Sign the Quality News Manifesto
By Paul D. Boin (Feb. 24, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
The CRTC recently adopted a new policy regarding media cross-ownership. Unfortunately for citizens, this policy is totally inadequate and in no way addresses the problem of access to a diversity of quality news and information.
By adopting a new code of journalistic independence, the CRTC is effectively encouraging, if not accelerating, the consolidation of newsrooms under a single owner. The absence in this code of any conditions requiring autonomous newsgathering activities is deplorable and dangerous.
The concentration of media ownership in
Today, four conglomerates control 70% of the country’s daily papers, three corporations broadcast most of the televised news and two companies own the majority of radio stations.
The large media groups use the same information for all of their media platforms, resulting in centralized news production and dissemination. We are witnessing a reduction in the number of journalists paid to report the news, which is contributing directly to the homogenity of the information we receive.
Regions far from urban centres suffer most from this phenomenon, which became even more acute in 2007. Regional broadcasts and newspapers are inundated with “network” information and the communities they are supposed to serve do not see themselves reflected.
The quality of our democratic life is intimately linked to the quality and diversity of voices in information. Our civic life benefits directly from access to a plurality of media sources that present ideas, enrich our knowledge and provoke debate.
Media concentration is a serious issue that has concerned a number of observers for decades. In
Despite the numerous warnings, none of our successive governments has enacted measures guaranteeing the plurality of ownership of our news sources, nor has the CRTC.
The health of our democracy demands that the Broadcasting Act be amended to protect and promote the diversity of voices in programming and news.
We need to ensure that political parties and their candidates adopt the position that programming and information must serve the public interest rather than financial interests.
Media empires are eliminating the critical mass of journalists we have counted on to cover issues in our communities and around the world, and to report back information vital to the health of our democracy.
But the government is doing nothing to remedy this situation. We are therefore committing to this important reform to ensure a diversity of voices and to protect our fundamental rights.
To call for quality information and a true plurality of media sources, CLICK & SIGN THIS MANIFESTO.
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media. His forthcoming book “Media for the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media” will be published by Fernwood Publishing in the Fall of 2009.
The CRTC Must Rule in Favour of Network Neutrality: A CRTC Submission
By Paul D. Boin (Feb. 24, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
(This specific blog entry/CRTC Submission is also posted at the Campaign for Democratic Media)
[Note: What follows is a slightly revised brief CRTC document I submitted yesterday as part of the CRTC’s Network Neutrality (Telecom Notice CRTC 2008-19 “Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers”) review. Submitted to the CRTC February 23, 2008]
CRTC Submission Re: Telecom Notice CRTC 2008-19 “Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers”
Date Submitted: February 23, 2009
Submitted By: Dr. Paul D. Boin, University of Windsor
The following are 5 brief points that I would like to make for this vitally important “Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers” CRTC public review and proceedings.
POINT 1: I DISAGREE WITH THE VERY TITLE OF THIS REVIEW.
As the CRTC, a body that is supposed to regulate in the public interest, you have selected an inappropriate title “Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers”) for this public review. I say this because by utilizing a slogan of the corporate/ISPs (”Traffic Management”) you may have wrongly skewed the debate, and provided an unfair advantage towards the very corporate groups who have started to violate the fundamental principles of network neutrality – that all information (bites or packets) be treated in an equal manner. The words that you chose in your review title, “Traffic Management,” are just as biased as if had you chosen “Internet Throttling.” Had this review been more objectively entitled “Network Neutrality in Canadian New Media (or the Internet)”, for example, you would likely have had many more Canadians participate in this debate and offer many more comments, in favor of network neutrality, to this proceeding. I hope that the CRTC will take this into consideration, and will endeavor to develop more neutral titles for future public review proceedings.
POINT 2: “TRAFFIC SHAPING” (”Internet Throttling”) ENSURES A “RACE TO THE BOTTOM” OF CANADIAN BROADBAND, UNDERMINING CANADIAN ECONOMIC GROWTH & OUR INFORMATION PROSPECTS.
