SSRC Report(2)

Digital Strategy

Community Television & Journalism

Net Neutrality

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canada

Robert A. Hackett & Steve Anderson

REVITALIZING A MEDIA REFORM MOVEMENT IN CANADA by Robert A. Hackett & Steve Anderson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5

Canada License. To view a copy of this license visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/

REVITALIZING A MEDIA REFORM MOVEMENT IN CANADA

This research was assisted by a grant from the Necessary Knowledge fora Democratic Public Sphere Program of the Social Science Research

Council with funds provided by the Ford Foundation.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization, including OpenMedia.ca,

World Association for Christian Communication, the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University,

the Social Science Research Council, or the Ford Foundation.

www.OpenMedia.ca www.waccglobal.org

ii

Robert A. Hackett (Simon Fraser University) and Steve Anderson (OpenMedia.ca, formerly Campaign for Democratic Media, CDM),

with contributions from

Philip Lee (World Association for Christian Communication), Tony Oliver (Simon Fraser Uni-versity), David Skinner (York University), Amber Woodward (Simon Fraser University), Marissa

Lawrence (Langara College) and Jacqueline Cusack McDonald (OpenMedia.ca).

2010

iii

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadaiv

Table of Contents Introduction & Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Partner Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1 Background 1

The Canadian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

An Emerging Media Reform Movement . . . . . . 6

The Context of Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 An Online Survey of NGOs 9

Organizational Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Sector Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Participation in Media Campaigns . . . . . . . . 11

Sources of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Organizational Challenges and Priorities . . . . . . 12

Organizational Activities & Strategies . . . . . . . 13

Organization’s Main Achievements . . . . . . . . 14

Collaboration Between NGOs . . . . . . . . . . 14

Familiarity with Organizations and Concepts . . . . 15

NGOs as Part of a Social Movement? . . . . . . . 16

Perceptions of Mainstream Media. . . . . . . . . 16

Other Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Internet Use and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Net Neutrality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Democracy and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadaiv v

3 Interviews with NGO Representatives 23

Organizational Goals and the Media . . . . . . . . 23

Goals and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Achievements and Obstacles . . . . . . . . . . 24

Position in the Political Field . . . . . . . . . . 25

Opponents and Allies . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

A Social Movement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Perceptions of the Media . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Democratic Media Activism, Anyone? . . . . . . . 30

4 The Toronto Workshop on Media Reform 32

5 Conclusions 33

Obstacles and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Springboards and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . 34

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Appendix

I. Online Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

II. Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

III. OpenMedia.ca/WACC Workshop Minutes . . . . . . . 51

IV. Organization Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Media Dissatisfaction and Activism . . . . . . . . 21

Table of Contents

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadavi

What are the “building blocks” for an emergent coalition aiming to democra-tize public communications in Canada?

That is the central question that this report aims to address. The collaborative research sum-marized here comprises an online pilot survey, in-depth interviews, and a strategy workshop with key activists and organization leaders. The goal is to identify issues, allies, resources and frames that could facilitate campaigns and sustainable media reform organizations, and to contribute to schol-arship on media reform activism that has emerged in liberal-democratic countries in the past ten years.

This is a collaborative project between Simon Fraser University communication professor Rob-ert Hackett, and two NGOs (non-governmental organizations) OpenMedia.ca, formerly Campaign for Democratic Media (CDM), and the World As-

Introduction

sociation for Christian Communication (WACC).

OpenMedia.ca’s national coordinator, Steve Anderson and Director of Operations, Jacqueline Cusack McDonald took the lead role in arranging, conducting and transcribing interviews, and in con-ducting the online survey for this project. Jacque-line also formatted and designed this report with the assistance of Marie Elliott on table graphics.

Philip Lee from the World Association for Christian Communication coordinated the work-shop in Toronto, and provided a summary of that workshop, included as an appendix to this report. Professor David Skinner from York University contributed to the Canadian Con-text section. Tony Oliver and Amber Wood-ward from Simon Fraser University helped greatly to analyze and summarize the interviews.

& Acknowledgements

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadavi vii

Partner OrganizationsMidway through this project, Campaign for

Democratic Media (CDM) changed its name to OpenMedia.ca (www.OpenMedia.ca). The name change is partly credited to the prelimi-nary results of this study. To avoid confusion, we shall henceforth use the name OpenMedia.ca.

OpenMedia.ca is a diverse network of pub-lic interest organizations and people concerned about media reform and media policy formation in Canada. OpenMedia.ca’s predecessor CDM was formed in 2007 with encouragement from people at Free Press, the Media Democracy Coalition and other American media democracy groups. With active support from academics, unions and advocacy groups, OpenMedia.ca mounted sev-eral notable campaigns, linked existing media reform organizations and is well-positioned to amplify the public interest voice in policy-making.

OpenMedia.ca has launched national cam-paigns such as Stop the Big Media Takeover, SaveOurNet.ca, and Community Media Now! It has taken on digital media issues, organized large media education events such as Media Democ-racy Day and created a strong presence politically, including staging a Net Neutrality Rally on Par-liament Hill. In 2008, OpenMedia.ca published a series of reports during the election season: “Me-dia and Culture: Where do the parties stand” and “Fact vs. Fiction”, making both available online as tools to inform citizens about important issues.

In 2009, OpenMedia.ca has expanded exist-ing projects and launched new initiatives. In July, SaveOurNet.ca along with key Internet experts, presented a strong case for maintaining the open Internet (Net Neutrality) in Canada at a historic CRTC hearing in Ottawa. It organized an Internet Dance Party in Vancouver and several packed town hall events across the country to engage citizens in discussions about the future of the Internet.

Most recently, OpenMedia.ca hosted the Fresh

Media Festival in Vancouver on October 24, 2009. Fresh Media Festival was a one-day forum to cel-ebrate innovation and independent media and to re-imagine journalism in the 21st century. Work-ing with organizations, media-minded people and citizens, this event explored the intersections of media, art and technology through workshops, panels, roundtables, live performances and a hands-on, creative exhibition. The festival em-braced all forms of media including social media and the importance of citizen powered journalism.

The World Association for Christian Com-munication (www.waccglobal.org) is an interna-tional organization promoting communication for social change on the basis of solidarity, dig-nity, equality, respect and human rights, and espe-cially the right to communicate. It operates glob-ally through its regional associations and through its global headquarters, since 2006 located in To-ronto, where WACC plans to create an interna-tional Centre for Communication Rights. Its most active constituents include religious communica-tors, communities of faith (particularly the ecu-menical movement), communication academics, and development and human rights nonprofits.

Most of WACC’s work is related to the de-mocratization of communication and the media for strengthening democratic processes; com-munication and peace building; gender equal-ity in communications; the connections between communication and poverty; and countering stigma and discrimination associated with HIV and AIDS, particularly among faith-based com-munities. It tackles these through advocacy, edu-cation, training, networking, the creation and sharing of knowledge and project partnerships.

WACC works to expand the communication spaces of vulnerable and marginalised groups and to influence communication policy-making. It also directly tackles communication poverty, believing

Partner Organizations

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadaviii

What other groups or constituencies are potential allies or beneficiaries of media re-form? How does “the media piece” fit, if at all, into the priorities and strategies of other progressive groups that logically have a stake in a more diverse, open media sys-tem? How aware are such groups of the rel-evance of the state of Canadian communi-cation rights and media policy to their work?

The scope of this project is small and it must be considered exploratory rather than definitive. We hope however, that our data and interpretations will help to identify issues, allies, resources and frames that could give further traction to emerging media reform coalitions in Canada, the northern flank for progressive media struggles in the US.

In the sections that follow, we first briefly outline the methodology employed. Then we sketch out the political and academic context of the study, and of media policy activism in Canada. Subsequent sections summarize our findings from each of the three stages of research, and discuss some of their implications. We conclude with reflections on the prospects for a media reform coalition in Canada.

that the relative silence of the voices of people living in poverty in public communication pro-cesses is a key dimension of their powerlessness and is closely correlated with the extreme inequal-ities that underlie human development deficits.

WACC’s work is currently organized under six programmes: Recognizing and Building Com-munication Rights; Media and Gender Justice; HIV and Aids - Communication and Stigma; Communication and Poverty; Communication for Peace; and Communication for Ecumenism.

The Necessary Knowledge for a Demo-cratic Public Sphere program, of the So-cial Science Research Council, with fund-ing from the Ford Foundation, provided a collaborative research grant for this project.

Following up Hackett and Carroll’s (2006) re-search on the politics of media activism, the proj-ect is informed by crucial questions such as these:

What groups have been directly active in media and communications issues recently? What are their resources and main priori-ties? What do they see as current threats and opportunities on the policy agenda?

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadaviii ix

The research comprised three basic elements.

