issues of social cohesion, cultural cohabitation and cultural identity are not the same as they were in 1980.

To me, these matters far outweigh technological issues for one basic reason: we adapt to technology. CBC/Radio-Canada has been a leader in developing colour television, FM radio and HDTV. We understand technology. However, deciding what we want to say and what we want to broadcast on these new technologies is crucial. Indeed, this may be our most important question.

My second principle: the major issues concern democracy and culture far more than anything else.

My third principle: more than ever, people in media must offer coherence and a clear value system. As a public broadcaster, we must clearly express what we want and refocus on our core values.

At CBC/Radio-Canada, we're a tool for democracy and culture. When tuning in to us, people need to know that the information they find is reliable, credible and accurate. The stronger our brand is, with its values clearly identified, the more easily the public can recognize us and the more easily we can expand our brand to different platforms.

I'm not crazy about the term brand; it sounds like marketing jargon. But there is no other word. Branding refers not only to a name, logo or ad, but also to an emotional link forged with the public. The other day, for example, I saw my son watching a program on the Discovery Kids channel. I've never watched Discovery Kids , but I'm sure it's a first-rate, trustworthy channel. Why? Because it's associated with Discovery, which has become a very strong brand over the years. So I'm inclined to think that if my son is tuned in to a Discovery-affiliated channel, he's watching something good.

Branding is important because when 300, 400 or 500 channels are available, people will choose the most reliable brands, those that in their view embrace meaningful values. So CBC/Radio-Canada French Service's entire integration strategy, which I'll explain more fully in a moment, is based on the public broadcaster's strong branding and clear personality, rather than on some technological fantasy.

My fourth principle: the major issues of the century include social cohesion, as well as cultural cohabitation stemming from globalization.

Lately, not a day goes by when we don't speak about reasonable accommodation in Quebec. This major issue should strike a chord with the world of journalism because it changes so many things.

Often we approach journalistic objectivity and a balance of opinions in too linear a fashion . People are for or against. They vote yes or no. They see things in black or white. As long as we feature a supporter from each side, everything is fine. But issues today are rarely either-or. Consider the wearing of the veil. This isn't an issue where people are for or against. The reality is much more complex. There's a new diversity today that we mustn't overlook.

My fifth principle: technological trends, like new technologies and the Web, do not weaken the tenets of journalism. In my view, these tenets remain strong. We must master the new tools available, but the tenets of objectivity and honesty remain unchanged. We must keep in mind the new realities of democracy and culture rather than get distracted by new buttons on our technological gadgets. Asking ourselves the real questions is, in my opinion, extremely important.

How is Radio-Canada responding to these issues? What is the public broadcaster's response to this environment?

First, we define ourselves as a tool for democracy and culture before defining ourselves as an industry, medium or institution. Hence, we define ourselves in relation to issues of democracy and culture, and these issues are the ones we must first reflect on. We must ask ourselves what has changed in how people experience democracy and culture. This will ultimately lead to the question of what we must do in journalism and culture so that in 10 or 15 years, we are still important for the public with regard to social cohesion and cultural cohabitation.

Second, we must pool our efforts at Radio-Canada. We must all work together to create a strong brand that the public will embrace, a credible, reliable brand boasting a strong identity. This is important in the environment I have just described because with 500 to a thousand channels to choose from, people must clearly view the public broadcaster as a symbol of credibility and reliability. This challenge is extremely important.

Finally, we need public support to ensure our long-term survival. Public support is the equivalent of profits for the private sector. When Canadians believe in Radio-Canada, all goes well. When they do not, we have a problem.

This gives us a unique point of view on many issues, which we'll in fact bring to the CRTC on Monday morning during next week's hearings on conventional television. By "conventional television," we mean channels broadcast over the air. Four such channels serve Quebec: Radio-Canada, TVA, TQS and Télé-Québec.

What will we tell the CRTC? First, we'll say that Canada has long had a combined public-private system and that this combination has in fact led to television's success as a cultural industry. Our system is also successful in holding on to its audience.

Yes, fragmentation exists. Still, nearly 70% of television viewers in Quebec last night were probably watching one of the province's three main conventional television networks. These are huge numbers in the world of media, something we mustn't lose sight of. So the current combination of public and private sectors is a system that has earned its stripes.

We'll also say that we must give the public sector room so it develops financially and doesn't fall totally victim to fragmentation. We need new tools and subscriber fees. We need to play a key role for the future and devise new tools worthy of the 21st century. For this, we need to be able to develop financially. We'll also say that our means of distribution needs rethinking.

Finally, I'd like to speak about convergence. I may grimace a bit here because I'm no fan of the term convergence. Why? Well, etymologically, convergence means to strive toward a common goal. So, yes, we could call this process convergence. But in the world of media, the notion has been used in a whole other way. Convergence refers to business models, concentration models and even technological models. Consequently, the term has lost some of its meaning.

I think that what Radio-Canada is doing is not convergence in the sense of building business models to help increase revenue. Rather, what we're doing is simple common sense. We're trying to work together for the public's benefit within one organization.

Nor are we pursuing a bimedia approach where all our journalists work with a microphone and a camera. Instead, our aim is to ensure we have a comprehensive strategy and a certain number of values that cut across the entire organization so the public broadcaster's value added can be recognized.

So yes, this causes people to work on several platforms, but only when doing so is wise and enriches the quality of the information we offer the public. But let me reiterate that our main strategy is first and foremost to pursue our branding as a public broadcaster and improve what we offer the public. That's why I have qualms about labelling our strategy a convergence.

We must also remember that Radio-Canada works in a highly regulated environment. We're subject to the many rules specific to a public service. Besides the Broadcasting Act Broadcasting Act and CRTC regulations, we've drawn up our own guiding principles for information through our journalistic standards and practices, our program policies and the Office of the Ombudsman.

The convergence of large corporations, I feel, makes sense provided guidelines and regulations are set down. Although an unlikely scenario, people pursuing convergence with a total lack of regulations would be very worrisome.

I believe such a move would have serious repercussions because democracy and culture are too important to be left to the laws of the market. The laws of the market cannot rule completely. I'm convinced that for the sake of culture and democracy, the media must abide by certain regulations because offering television and radio services to Canadians is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. This is something I feel we must accept.

In this respect, Radio-Canada is finding its role, which is to enrich the democratic and cultural life of Canadians.

In the coming days, it's important to remember that behind all these issues are people who want to experience their democracy and culture and who are simply trying to understand. We must think of them in particular and make sure that the responses we give incorporate content and diversity of opinion. These are major issues for the public, more so than anything else, more so than the problems of infrastructure, which we'll manage to resolve.

Thank you.