For over two decades our telecom companies have been afforded both regulated monopoly rights and public (tax-payer funded) subsidies to develop their fiber optic broadband networks. These companies are therefore duty bound to improve their network capabilities, and manage these networks in a fair and equitable manner (as required in detail by the Telecommunications Act of 1993). Further, if they truly wish to “compete” in the “competitive marketplace” then they already have all the incentives they need to continually improve their broadband networks so as to gain their respective competitive advantages, and lure prospective customers by providing better and faster broadband service. Instead, Canada’s big telecom/ISP providers seem to be engaged in some type of “gentleman’s agreement” to try to get away with spending the least amount of money on upgrading their networks as possible. If they ALL do this (meaning, do nothing to substantively upgrade their networks) they think they can ALL be more profitable (for the wrong reason of providing poorer service). If the CRTC allows our Canadian Telecom/ISPs to engage in the practice of network “traffic shaping” (or “throttling” or “traffic management”) then you/the CRTC will also be allowing these irresponsible corporations to escape the rationality of the market, or the judgment of consumers, as they will be creating artificial broadband scarcity. Worse still, if the CRTC continues to allow these corporate telecom/ISPs to continue these irresponsible practices, in violation of network neutrality, you will be undermining the future development of the Canadian broadband system and damaging the prospects of Canadian economic growth and creative and information skill development. In short, if the CRTC allows our corporate/ISP providers to continue violating network neutrality, Canada and Canadians will not be able to compete in the 21st century new information-based economy.
POINT 3: IF THE CRTC DOESN’T REGULATE/UPHOLD NETWORK NEUTRALITY, TELCOS/ISPs WILL REGULATE/THROTTLE INSTEAD, AND PUT CANADA’s “INFORMATION HIGHWAY” IN REVERSE.
In the public notice for this review the CRTC states that you will “pronounce on whether such [”traffic management”] practices are consistent with the Act, and whether any measures are required to ensure that such practices are in accordance with the [Telecommunications] Act.” The CRTC should know quite well that issues dealing with compromising network neutrality (”throttling” or “traffic management”) are not consistent with the Telecommunications Act’s requirements for fair and equitable treatment of services and information. The CRTC is also aware that the principle of network neutrality (or “Traffic Shaping” or “Throttling”) is not directly addressed in the Telecom Act. By and large, this is unchartered territory, and if this regulatory vacuum is not filled with a firm CRTC commitment to network neutrality than the CRTC will be allowing the greatest medium in human history to become less than ordinary, while placing Canadians in reverse on the “information highway.” If the CRTC doesn’t regulate the principle of network neutrality, than the irresponsible and self-interested corporate/ISPs will undemocratically regulate in the opposite direction. It is time for the CRTC leaders and commissioners to live up to your titles as “public servants” not simply act as “corporate servants.” Please note, that these are not anti-business arguments, just pro-responsible business arguments. If all Canadians are thriving and developing, than businesses of all sizes will also thrive.
POINT 4: THE CRTC’s PREVIOUS DECISION ON BELL vs. CAIP (Telecom Decision 2008-108) WAS DEEPLY FLAWED AND MUST BE CORRECTED.
There is clear evidence that the CRTC erred significantly when making your Telecom Decision 2008-108 ruling in favor of Bell at the expense of CAIP and the public interest. This decision must be reversed and the principle of network neutrality must be enshrined and upheld.
The CRTC’s Telecom Decision 2008-108 was a deeply flawed decision in terms of process, technical misunderstandings, and a systematic bias in favor of Bell and large telecom/ISP interests at the expense of smaller telecom/ISP businesses and the public interests. In these regards, I refer you to the thorough technical investigation and analysis provided by Jean-Francois Mezei (see: http://www.vaxination.ca/crtc/2008_108_analysis1.pdf).
This Telecom Decision 2008-108 must be reversed at best, in favor of CAIP and the public interest, or reviewed at worst.
POINT 5: THE PUBLIC INTEREST & THE TELECOM ACT RANKS HIGHER THAN THE “POLICY DIRECTION” OF ANY TEMPORARY MINORITY GOVERNMENT.
In the public notice for this review the CRTC refers to the fact that the Governor in Council (the Cabinet of the current sitting minority government) has issued a Policy Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives, (P.C. 2006-1534, 14 December 2006, entitled “The Policy Direction”). The CRTC leadership and commissioners must realize, and evidently be reminded, that this policy direction, issued by a minority and temporary government, must rank far below the public interest obligations and the letter and spirit of the Telecommunications Act of 1993. The public interest and the Act is where the guidance and direction should come from when the CRTC makes this monumental decision.
This point above is punctuated by the fact that the recent economic recession was largely brought about by the very same flawed advice (reliance on market forces over government regulation) contained in this low ranking Governor in Council “Policy Direction.”
I thank you for your consideration and time.
Dr. Paul D. Boin
Assistant Professor, Communication Studies
University of Windsor, 4105 Lambton Tower
Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
pboin@uwindsor.ca http://www.mediajustice.ca/
http://mjblog.mediajustice.ca/
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media. His forthcoming book “Media for the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media” will be published by Fernwood Publishing in the Fall of 2009.
Finally Some Sensible Media Coverage On Iran
By Paul D. Boin (Feb. 23, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
While the rest of the western mainstream media (having not learned their lessons from their role in aiding and abetting the 2003 Iraq war) seem all too willing to let warmongers get the best of them, the Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders has given the global public interest some hope for his profession and a more peaceful world.