First a list was prepared of Canadian NGOs in different issue sectors or movements that might be expected to have a stake in media content or regu-lation, regardless of whether they were currently active in media policy activism. We wanted to assess how important communications policy and media access are to the leading advocates of social change in Canada, in the context of their main priorities, and whether they would consider joining cam-paigns or coalitions for democratic media reform.

Next we prepared and distributed an online questionnaire to currently and potentially al-lied NGOs. A list of potential respondents to the online survey was compiled, partly through personal contacts established by OpenMedia.ca, but mainly (in the apparent absence of an af-fordable and authoritative directory of Canadian organizations) through several online databases.1

For each organization, we sought to identify the individual responsible for media relations or policy development. Our list was intended to include NGOs in each of the following sixteen categories: peace, environment, ethnicity, gender, religion, labour/trade union, independent media, technology, arts and culture, civil and human rights, First Nations, professional/service, general politi-cal and advocacy, foundations, charity/education,

and research ‘think tanks’. (These categories can of course overlap. In analyzing the responses, re-spondents’ self-identification with a sector, rather than our own initial categorization, was employed.)

Certain selectivity biases in this method must be acknowledged. Activists who chose not to work through formal organizations would be ex-cluded, as would groups that were not listed in the databases, for whatever reason. We also omitted groups that do not operate in English, a decision that would mainly exclude Quebec-based Fran-cophone organizations. These selectivity biases however, are consistent with OpenMedia.ca’s own coalition-building strategy of creating a network of well-resourced NGOs in Anglophone Can-ada, one that could work with parallel networks or coalitions in the ‘distinct society’ of Quebec and/or expand to this territory in the future.

Using our master list, and subsequent to ap-proval by Simon Fraser University’s Ethics Review Board, about 224 organizations were invited by email to respond to our survey; ultimately, 57 of them responded. (See Appendix I for the letter of invitation.) Designed collaboratively by Hackett and Anderson, the questionnaire focussed on the priorities, resources, strategies, challenges, partner-ships and achievements of each NGO, as well as its use and perceptions of digital and news media. (See Appendix I for the full questionnaire.) The

1. These included the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (www.cicic.ca/en/profess.aspx), a list of national professional organizations; Charity Village (www.charityvillage.com/cv/nonpr/profas.asp), Canadian associations and affiliates, mostly non-profit; Sources (www.sources.com), a directory for jour-nalists and researchers, of experts and media spokespeople; Canadian News Wire Group (www.newswire.ca/en/), circulating press releases and information from more than 10,000 sources across Canada, and thus useful in locating Canadian groups who routinely use news media dissemination as an organizational tool; Steward-ship Canada, Funders Directory (www.stewarshipcanada.ca/stewardshipcanada/funders/search.asp?sid=1&name=geographicalFocus&value=Canada20%Wide), a directory of environmental organizations across Canada; Canadian Peace Alliance (www.acp-cpa.ca/en/group_directory.html), a small directory of peace organizations; and The Independent Media Arts Alliance (www.imaa.ca/en/index.php/activity_members), a listing of IMAA members, mostly locally based.

Methodology

Methodology

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadax

questionnaire was intended as an intervention and not simply a positivistic social science method of gathering ‘findings’ like pebbles on a beach. Some of the questions are intended to stimulate thought and action, reflecting OpenMedia.ca’s intention to use this project as a springboard for mobilization.

The second branch of the research entailed eighteen telephone and in-person interviews with key individuals in Canadian advocacy groups, selected by OpenMedia.ca on the basis of their potential for future involvement.2 Hackett and Anderson designed a semi-standardized set of questions, roughly parallel to those posed in the online survey, concerning the NGO’s man-date, strategies, priorities, resources, achieve-ments, obstacles, opponents, allies, identifica-tion with social movements, relations with and perceptions of media, and involvement with coalitions on communication policy. Each in-

terview was summarized and the most relevant portions transcribed in full. Student assistants Tony Oliver and Amber Woodward at Simon Fraser University then summarized the data.

Thirdly, WACC arranged a workshop of 19 ac-tivists, advocates, academics, trade unionists, and independent media producers, including many members of the OpenMedia.ca national steering committee. Held on May 26, 2009, at WACC’s global headquarters in Toronto, the meeting dis-cussed current communications/media policy is-sues in Canada, current activities and campaigns of OpenMedia.ca, the initial results from the above-mentioned online survey of NGOs, the work in this area done by workshop participants them-selves, and potential future strategies and cam-paigns. WACC provided minutes of this meeting, which are attached to this report as Appendix II.

2. Chronologically, our interview respondents included John Urquhart, executive-director, Council of Cana-dians, January 29, 2009; Bill Huzar, president, Consumers Council of Canada, Jan. 30; Ian Morrison, spokes-person, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, Jan. 30; David Robinson, associate executive director, Canadian As-sociation of University Teachers, Feb. 1; Steve Staples, executive director, the Rideau Institute, January 19; Pat Kerwin, treasurer, Doug Massey, executive assistant, Frank Saptel, vice-president, Douglas-Coldwell Founda-tion, Jan. 19; Joanne Deer, director, public policy and communications, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Radio & Television Artists, Feb. 5; Alain Pineau, national director, Canadian Conference of the Arts, Feb. 18; Ian Boyko, Campaigns and government relations co-ordinator, Canadian Federation of Students, Feb. 19; Charley Beres-ford, executive director, Columbia Institute, Feb 26; Kevin Millsip, executive director, Check Your Head, March 20; David Beers, editor/founder, The Tyee (online newspaper), March 23; Irwin Oostindie, executive director, W2 Community Media Arts Centre, April 3; George Doubt, national president, Telecommunications Workers Union, April 3; Markus Stadelmann-Elder, media officer, Maytree Foundation, April 8; Alice Klein, editor/CEO, NOW Magazine, April 16; Alain Cossette, communications director, Public Service Alliance of Canada, April 21; Joel Solomon, Renewal, May 21.

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canadax 1

of Canada’s broadcasting policy review process between 1985 and 1991 in seven issue areas, painted a mixed picture. Public consultation and favourable public opinion can generate posi-tive outcomes for public interest groups in for-mal policy. But sustained policy intervention by public interest groups is costly, difficult and spo-radic. By contrast, through their direct access to regulators and legislators industry groups can shape policy implementation and resource al-location, incrementally subverting or constrain-ing formally democratic policies (Raboy 1995).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Canadian communications policy has long embodied elements

of a democratic public sphere. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The sheer organizational and economic weight of Big Media and Big Telecom, their control over the dominant means of com-munication production and distribution, surely enhances that power, even if only by making alternative policies seem unrealistic.

What about digital “new media”? A review of the development of Canada’s digital communica-tion infrastructure between 1993 and 2000 con-cludes that three landmark enquiries were stacked with industry representatives, held few or no pub-lic consultations, and thus favoured neoliberal policy outcomes. Two further reports, by the Ca-nadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), had far more participatory public consultations, but nevertheless generated outcomes not responsive to public input. The

The Canadian ContextBecause the public interest elements historical-

ly embedded in Canadian communications policy have been eroding in favour of private corporate in-terests, this project has responded to an urgent need to revitalize a media reform movement in Canada.

In the 1930s, Canada was home to one of the earliest and most successful communica-tion reform movements in the mass-mediated world – the Canadian Radio League. The League spearheaded a campaign to create a public broad-caster (now the Canadian Broadcasting Corpo-ration or CBC) and was influential in histori-cally less successful efforts to resist corporate domination of the radio spectrum in the United States (Peers 1968; McChesney 1999: 232-240).

Partly due to such citizen activism, Canadian communications policy has long embodied ele-ments of a democratic public sphere, including public regulation and elements of public owner-ship in both broadcasting and telecommunica-tions; the “common carrier” principle in tele-communications; public access or “community” broadcasting; Canadian content rules in broad-casting; tax subsidies and incentives for cultural and media production; support for aboriginal peoples and minority language broadcasting; public consultation processes in broadcasting and telecommunications policy-making; and sub-sidies for public interest interveners in telecom-munications; and limits on foreign ownership and (minimally) concentration and cross-media ownership. (See e.g. Raboy and Shtern et al, 2008).

None of these policies fundamentally al-tered the commercial and corporate domina-tion of Canadian media, however, and they are threatened by recent developments. An analysis

1 Background

Background

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canada2

prise a “sea change” in media structure (Skinner 2008: 42; Skinner, Gasher, and Compton 2005).

Current IssuesWhile there have been a number of key issues for

media reform building in Canada over the last few years, since Fall 2008, the recession has both exacer-bated those concerns as well as opened up new ones.

