Media Convergence The debate over excessive
media interference
Ian Burns
A
14
favourite topic of conversation amongst some in the chattering classes is the idea of media convergence: too many media sources are concentrated in too few hands. Not since the heady days of the newspaper circulation wars between William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer have there been so few media barons. “There are very serious concerns about potential dangers that can arise from media consolidation,” said Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. “…Big media companies could run their networks in a way that establishes real benefit for themselves and potential detriment to others.” In recent years, our elected officials have raised some red flags about media consolidation. The Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications released the Report on the Canadian News Media in 2006. It raised the potential of media ownership concentration to limit news diversity and reduce news quality, and the CRTC and Competition Bureau’s ineffectiveness to deal with this issue. The Canadian media landscape has gone through a significant reshaping in the eight years since the Senate report has been relegated to collecting dust. The merger between Astral Media, the largest owner of radio stations in the country, and Bell Media caught the attention of the CRTC and the smaller players in the media market who felt they could get squeezed out. In addition, the concept of “net neutrality” has become more in vogue – the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated the same, and that big companies have the potential to reduce access to some customers. Despite the concerns raised in the Senate’s report, arguments have been made that media consolidation can actually offer consumers even more choice. Technology has given rise to an abundance of media sources to get a variety of news, not only from Canada
but around the world. And, according to the same argument, the government has enough safeguards to ensure Canadian news media is protected. Convergence takes two forms: vertical and horizontal integration. According to Investopedia, in vertical integration, different business units are unified in a supply chain under common ownership to fulfill different roles, which then combine to produce a final product. Under this system, a media company, for example Bell, owns a television network, Internet and cable, and satellite television all of which combines to produce content across all platforms. This can be contrasted with horizontal inte-
“
We could have a situation whereby a small group of network providers that are vertically integrated have the capacity to discriminate against other content. Michael Geist gration, in which a company owns multiple units that provide a similar service. This is the more common form in media circles: for example, a media company may own a chain of newspapers, radio stations, and television stations. Steve Faguy, a media blogger and freelance journalist from Montreal, said the idea of ownership was not a black-and-white issue. “There are advantages and disadvantages to concentration of ownership,” he said adding that the large companies in Canada have basically created an oligopoly of the “Big Four.” He said this vertical integration within the provision of media was not necessarily a bad thing: “These TV networks were not in the best of health when they were purchased by
their current owners.” Their deep pockets, he said, allowed the “Big Four” companies to preserve the networks as major broadcast entities – and ensure that the media didn’t become even more compacted. Faguy said Bell’s “Let’s Talk” day was an example of vertical integration. He said while the idea behind Let’s Talk – increasing awareness of mental health – was a very honourable one, he said that all of Bell’s news apparatuses were focused on this, with Bell controlling its news output. “This is not evil,” said Faguy. “But it sets a precedent of what can be covered by local outlets.” Both Faguy and Schultz note that the CRTC and, to a lesser extent, the Competition Bureau still enjoy a significant amount of power when it comes to the regulation of Canadian media as seen is the merger between Bell and Astral Media. Astral’s assets included numerous specialty television channels including the Movie Network and the cartoon channel Teletoon, and the real “jewel in the crown,” ownership of its 84 radio stations cross-country. In response to the merger proposal, several cable companies, including Cogeco and Videotron, formed a coalition called “Say No to Bell,” stating this would cripple smaller cable companies if Bell charged increased carriage rates for its assets and would harm competition. The CRTC in turn rejected the merger, saying in a statement at the time of the decision that the merger would “threaten the availability of diverse programming for Canadians and endanger the ability of distribution undertakings to deliver programming at affordable rates and on reasonable terms on multiple platforms.”It also stated that allowing the merger would have required the implementation of “extensive and intrusive safeguards” across the entire broadcasting industry. Bell then presented a reformulated plan which divested some of Astral’s assets to smaller companies such as Corus and B.C.’s Jim Pattison Group, which was approved by the CRTC and the Competition Bureau. Faguy said tighter regulations of media ownership in Canada are unnecessary because the CRTC’s influence in media mergers– as the Astral case shows. “The CRTC already has a lot of power,” said Faguy. “The conditions it set on the Bell-Astral case is a prime example.” Richard Schultz agreed. “It proves the