This past Saturday (February 21, 2009, p. F3) Saunders wrote an article entitled “Iran: The Enemy that Almost Isn’t,” where he pointed out a number of inconvenient facts that are all-too-often left out of today’s mainstream media coverage on Iran, and pronouncements from irresponsible governments like our own Canadian government.
The following are some of the much needed points/quotes that Saunders makes by which we should all measure future, and hopefully more responsible, media reports and government news releases:
-”It is likely that simply by looking at
-”Imagine if, in response, the U.S. government made a public, formal apology for the 1953 Central Intelligence Agency overthrow of Iran’s elected government, the act that had sent the country on the path to extremism in the first place.”
-Madeleine Albright, the
-In 2003, moderate Iranian President Khatami “sent a Swiss official to
-”That diplomatic snub was one of several humiliations, diplomatic and economic, that led to the defeat of Mr. Khatami’s reformists in subsequent elections and the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s neo-conservative zealots.”
-”one State Department official directly involved with the Iranian offer told me, ‘It was like we missed the biggest Middle East peace opportunity of the decade, just so we could keep saying ‘axis of evil.’”
-”Most of the objection to this scenario [friendly relations with
-”
-”It was reported this week, based on a new IAEA report, that
-“As long as we are monitoring their facilities,” IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei said recently, ‘they cannot develop nuclear weapons. And they still do not have the ingredients to make a bomb overnight.’”
-”The countries that have actually produced atom bombs on the sly in recent years – India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – have done so by refusing to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so there are no inspectors.”
-”Most informed observers, including Mr. ElBaradei, believe that Iran is merely “hedging” by keeping open the possibility of building a bomb within five to 10 years – exactly what Canada once did.”
Let’s hope that Doug Saunders will inspire his journalistic colleagues to ask the right and hard questions of those who would want to see our 21st century continue to be embroiled in a culture of war.
With Saunder’s example of responsible journalism there is more hope that our global society can enter into what former Secretary General of UNESCO Federico Mayor called a Culture of Peace.
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media. His forthcoming book “Media for the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media” will be published by Fernwood Publishing in the Fall of 2009.
Last Chance to Speak on New Media
By Paul D. Boin (Feb. 20, 2009) A Blog for Media Justice
Jointly sponsored by the Media Justice Project & Rabble)
If you’re reading this, you have just until Monday February 23 (extended from Feb. 17) to offer your opinion to the CRTC as to how you want the best characteristics of new media (the Internet) to be protected. Before you issue your opinion, however, you might want to review the CRTC’s Internet Traffic Management terms of reference , visit the numerous resources of Save Our Net, and consider the following.
Despite what you read in superficial mainstream media criticisms and editorials, the Internet (New Media) is already being “regulated” in favour of large private business interests at the potential (and increasingly real) expense of the public interest. Organizations like ICANN and WIPO, and mega-media ISP corporations like Bell, Telus, Rogers, Shaw and Verizon are already compromising net neutrality by throttling our broadband ability to access and visit our free choice of content and Web sites. If the CRTC continues to refuse to fill this regulatory vacuum in favor of the public interest by not enshrining in law policy the principle of net neutrality, it will simultaneously be undermining citizen communication rights, consumer choice, and the democratic potential of the Internet and society itself. So let the CRTC know (click on #pt 2008-19-2 at bottom of page) that you want it to represent citizens and consumers by establishing Net Neutrality as a rock solid principle and policy that cannot be undermined by any telecommunication company providing Internet access.
There are many other very important issues currently being discussed on new media, and ultimately decided upon, such as the CRTC’s New Media Broadcasting terms of reference detail (deadline for commenting on this review is March 27, 2008, click on #2008-1-1 at top of page) . Another key issue being discussed, as more and more Canadian content migrates from radio and television to the Internet), is to what degree should Canadian cultural creations be assisted in having a solid and lasting place in new media.
But, by far, the most critical issue that is at stake at this moment is for the CRTC to make net neutrality not only a cornerstone principle and policy of new media, but make it a fundamental condition of doing business for those companies providing Canadians with Internet service. If telecommunications and media companies don’t practice authentic net neutrality (this means not “throttling” or “traffic-shaping” or any new neutrality compromising tactic) then the CRTC should not allow them to do business.
This net neutrality issue, more than anything else, is what will determine how, and how democratically, we will communicate in our 21st Century. Give your opinion now (click on #pt 2008-19-2 at bottom of page), or don’t be surprised when you (or your child’s) ability to issue your opinion is compromised in the future.
Dr. Paul Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca) is an assistant professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, founder of the Media Justice Project and a member of the Campaign for Democratic Media. His forthcoming book “Media for the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media” will be published by Fernwood Publishing in the Fall of 2009.