In the face of falling advertising revenues and large payments on the debts incurred in es-calating concentration of ownership of the last decade, Canada’s big media corporations have made major cuts to the newspapers and local tele-vision. The Canadian Media Guild estimates that some 3,000 media workers were laid off between January and April of 2009 alone. At newspapers, layoffs and budget cuts lead to centralizing pro-duction and narrowing specialized and local cov-erage. In terms of local television, there is some question as to how profitable these stations might actually be, but with national and regional adver-tising revenues plunging, the networks are looking for a number of regulatory concessions. These in-clude: collecting a fee for carriage of their signals from cable and satellite distributors; reductions in the amount of local programming these stations are required to produce; and rollbacks on the percentage of programming the networks are re-quired to purchase from independent producers.

For their part, the regulators would like to see the networks spend less money on purchasing foreign (U.S.) programming, which recently hit an all time high and outstrips their expenditure on Canadian programs. While attempting to work these issues out, the CRTC is expected to grant these stations one-year license renewals instead of the usual seven. Meanwhile, the House of Com-mons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has been holding similar hearings, asking ques-tions about the different pressures on local broad-casting and exploring suggestions as to how the federal government might address the situation.

In the face of these cutbacks, finding ways

CRTC did not dare oppose the Canadian govern-ment’s overall neoliberal model and, as a result, the development, deployment and exploitation of information and communication technolo-gies was largely given over to powerful corporate actors (Barney 2005: 106-107; Barney 2004: 67).

Across media sectors, a series of mergers and acquisitions since 1998 has aggregated over half of all Canadian media revenues in the hands of three firms (Winseck 2008: 31). Under the banner of convergence and international competitiveness, such media con-centration has met with regulatory ap-proval. The prin-ciple of Canadian ownership is being reconsidered by Stephen Harper’s federal Conserva-tive government and has been erod-ed by regulatory decisions allowing increasing Ameri-can minority own-ership of Canadian media companies (Moll and Shade 2008). Regula-tory and funding support for the CBC has been whittled down. Community broadcasting, though recognized as one of three pillars of the broad-casting system, continues to struggle with minimal resources. The CRTC is considering de-regulating the cable, satellite, and telephone companies that control television distribution (CRTC 2007). Pro-posed federal copyright legislation (currently with-drawn) threatened to restrict users’ rights of “fair dealing”. In the crucial field of new digital media, the issue of web-based Canadian media content remains unresolved, and escalating violations of the principle of “net neutrality” threaten to create an increasingly tiered Internet (Anderson 2008). As in the U.S., such developments potentially com-

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canada2 3

port or subsidies for new media broadcasting, it is not clear what effect the new definition will have on independent, community, public and private media that broadcast online. Media reformers will want to ensure that independent, community and public media outlets are included in any future pro-grams created to support new media broadcasting.

The new media ruling marks another occa-sion where the CRTC has refused to deal with Canada’s prevailing “digital divides” based on geography (rural, remote, inner-city), ability (cognitive, physical), class, age, gender, and eth-nicity. However, perhaps the most significant as-pect of the CRTC’s new media ruling is its call for a “national digital strategy”. While the CRTC’s ruling on new media essentially delays and sidesteps many of the key issues raised at the hearing, it also sets the stage for a high pro-file debate over Canada’s national digital strategy.

With pressure building, in June 2009 Industry minister Tony Clement hosted a Digital Economy Conference to discuss the possibility of a national digital strategy. In 2010, the policy-making process concerning Canada’s digital strategy promises to be a crucial and highly contested space to raise the above issues and much more. Chairman of the National Film Board Tom Perlmutter, captured the essence of the issue in a recent interview say-ing “a digital strategy has to look at how we posi-tion ourselves into the future, how we position ourselves so that we’re able to deal with all of the things that have to do with the technology, with innovation, with productivity, with education, with issues around the digital divide between the have-nots and the haves” (Perlmutter, 2009: 1).

Calls for a digital strategy will likely become more vociferous considering Canada has fallen behind many European and Asian countries in terms of Internet access, speed, and cost, mov-ing Canada from 2nd to 10th place within the 30 OECD countries (OECD, 2008). Canada’s broadband connection speeds have also fallen below the OECD average, and now rank 27th in terms of cost versus speed (OECD, 2008).

to support innovative local and national pub-lic interest journalism should be at the top of the reform agenda. Rather than yield to the de-mands of the large private media corporations, efforts should be placed on developing new in-dependent mandate-driven or not for profit community media outlets and building support for increased resources for the CBC in this area.

As the impacts of the recession on local media occupy headlines, a number of impor-tant longer standing issues continue to work their way through the system. These include: Canada’s digital strategy; net neutral-ity, and community television broadcasting.

In February 2009, the CRTC held hearings on whether to roll back their 1999 decision to exempt the Internet from regulation. While some Inter-net applications, like Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) are now regulated, the vast majority of what passes across the Web, including broadcast-ing, is not. Some of the questions that were under consideration: What is “new media” (read Inter-net) broadcasting? What might be its impact on the Canadian broadcasting system? What regulatory measures and/or incentives are needed to boost Canadian broadcast programming on the Internet?

On June 4, 2009, the CRTC decided to “continue to exempt new media broadcasting services from its regulation and monitor trends as they evolve” (CRTC 2009). The ruling also indicates that for the time being, the CRTC will not create the much debated “New Media Broadcast Levy”, which would subsidize Canadian new media content and potentially Internet access, through a small levy on the revenue of big Internet service providers.

Under the previous definition of “broadcast program,” websites might be seen as a form of broadcasting, but only if they do not consist “pre-dominantly of alphanumeric text.” The CRTC’s new media ruling did expand the definition of new media broadcasting undertakings to encom-pass all Internet-based and mobile point-to-point broadcasting services. In lieu of regulatory sup-

Background


According to OECD, for countries to remain internationally competitive, “Governments need to promote competition and give consumers more choices. They should encourage new net-works, particularly upgrades to fibre-optic lines” (OECD, 2008). In the 2009 Federal budget, the Conservative gov-ernment pledged to commit $225 million over the next three years for broadband to unserved com-munities (Depart-ment of Finance Canada, 2009). By contrast, Aus-tralia, which has a similar geograph-ic breakdown to Canada, is re-portedly commit-ting AU$4.7 bil-lion to a similar initiative (LeMay, 2007). Not only is the Conservative’s commitment rela-tively weak, it also does little to get Canadi-ans hooked up to next generation networks.

Mobile Internet and phone access promises to be another important aspect of the digital strategy debate, and should be high on Canada’s media reform agenda. Mobile devices promise to comprise an increasingly important point of ac-cess to the Internet as well as traditional phone services. New policy in the public interest con-cerning wireless access to the Internet is perhaps the most promising opportunity to close the digital divide since the invention of the Internet.

The Canadian cell phone market is highly con-centrated with more than 95 per cent belonging to Rogers Communications Inc., Bell Canada Inc. and Telus Corp., notably the most profitable wireless services in the developed world (Nowak, 2008). A report by Merrill Lynch found that the Canadian wireless market was the most profitable of 23

developed countries surveyed. Despite Canada’s wireless market’s profitability, the OECD found that Canada has the third-highest wireless rates among developed countries and Canada is falling behind on usage, ranking last for cell phone users per capita. In 2008, the CBC’s iPhone index com-

pilation compared costs of the iPhone in 21 countries and found that the device was most expensive in Canada and Italy.

Canadians face high prices, poor service and highly constricted choice; a reality that most Canadians are, in fact, aware of. More than half of re-spondents (53%) in a 2009 Angus Reid Public Opinion

poll reported that they believe Canada is one of the most expensive countries in which to use a cell phone (Angus Reid, 2009). If this public opinion can be harnessed to an intervention in the government spectrum auction, taking place sometime in the next two years, Canada’s wire-less market could take a 180º turn. The dismal state of the wireless market, coupled with highly critical public sentiment, suggests wireless could be a fruitful subject for a media reform cam-paign - a campaign potentially connected to new policies focused on Canada’s digital strategy.

Net neutrality is another urgent matter requir-ing policy attention. At the 5th Canadian Telecom-munications Forum, representatives from both Bell Canada and Telus indicated an interest in pro-viding a priority access fast lane to the Internet for those content providers who can afford extra fees. However, on October 22, 2009 the CRTC issued new rules that are intended to prevent Internet Ser-vice Providers from discriminating against certain


types of traffic and content. Furthermore, both the New Democratic Party and the Liberals now have official policies supporting Net Neutrality.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It is imperative to maintain pressure on the CRTC and elected

officials to ensure that Internet traffic is treated equally

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

These are huge milestones in the effort to keep Canada’s Internet open, but at the mo-ment, several ISPs continue discriminatory traf-fic throttling practices. The CRTC guidelines put the onus on the consumer to file a complaint and to prove that ISPs are “unjustly” throttling traf-fic. Furthermore, while political support for Net Neutrality has grown rapidly, there is still no in-dication that a Net Neutrality law is imminent. Consequently, it is imperative to maintain pres-sure on the CRTC and elected officials to ensure that Internet traffic is treated equally. In 2010, Net Neutrality supporters will need to push the CRTC to enforce its own traffic management guidelines by either submitting a formal traffic manage-ment compliant or convince Industry Minister Tony Clement to mandate regular compliance audits of ISP traffic management practices.

Community broadcasting is also on the policy agenda in the near future. While framed in Section 3 of the 1991 Broadcasting Act as one of the key elements of the Canadian broadcasting system, community broadcasting has not been very well supported in Canada. With private local broadcasting in crisis, there is room for a much expanded role for both ra-dio and television community broadcasting.

In 1997, community channels became op-tional. Cable companies have since “professional-ized” the now optional channels to make them

a competitive advantage rather than a commu-nity resource. The result is that fewer than 10% of Canadians can access a “community chan-nel” to express themselves or make a program.

In 2010 the CRTC will review the communi-ty television sector and will collect citizen input though Consultation 2009-661. The Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS) proposes that the money al-ready spent on community channels as a license requirement ($116,000,000 in 2008), be liberated to an independent production fund whereby com-munities could apply to run these channels them-selves. The production fund could support com-munity media centres that would provide training, equipment for sound recording, television pro-duction, web design, broadband streaming, and share resources with other community organiza-tions that specialize in communications, such as community newspapers, libraries, and theatres.

Helping develop a broad vision for community broadcasting and working to ensure that adequate sources of funding are available to support that vi-sion are key projects for reform. There is also po-tential to integrate efforts to support community broadcasting into a larger initiative to re-imagine and re-invent journalism in the face of journal-ism cut backs and increasing media concentration.

Two other seemingly less immediate concerns are also worth noting, the first being the switch to digital television. With the deadline for switching in Canada scheduled for August 31, 2011, private broadcasters are already looking for ways to avoid what they perceive to be the costly conversion of their over-the-air (OTA) broadcast transmitters. But while, for the most part, they would like to see the elimination of this service, the conversion to digital promises to free up space in the radio spec-trum and opens up the possibility of increasing the number of OTA signals, and thereby diver-sity within the system. While the cost of conver-sion presents particular challenges to community and not-for-profit broadcasters, finding ways to meet those challenges and exploit possible oppor-

Background


quality and quantity of Canadian programming. Several smaller under-funded organizations lob-by on telecommunications issues and copyright from a consumer-rights perspective, and several unions have developed detailed policy propos-als and collaborated with other organizations on policy-oriented campaigns (e.g. Communica-tions, Energy & Paperworkers Union 2004). In 1996, a “common front” called the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom (named after a long-standing British media reform organiza-tion) campaigned against press concentration in the wake of Conrad Black’s takeover of South-am newspapers. At the local level, media activ-ists have organized an annual Media Democracy Day since 2001, in Vancouver and other cities. Other progressive advocacy groups and networks not centrally concerned with communications policy have often supported media reform.

A recent entrant to Canadian media reform is one of the partners to the present project – the World Association for Christian Communica-tion, an ecumenical group which has promoted communication rights internationally for several decades. In 2006 WACC transferred its global headquarters from the U.K. to Toronto, where it is seeking Canadian partners for media reform, and developing a global web portal as a clearing-house for information on communication rights.

These groups have worked in relative isolation from each other, however, and policy processes tend to treat them as (at best) individual stakehold-ers rather than representatives of the larger public interest (Skinner 2004). But increasingly they are looking to collaborative models like the Media & Democracy Coalition in the U.S. With encourage-ment from experienced people at Free Press, the Media Democracy Coalition and other American media democracy groups, and a nation-wide net-work of Canadian organizations and individuals, the other NGO involved in this project, Open-Media.ca, was formed in Summer 2007 to seek common ground for specific campaigns. With ac-tive support from academics, unions and advoca-

tunities is another important project for reform

The second concern is a possible merging of Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts. Given ongoing convergence at both the technological and corporate levels, industry and government officials have hinted at the possibil-ity. While such a merger would raise a number of public interest issues, perhaps the biggest concern is what would happen to the cultural objectives now contained in Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act. Those objectives set out the public interest in broadcasting and are the product of decades of struggle. Any discussions of new legisla-tion should be closely monitored in this regard.

An Emerging Media Reform Movement

It is not difficult to see the broader democratic values that are at stake in the above-mentioned developments: access to, and diversity of, citi-zen-relevant information; community-building, at both local and national levels; domestic con-trol over Canada’s communication policies and institutions, as a prerequisite for citizen partici-pation in policy-making; universal access to the key means of public communication, as a basis for equality and participation in society, cul-ture and politics; accountability of media in-stitutions to publics and to policy goals. These values, all highly relevant to democratic gover-nance and citizenship, are at risk of further ero-sion in current policy developments, particularly with a federal government arguably more com-mitted to neoliberalism than any in the past.

Fortunately, there are signs of resistance. Que-bec has a long history of support for participa-tory, community and movement-oriented French language media (e.g. Raboy 1984). In Anglophone Canada, an advocacy group called Friends of Ca-nadian Broadcasting has worked since 1985 to de-fend public interest principles and to promote the


tions; and fragmented identities and weaker sense of pan-Canadian nationalism, associated with strong regionalism, cultural and linguistic dual-ism, and Quebec’s “distinct society”. Diversity as a policy goal in Canada hinges around linguis-tic, regional and political/ideological axes as well as race and ethnicity (Beaty and Sullivan 2006).

That said, while the current report is intended to shed light on the terrain for media reform in Canada, we also intend to make a modest con-tribution to the more general literature. Social movement theory (SMT) forms one intellectual backdrop for this proposed project. There are several major traditions in SMT, from Smelser’s classic but now unfashionable structural func-tionalism, to Melucci’s (e.g. 1996) emphasis on “new” social movements’ challenges to the alleg-edly state-centered “old” left, Foucault’s radical pluralism, and neo-Gramscian hegemony theory (cf. Carroll, 1997; Hackett & Carroll 2006). We are not wedded at the outset to any particular SMT tradition, but given our concerns with the mobi-lization, framing, political opportunities, alliance structure and sustainability of media reform, our survey and interview questions are inspired par-ticularly by the Resource Mobilization tradition. This model suggests that successful movements need to find ways to reduce the costs of mobili-zation, to identify opportunities within the politi-cal environment, and to provide collective action frames that identify shared grievances, villains, allies, and remedies (e.g. Klandermans 2001).

As background, our work has also been in-formed by Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory (e.g. 1993). A field is an institutional social universe with its own relatively autonomous logics, and re-sources for which agents compete; yet it is situated within a broader “field of power,” notably com-prising state and capital (Benson & Neveu 2005). Some pioneering work has applied field theory in mapping the stakeholders and trajectories of me-dia activism itself (Hanke 2005; Klinenberg 2005). Hackett and Carroll (2006) considered the impact on media activism of communications institutions

cy groups, such as the 60,000-member Council of Canadians, OpenMedia.ca has already mounted several notable campaigns, linked existing media reform organizations, and is well positioned to amplify the public interest voice in policy-making.

The Context of ScholarshipMany readers of this report will be familiar with

some of the recently burgeoning academic litera-ture, both case studies and theoretical overviews, on media reform as a social movement in the US, and at the transnational level (e.g. Dichter 2005; Klinenberg 2004; Klinenberg 2007; McChesney 2004; McChesney & Hackett 2005; McChesney, Newman & Scott 2005; Opel 2004; Thomas 2006; Napoli 2007). There is also now a substantial lit-erature on alternative/citizens’/radical media as another fundamental (and we would argue, com-plementary) route to media democratization and social transformation (e.g. Couldry & Curran 2003; Downing et al 2000; Hanke 2005; Rodriguez 2001).

Little in this area has been published on the Canadian context, however. There is a growing critical literature on Canadian media policy, con-tent and structures (e.g. Babe 1990; Beaty and Sul-livan 2006; Edge 2007; Hackett and Gruneau et al 2000; Moll and Shade 2008; Skinner, Gasher and Compton 2005; Raboy 1990; Winter 2007), but little of it focuses on policies or strategies for building a more democratic media system. And we cannot simply extrapolate from the U.S. lit-erature, given some important differences in the landscape for media reform. Compared to the U.S., Canada has a more strongly institutionalized political Left, labour movement, and social demo-cratic element in the political culture; a stronger though beleaguered public service broadcaster; historical though contested support for “cul-tural sovereignty” vis-à-vis the powerful pull of American media industries; a much higher degree of media concentration; a weaker libertarian tra-dition; far fewer philanthropic funding founda-

Background


as a field with distinct characteristics – notably, po-rous boundaries, a high capacity to intrude upon other fields, and vulnerability to influence from political and economic fields. Is this perspective consistent with the evidence offered in this study?

If media democratization comprises a field, what is its scope? Scholars have drawn a distinc-tion between grassroots activism, and policy-oriented national-level advocacy (e.g. Mueller, Kuerbis & Page 2004; Napoli 2007). Others have categorized dif-ferent forms of media activism on the basis of their origins, lo-cus of activity, tactics, ideological perspec-tives, and/or object of change (e.g. Hackett & Carroll 2006: 54-57; Opel 2004). This project focuses on media re-form (defined by its intention to achieve institu-tional change of existing media) as a subset of the larger field of media democratization. Specifical-ly, we focus on policy-oriented advocacy groups, not the entire media democracy movement, but

always mindful of the actual and potential links.

In particular, we wanted to address a theoreti-cally and politically vital question: Is media reform best framed as part of other movements – per-haps as a “movement nexus” (Hackett & Carroll 2006: 199) – or rather, as “a distinctive indepen-dent identity” (Napoli 2007:51)? If the latter,

then a strategy of appeal-ing to the instrumental communicative needs of other movements may be less successful than a more “universalizing” appeal to democratic and humanistic values (solidarity, dignity, equal-ity, community, racial, social and ecological jus-tice). Such a framing/al-liance strategy suggests,

in turn, an especially critical role – viz., consci-entizing constituencies for media justice – for progressive communities of faith, like WACC, that nurture ethical values (Powers 2005).

In the next two sections, we offer evi-dence from our survey and interviews that may help to address these questions.


inequalities within the sector may well contribute to different organizational cultures, and differ-ent levels of commitment to the existing field of state-recognized, politically legitimized advocacy.

That said, a cross-tabulation of organizational budget size with past and likely future participation in media/communication campaigns or coalitions (Q21, 26) revealed a striking contrast. Groups with budgets under $250,000 were much more likely to participate than their wealthier counter-parts. In the past five years, twelve (57.1%) of the 21 smaller groups confirmed their participation in such campaigns, compared to just six (28.6%) of the 21 larger groups. Similarly, asked to estimate the likelihood of future engagement on a scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely), the small-er groups averaged a score of 4.19, compared to 3.11 for organizations with budgets of $250,000 or more.3 This finding suggests two points. First, from a methodological viewpoint, organizations with smaller budgets and presumably fewer staff may have been more likely to respond to our survey if they already had an existing interest in media and communications issues. Second, stra-tegically, it would be important for a Canadian media reform coalition not to overlook the po-tential for support from and collaboration with a variety of small but dedicated organizations.

Sector ParticipationOf the 224 organizations that were invited to

participate in our survey, 57 did so – a response rate of 25.4%. In terms of self-identified “main area of focus,” (Q3/4) the NGO’s were distribut-

We will now summarize some of the emergent patterns.

Organizational SizeCompared to some of their US counterparts,

the NGOs that responded are mainly modest in size, though there is a wide distribution. The medi-an category of membership size is 500-999. Seven-teen of 57 NGOs had under 500 members, 18 had over 1,000; 14 are not membership-based. None had more than 100,000 signed-up members. (Q4/5)

Interestingly, this picture does not change much when the NGOs identified the number of people on their main contact email list (Q5/6). This suggests that the groups make little dis-tinction between “membership” and inclusion on an email list, and/or that the groups do not communicate regularly with publics or potential supporters beyond their formal membership. Indeed, at least one major organization told us informally that it emails action alerts only to a minority of its own members, expressing an un-willingness to add to their supporters’ inbox clut-ter. OpenMedia.ca’s experience corresponds to that of other groups: NGOs regard their email list as a hard-earned resource, and a kind of trust.

In terms of annual revenues, the median is about $250,000 (Q6/7). Thirteen have budgets of over $1 million, ten have $250,000 to 999,999, ten have $100,00 to 249,999, and fourteen have less than $100,000, including nine with under $25,000. One can surmise two points. First, few organiza-tions appear to have surplus funds available for campaigns unrelated to their primary mandates, and some cannot afford paid staff at all. Second,

2 An Online Survey of NGOs

3. The response “don’t know” was tabulated as 3, the middle point on the scale.

An Online Survey of NGOs


are those accustomed to supporting research (po-litical advocacy and research/policy institutes), but others have a fairly clear stake in communi-cations policy – independent media, arts/culture, and arguably gender: in struggles for women’s equality, in particular, media representations loom large. There is an ongoing tradition of feminist activism around media issues – e.g. Canada’s Me-diaWatch took a lead role in coordinating the first Global Media Monitoring Project (1995) pro-moted by WACC, a project that takes a content analysis “snapshot” of women’s representation in news media every five years. (Now that Me-diaWatch’s funding has declined, that coordinat-ing role has since been assumed by WACC.) The participation of faith-based groups, perhaps en-couraged by WACC’s sponsorship of the proj-ect, is encouraging. This suggests an often over-looked constituency for media reform – perhaps on the basis of “universal” human rights and ethical values, as well as by religious denomina-tions’ more immediate need to find new ways to reinvigorate communities of faith in a cultural climate of declining intermediate organizations (like community churches) and the rise of mass-mediated syncretic belief systems (Hoover 1994).

By contrast, the minimal participation of peace and environmental groups is disappoint-ing, but is consistent with impressionistic evi-dence. With some notable exceptions, groups in this sector tend not to theorize or prioritize the connection between dominant media, on the one hand, and consumerism and militarism in the culture, on the other. It is also likely that some NGOs in these sectors feel that they have won some respect and space in the media, which they do not want to jeopardize through cam-paigns perceived as hostile to corporate media.

The low participation of ethnic/vis-ible minorities may reflect a preference to

ed as follows: Media, 14; Arts/culture, 8; Labour/union, 6; General political advocacy, 6; Research institute/think tank, 4; Religion, 4; Gender issues, 3; Professional association/service organization, 3; Civil and human rights, 3; Foundations, 2; Envi-ronment, 1; First Nations, 1; Other, 9; Unstated, 2. No respondents situated their groups in the peace, ethnic, technology, or charity/education sectors.

This is a small sample, and the results must be taken as suggestive rather than definitive. Nevertheless, the proportion of organiza-tions within each NGO sector that chose to complete our survey, shown in Table 1, could be taken as a rough indication of the poten-tial for future engagement in media reform.

Implications:

Some of the ‘high’ responders to the survey

4. Particular caution must be taken in interpreting this table. Not only are the Ns small, but the two columns are not strictly compatible. The N s are unavoidably based on our own sectoral categorization of the groups that we contacted, whereas the proportion responding used the respondents’ own self-categorization.

TABLE 1: AVERAGE SURVEY RESPONSE RATE BY SECTOR4

Type of Group # Asked % RespondingPolitical/advocacy groups 10 60.0Think tanks, research institutes 7 57.1Professional/service 7 42.9Independent media 37 37.8Arts/culture 23 34.8Gender 9 33.3Religion 13 30.8Civil & human rights 12 25.0Labour/unions 25 24.0Foundations 18 11.1First Nations 10 10.0Environment 15 6.7Ethnic 13 ---Peace 11 ---Technology 7 ---Charity/education 7 --- Other/did not identify sector n/a (n=11)TOTAL/AVERAGE 224 25.4%


Table 3 shows the average score (from 1 to 5) from each sector, on the likelihood of fu-ture participation. Tables 2 and 3 confirm the importance of independent media and arts/culture groups for media reform coalitions, but they also suggest that trade unions and human rights advocates are “high percentage” pros-pects. The above results also raise questions concerning framing and messaging. Would dif-ferent wording or framing be more appealing to the groups who reported that they would be un-likely to participate in media reform campaigns?

SOURCES OF FUNDING

Asked to rate the importance of various sources of funding (Q7/8), Table 4 below shows the percent-age of NGOs that rated each as “very important”5:

work through their own media and communi-ties, rather than to engage with social change organizations perceived as white-dominated.

Charities also did not participate. This may be an untapped potential. Consider Britain’s Public Voice media reform coalition, one that has taken on the defence of public broadcasting in particu-lar. Its constituencies include charity groups that need media access for visibility and public ser-vice messages (Hackett and Carroll 2006: 120).

PARTICIPATION IN MEDIA CAMPAIGNS

A cross-tabulation of self-identified sec-tor (Q3) with past and likely future engagement with media campaigns (Q21, 26) broadly cor-roborates the above ranking of sectoral partici-pation, with a few exceptions. While the sample is small, the following ranking of groups that had affirmed their engagement in campaigns or coalitions in the past five years is suggestive:

5. Percentages and frequencies reported in these tables are often not additive; they may total well over 100%, as multiple responses were permitted.


TABLE 2. PARTICIPATION IN MEDIA CAMPAIGNS IN

PAST FIVE YEARSGroup Focus (Sector) % YES # of Responses

Labour/union 80.0 5Arts/culture 75.0 8Media 66.7 12Political advocacy 66.7 6Civil/human rights 66.7 3Professional/service associations 50.0 2Research/think tanks 33.3 3Gender ---- 3Religion ---- 3 Foundations ---- 2First Nations ---- 1

Average/Total 54.2 48

TABLE 3. LIKELIHOOD OF FUTURE PARTICIPATION IN

MEDIA CAMPAIGNS

Group Focus Average Response # of Responses(Sector)

Civil & Human rights 4.76 3Labour/union 4.50 4Media 4.45 11Political/advocacy 3.83 6Arts/culture 3.75 8Research/think tanks 3.67 3Professional/Service associations 3.50 2Gender 3.00 3Religion 3.00 3Foundations 3.00 2Environment 3.00 2First Nations 3.00 1

Total 47


ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES

How does “the media piece” fit into the man-date of Canadian NGOs? We can extrapolate from what they tell us about their current challenges and priorities. Forty-six of the organizations iden-tified their top two priorities for the next three years. Our categorization of their open-ended responses suggests the following breakdown:

Before media reformers leap with excitement at the prominence of public awareness and policy advocacy in the communications and cultural field, we should note that all 12 such responses arose from NGOs already engaging in media produc-tion, media education or advocacy, or representing

Implications:

While comparative data would be useful to interpret these results, the survey does sug-gest the importance of government in sustain-ing NGOs in Canada, with potential influence on NGO agendas. The pursuit of government funding may be part of the reason for the cur-rent apparent conservatism of the environmental movement, but it also gives these NGOs a vest-ed interest in intervening in government policy.

On the other hand, 36% said government fund-ing was “not important” at all, once again suggesting a bifurcation between elite/state-oriented and op-positional/independent or small marginal groups.

Many organizations have succeeded in build-ing a base of support from individuals. Support from foundations is important, but probably less so than in the US. Overall, the importance of external sources other than products/ser-vices marketed by the NGO itself, implies a high degree of financial vulnerability and a good deal of effort absorbed by fund-raising, con-tract-chasing, and/or membership servicing.

TABLE 5. NGO’S TOP TWO PRIORITIES FOR THE NEXT 3 YEARS

12 – Improve funding, revenues; become sustainable, to be able to pay staff 12 – Change government policy with respect to communications, media or arts and culture issues11 – Better representation of our members’ interests; bring benefits to our members and/or the whole sector, e.g. improved incomes, better collective agreements, more professional autonomy10 – Improve and/or increase the production and/or circulation of our own media (this includes NGOs that are themselves media organizations) 7 – Strengthen the organization; revitalize the staff and leadership; avoid burnout 6 – Improve the group’s visibility, media coverage, marketing 6 – Undertake advocacy; Promote government policy change (in non-media issues) 5 – Undertake public education on media and communication issues; improve the climate of opinion and awareness; shift the private sector and/or general culture in line with our positions 3 – Improve member services; educate our members; get them involved 3 - Undertake public education on issues other than media and communication; improve the climate of opinion and awareness; “become a thought leader”; shift the private sector and/or general culture in line with our positions 3 – Undertake research; publish studies

TABLE 4. SOURCES OF NGO FUNDING: % RATED ‘VERY IMPORTANT’

40.0 Government grants/contracts35.2 Individual membership34.7 Individual donations30.6 Foundations/philanthropy18.8 Grants or contracts from Business18.0 Products and services, provided by our Organization for a fee11.5 Membership dues from affiliated organizations 6.4 Grants or contracts from Labour Unions


Financial vulnerability is one theme that emerges from this identification of NGO priorities and challenges. When sources of potential funding were mentioned in connection with fund-raising, government support, grants, foundations and en-dowments were the most frequently mentioned, more so than market-based or commodified rev-enue streams. These are NGOs, after all, not busi-nesses. The exception would be some of the media organizations, such as magazines whose readership reach is both a political goal and a revenue source.

A second theme, albeit one primed by the sur-vey’s framing, is the awareness and relevance of media. Several groups outside the media field noted media factors as problems, such as advertising costs or audience fragmentation. As noted elsewhere, media profile usually enhances recognition and support from funders, publics and policy makers.

ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES/STRATEGIES (Q9/10)

Respondents were asked how often their NGO engaged in each of 13 listed activi-ties, in pursuit of their goals. Table 7 below shows the average rating for each activity (from 1 = never, to 4 = often), and the proportion of respondents listing each activity as ‘often’.

Implications:

NGOs in these sectors expend considerable re-sources on organizational self-maintenance, and on reaching the public through media that are relatively self-controlled and have relatively low distribution costs (websites and reports). In some cases, the responding NGO is itself an indepen-dent, community or “alternative” media orga-nization. Less energy is expended on direct en-gagement with the political/legal system, or with trying to gain access to the dominant media (e.g. by sponsoring media-oriented events or develop-ing relationships with journalists), apart from the low-cost activity of issuing news releases. While a few groups that we surveyed may have ideologi-

producers and workers in arts, culture and media sectors. Arguably, however, access to the public fo-rum is relevant, at least indirectly, to the priorities of non-media NGOs, as they pursue funding, or-ganization-building, public visibility and advocacy.

That impression is reinforced when we consider the 48 responses to an open-ended question about the major challenges or ob-stacles faced by each NGO (Q11). These can be categorized into the following themes:

Individual respondents also noted the difficul-ty of representing diversity within their own sec-tor, unfavourable demographic changes amongst supporters, and general systemic obstacles.

TABLE 6. CHALLENGES/OBSTACLES FACING NGO’S26 – Lack of funding, exacerbated by economic recession16 – Lack of other resources: personnel, volunteers, staff; technology; member apathy, turnover; internal organizational challenges10 – Changes in the mediascape; communications policy, regulation. These included comments on the fragmentation of media audiences, the cost of TV adver tising, and decline of traditional media audiences, making it more difficult to reach large publics; the problem of the web economically hurting print publications. But they also included more radical critiques of the media’s political economy: weak enforcement of CRTC regula tions, cable company control over community TV funding, the few sources of production, and “political tendency to lean toward market forces in determining film and TV programming”. 9 – Lack of influence with government; government indifference or lack of support 7 – Lack of visibility, public awareness, or credit for our work; public apathy, misunderstanding; negative stereotyping, public misperception (without specific mention of media) 7 – Poor media representation or coverage – e.g. “media- perpetuated stereotypes of the role of unions in today’s society”; “difficult to build strong media presence”; “Media: very few informed specialists in our field, constant repeti tion of errors, and poor public knowledge;” “Media seem difficult to get to know and hard to contact” 5 – Opposing or hostile groups



least one comment in each of the following (post-coded) categories (the total is thus non-additive).

Access to public communication is clearly rel-evant and useful with respect to most of these goals, particularly public campaigns, outreach, and (in some circumstances) gaining a seat at the table. Almost certainly, however, NGOs typically pursue such access through their own media, and/or conventional media relations strategies, rather than the more indirect strat-egy of reforming media structures and policies.

COLLABORATION BETWEEN NGOs (Q12/13, 13/14)

The shortage of resources by individual NGOs reinforces the advisability of collabora-tion in mounting campaigns. Fortunately, the organizational culture in Canada seems favour-able to coalitions. Asked how often their NGO engages in collaborative projects or campaigns with other organizations (a 5-point scale from Never to Constantly), only 13% of our re-spondents say they “never” or “seldom” do so; 55.5% say they do so often or constantly.

With what organizations do our respondents most frequently partner? Are there any organiza-tions engaging in frequent partnerships with other NGOs and thereby acting as a potential hub for

cal antipathy toward engaging with the established political or media system, it is likely that the re-verse is the case. Many NGOs would undoubtedly welcome a seat at the policy-making table or space in the dominant media, but are limited by shortage of resources (time, staff, money): NGOs are hard-pressed to mount and sustain ongoing public and political campaigns. Notably, only a small minori-ty of the groups engage in confrontational tactics, such as demonstrations. Even though such tactics may be economically inexpensive, the political costs and benefits may be deemed unfavourable.

ORGANIZATION’S MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS (Q10/11)

Fifty-one respondents offered thoughts on their group’s main accomplishments or achievements in the previous five years. This was an open-ended question that allowed multiple responses. Table 8 shows the number of respondents who entered at

TABLE 8. HOW NGO’S IDENTIFIED THEIR

MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS

22 – Policy-oriented campaign or legal victories14 – Research, public awareness, education, outreach, changing public discourse, political culture13 – Internal strengthening of the organization10 – Benefits to community, members 9 – Gaining recognition from policy-makers, a seat at the table 6 – Partnerships, networking 5 – Combination, e.g. growing the organization through providing a service, expanding circulation.

TABLE 7. HOW NGO’S PURSUE THEIR GOALS

Self-controlled Media Average Rating % OftenProduce websites/blogs 3.78 80.0Publish reports 3.56 67.3Direct mail 2.83 34.5Produce videos 2.51 15.1Paid ads 1.90 7.3

Access to Dominant MediaNews releases 3.18 43.6Other ways to get media attention 3.00 24.5

Engagement With Formal Policy SystemLobby government 2.62 34.5Court challenges 1.66 9.3

Other Organizational MaintenanceBuild membership 3.31 51.9Fund-raise 2.61 30.9

Confrontational TacticsDemonstrations, rallies 2.26 14.5Other direct action 1.90 1.4


with people, groups and concepts related to the environment and media reform (Q14/15). To what extent are Canadian NGOs already famil-iar with the media reform movement in Canada?

Comments:

The fact that over a quarter of respondents declared themselves familiar with a fictitious organization, the Canadian Institute for Pub-lic Interest Media, cautions us not to take the scores at face value; perhaps respondents are likely to over-report their own knowledge and accomplishments. Nevertheless, the last-place ranking of this fictitious entity reinforces the validity of our survey instrument and the useful-ness of the findings for comparative purposes.

Generally, environmental entities outweigh me-dia democracy. Compare Suzuki and McChesney, or global climate change and communication rights. That is hardly surprising, when one considers the relative salience and perceived urgency of the two issue-fields in public, policy and media agendas.

networks of progressive activism? Hackett and Carroll (2006, chap. 11) suggested that media ac-tivism itself might perform the role of articulating a shared grievance for progressive social move-ments and providing an arena for them to come together, at least in the US. Media activism, they suggested, might constitute a “movement-nexus” rather than a movement in itself. In Canada, how-ever, a similar role might be played by a progres-sive political party, such as the social democratic New Democratic Party (NDP), or by trade unions, which are proportionately larger than in the US.

But such appears not to be the case. Our re-spondents identified a total of 56 organizations as partners in the previous three years. Surprisingly, only three groups are mentioned more than once – the National Anti-Poverty Organization (twice), the Vancouver-based Independent Community Television (twice), and OpenMedia.ca (Campaign for Democratic Media) or its annual Media De-mocracy Day (5) – a finding which must be im-mediately qualified by OpenMedia.ca’s role in se-lecting the respondent list. Speculatively (since we did not ask this question specifically), there may well be networks or organizations that progres-sive NGOs frequently turn to for information or advice in forming coalitions, such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (mentioned once as an organizational partner), or the Council of Canadians, the largest progressive umbrella group in the country. Neither the Council, nor the NDP, were mentioned by respondents as an active part-ner. The survey does not reveal an organization that acts as an active hub for collaborative campaigns.

FAMILIARITY WITH ORGANIZATIONS AND CONCEPTS

Even if neither media activism, nor any other sector, appears to constitute an organizational hub for progressive advocacy in Canada, the ex-tent of familiarity with media reform issues is en-couraging. We used a Likkert scale (1 to 5 points) for respondents to self-report their familiarity

TABLE 9. FAMILIARITY WITH SELECTED

POLITCAL ENTITIES

Entity Avg. Score % Familiar/V. FMLR

David Suzuki 4.59 96.3CanWest Global 4.42 92.4Global climate change 4.07 89.0Open source software 3.83 83.4Friends of Canadian Broadcasting 3.46 73.1rabble.ca 3.25 69.0Net neutrality 3.23 60.3Communication rights 3.15 58.5Media Democracy Day 2.87 51.0SaveOurNet.ca 2.69 50.0Robert W. McChesney 2.50 42.6Free Press (US organization) 2.49 39.2Canadian Inst for Public Interest Media* 1.85 26.1 (*Þctitious)



spondents identify could all be considered progressive. But it is not obvious that in Cana-da, arguably in contrast to the US, media re-form functions as a nexus between them.

PERCEPTIONS OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA

The importance of media was considerably recognized, often combined with participants’ dissatisfaction regarding coverage of their own NGO’s and issues: 84.6% agreed that the qual-ity and diversity of Canadian journalism affects their organization’s work (Q19). Thirty-six re-spondents offered supplementary comments. Many of these reiterated complaints about su-perficial, biased or sensational coverage; lack of quality or diversity; over-dependence on official or corporate sources rather than the grassroots. A few complained about reporters themselves: they were not “well-schooled” in relevant is-sues, were more concerned to be TV anchors than investigative reporters, were members of a dominant culture without sensitivity to gender or minority issues. More frequently, respondents recognized that “traditional media” are very “re-source stretched”, and specialized reporters are too few. A few mentioned media concentration or conflicts of interest arising from ownership.

But it is encouraging that at least half of re-spondents are familiar with the key (non-fic-titious) Canadian media democracy entities – more so than with their US counterparts (Free Press and its co-founder, the well-published author and professor, Robert McChesney). Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and rabble.ca appear to have gained substantial recognition.

Two implications arise. First, the brand name of US media reform organizations may not carry much weight as a means to attract the support of Canadian NGOs that are not already part of the media reform movement.

Second, there is room for growth. As oth-er NGOs and publics become more aware of media democracy concepts, campaigns and organizations, perhaps such aware-ness can be translated into increased support.

NGOs AS PART OF A SOCIAL MOVEMENT?

Most of the respondents consider their ad-vocacy work to be part of one or more social movements: 66% said Yes, and a further 24.5% Sometimes. This finding has positive implica-tions for mobilization (as a “movement” im-plies a long-term, sustained effort at social change), and for collaboration (as a movement is broader than a single organization). For pur-poses of framing campaigns and identifying al-lies, it is important to know what movements the NGOs identify. Of 57 respondents, 32 identified one or more movements, as shown in Table 10.

Implications:

Encouragingly, media democracy is (increas-ingly?) recognized as a movement in its own right – though different ways of labelling it per-sist. Finding a common or “umbrella” frame re-mains a challenge, as experienced media reform activists are well aware (e.g., O Siochrú 2005).

The other movements with which our re-

TABLE 10. RESPONDENTS’ SELF-IDENTIFIED

MOVEMENT MEMBERSHIP

15 – Media reform, media democracy, media education, media justice, media liberation, freedom of expression13 – Social justice, anti-poverty, progressive 4 – Environmental 4 – Aboriginal/indigenous people’s rights 3 – Gender 3 – Labour 2 – Civil liberties, human rights 2 – Immigrants 2 – Fair government 1 – Consumer rights


dia have quite deliberately dropped, such as unions and women’s rights”; “The poor quality, lack of diversity and lame insight provide constant inspi-ration for my work and provide a context to show what media could be like.” [Politics, Re-Spun]

When asked their view of coverage of their own organization and its issues, 22% said they were very dissatisfied, 40% somewhat dissatisfied, and only 26% being moderately or very satisfied (Q17). Twenty-nine of the respondents made more detailed comments about mainstream media: mainly negative (15), while 4 were unqualifiedly positive, 5 mixed, and 5 other. Table 11 summa-rizes the main critical/negative themes (Q17b):

Implications:

There is no single focus to the respondents’ discontent with dominant media. For framing a campaign around democracy and journalism, the themes of lack of resources, and the decline of lo-cal journalism, are likely to resonate more readily than hostile bias or framing. It is difficult to escape the accusation that bias is subjective, in the eye of the beholder; it could be divisive, in that potential coalition partners could perceive bias differently; and it could be construed by journalists as an attack on their own professional integrity – particularly in the absence of extensive documentation by an ongoing media analysis institute. Canada has no counterpart to the progressive US media watch-

An NGO advocating artists’ right to access copy-righted material argued that “Mainstream media are stakeholders in the legislation to which we are opposed, therefore mainstream media coverage is skewed to favour entertainment industry desires.”

A few respondents more explicitly ex-plained the relevance of media, both posi-tive and negative, to their own work:

* “Diversity of journalism gives us op-portunity to pitch different story angles for the same issue e.g. a business angle, a First Nations angle, science, environment etc.” Yet “the decline of newspapers is disconcerting for our organization’s present model of communication and advocacy.” [An environmental NGO]

* “If Canadians don’t know their artists, it makes it much harder to advocate on their behalf, and to get public support.” [Cana-dian Artists’ Representation (CARFAC)]

* “Many of our members are on the fring-es and require knowledgeable and careful journalism to bring these practices and innovations to light. Smaller orgs gain when the quality and timing of the report-age is favourable.” [An arts organization]

* “We have to work harder (for no pay) to disseminate information that counters the mainstream media spin, contribut-ing to frustration & risk of burnout.” [Edmonton Small Press Association]

NGOs that produce journalism themselves had a distinct take. For the Professional Writers Asso-ciation of Canada, quality and diversity in journal-ism “allow our members to earn a living, improve their craft, and take pride in the work.” For some of the independent media, the very deficiencies of corporate media are an opportunity: “Straight Goods.ca covers many areas that mainstream me-

TABLE 11. NGO’S CRITICISMS OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA

13 - Media ignore our organization or issues, or don’t pay enough attention 4 - Media lack resources; decline of specialized or beat reporters in our Þeld 3 – Media concentration or corporate ownership 3 – Hostile framing, bias or selectivity 2 – Media’s lack of knowledge, interest or understanding 2 – We ourselves could make more effort if we wanted better coverage 1 – Media are too elite-oriented in their sourcing 1 – Alternative media are also inadequate



dependent media suggests that an initiative that combined the two might be fruitful if a common frame or grievance can be found. A campaign that puts forth a positive vision for indepen-dent and public media as a partial solution to the cutbacks in traditional media, may be attractive to a broad constituency of NGOs and citizens.

Internet Use and AccessThere was even more unanimity with regard

to the Internet: 88% said the Internet is very important to their work (Q24); 80% agree that it is very important that all Canadians have ac-cess to it (Q26). For both questions, 0% of the respondents indicated that these issues are “not at all important”, and every respondent agreed that Internet access for Canadians and for their own work is at least moderately important.

Comments pertaining to the importance of the Internet to respondents’ work suggest that the Internet is viewed as important for very tan-gible and instrumental reasons. Common com-ments to this question include the importance of the Internet for: Research, public access, mobili-zation, outreach, education, advocacy, collabora-tion, building community, and networking. For example, one respondent wrote, “This is how we distribute reports, gather research and in-teract with the public.” Many of the comments were also highly emphatic. One comment read, “Critical! As a national organization the Internet is a key means of communication / collabora-tion / organization.” Another respondent simply stated, “It is our oxygen”. Such comments sug-gest that an initiative that tapped into these feel-ings could generate a lot of energy from NGOs.

In terms of the broader issue of access to the Internet in Canada, comments were gener-ally more social and abstract. Common themes include the importance of Internet access for equality, citizenship and democracy. For exam-ple, one comment read, “ability to play a role in

dog, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

The themes of corporate control and me-dia concentration could be linked more readily to cutbacks and resource shortages, rather than anti-labour, conservative, or pro-corporate bias. This does not mean that media reformers should ignore the analysis of the political economy of corporate media, in fact, it is a crucial intellectual underpinning for public interest policy regard-ing the crisis of journalism and the democratic development of new media (McChesney 2007).

OTHER MEDIA

There is some sentiment that CBC cover-age is better (44%) than other media; 8% felt CBC was worse, and 26% the same. This sug-gests there is some ground for advocacy in favour of public service broadcasting, a con-stituency that has been effectively mobi-lized by Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

Independent media also received a vote of confidence. 51% said that independent me-dia have been quite or very helpful to their work; and 37.3% sometimes helpful (Q23).

As per table 12, of the 57 respon-dents, 30 made one or more additional comments about alternative/indie media.

Implications:

High levels of support for both public and in-

TABLE 12. NGO’S COMMENTS ON ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

27 - Generally positive comments 4 – Alternative media suffer from lack of resources 3 – Alternative media are limited in their reach, or credibility with decision-makers 3 – Our group prefers to focus on mainstream media 2 – We place little effort on alternative media 1 – We focus on inter-personal/small group communication 1 – Alternative media lack knowledge or interest in our issues


are aware that high bandwidth uses of the In-ternet that they rely on like video, are more un-der threat than lower bandwidth activities com-mon to NGOs, such as web posts and email.

DEMOCRACY AND MEDIA

How do the NGOs rate Canada’s mainstream media’s performance of their role in a democratic society? Over half (55%) rated Canadian media’s democratic performance as poor or very poor, though 45.1% rated media as average or better (Q20). Most of the 24 respondents who offered additional comments were critical. Several themes stand out and resonate with the potential agenda for media reform. First, 13 respondents pointed to aspects of corporate control, media concen-tration, and/or state policy. Biased or inadequate coverage was the second most frequent critique (mentioned by 10). In some cases, but certainly not all, such bias linked to corporate control, but others linked to resource constraints (the third most common theme of critics), or to cul-tural power differentials. (There are echoes here of the debate between political economy and cultural studies traditions in media scholarship.) These quotes illustrate the varying positions:

* “News coverage lacks quality analysis, political context and diversity of voic-es outside of a dominant, white, heter-onormative and middle-class points of view” [Canadian Association of Com-munity Television Users and Stations]

* “Mainstream media in Canada are cor-porations therefore their responsibilities are to their profits not the truth. Coverage of issues such as the environment, copy-right, Israel/Palestine, gay marriage, hand-guns, etc. is all editorialized to benefit the interests of the corporation, not the pub-lic at large.” [Appropriation Art Coalition]

* “It is not the fault of the journalists. They

production of Canadian culture should not be determined by technological, financial and geo-graphic barriers”. Another respondent wrote, “It’s now a crucial medium for communica-tion; effective citizenship depends on access.”

Participant responses to Q24 in relation to Q26, reveals a positive correlation between the importance of the Internet to the organizations work, and the likelihood of their joining a media reform campaign. While it is only a small sample, those who rated the importance of the Internet to their work as less than “very important”, more of-ten reported a lower likelihood of joining a media reform campaign. The same correlation is evident between the few who did not rate Internet access as “very important” (Q26). Of the 9 respondents who did not think Internet access was very im-portant, the average rating concerning their likeli-ness of joining a future media reform campaign, was a full point (3.10) lower than those who did think access was very important (4.13). In sum, those who see the Internet as important to their work or as important in general, were more likely to be interested in campaigning for media reform.

Net NeutralityA full 98% agreed that Net throttling would

negatively affect their work (Q25). Most com-ments cited the potential effect on outreach ac-tivities and the potential financial impact on their organizations. One comment that captured these sentiments well reads, “Censorship and two-tiered pricing is detrimental to any organization with limited resources (time, money etc.).” An-other comment read, “Access to our work would be more difficult or we would have to pay more money for faster service...either one is not ideal.”

Judging from the comments, media organi-zations seemed relatively more concerned about Net Neutrality relative to non-media organiza-tions. Media organizations are probably more concerned with Net Neutrality because they



and “minority” ownership; less concentra-tion; restriction or regulation of monopo-lies; broadcast licences for non-corporate entities; ceilings on foreign ownership and ownership in a single market; net neutrality; legislated separation between content pro-viders and distributors; more local control.

Better journalism and content (17); greater diversity in storytelling and pro-duction strategies; less sensation, celebrity and car crashes; more investigation, origi-nal programming and newsgathering; more analysis or positive news; less “bias”, more self-reflection and education; better cover-age of marginalized peoples and countries.

Regulatory and financial support for independent and community media (11): e.g. a cap on copyright tariffs for non-profit media; radio frequencies re-served for community use; mandatory free carriage of alternative media content on other platforms; ISP levies; commu-nity channel levy, controlled by indepen-dent community production groups (i.e. not cable companies); discounted postal rates. Only two mentioned people be-ing and doing their own media, without reference to some form of state support.

Better funding and public resourc-es for public service media (9), par-ticularly public broadcasting/CBC, but also “real journalism internet sites”.

Improve media personnel (2): me-dia training for youth; better ethnic, cultural and gender representation.

Other regulatory measures (2).

Miscellaneous other measures (4): labour-funded progressive news outlet; more respect for writers and their rights; and (from a denominational publication) “boycott information on the internet!”

are stretched beyond belief as they are now having to provide content that can be used in multiple media formats at the same time…Over the past 15 years, convergence between traditional media…and the tele-com/broadcasting industry has resulted in a substantial narrowing of viewpoints and stories…” [Telecommunities Canada]

* “The concentration of corporate me-dia ownership, particularly in Vancouver, undermines the ability of a free press to contribute to democratic discourse. And even without such concentrated ownership, too many of the largest media owners are staunch neoliberals passing themselves off as objective and neutral.” [Politics, Re-Spun]

These themes suggest somewhat divergent em-phases for media reform: reduce market concen-tration; replace corporate ownership with public or community ownership; subsidize journalism; and/or change the cultural background and as-sumptions of journalists and their publics. These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, however. Interestingly, and possibly in contrast to their American counterparts, Canadian NGOs do not appear to put much faith in market forces and greater competition as an antidote to concen-trated corporate control. Indeed, Media Action explicitly rejects this approach: Media corpora-tions’ “concern with market forces, competition, creating an ostensible landscape of innovation, often leaves the public interest by the wayside while creating inferior and boring products.”

A parallel range of views is evident when re-spondents addressed specifically how they would like to see the media changed. Thirty-nine re-spondents offered their thoughts, sometimes in detail. They can be categorized into these themes:

Structural changes in media (18 respon-dents): broadcast licensing; more diverse


. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Encouragingly, there is wide-spread support for using the instru-

mentality of the state to achieve democratic reform of media.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(2); we are a charity and thus have to be “careful about political agitation” (1); and from the Metis National Council, understandably in light of his-torical experience, “The Metis Nation must have a full and meaningful role in directing any campaign.”

Does dissatisfaction with the performance of mainstream media help lead NGOs to engage in campaigns to improve the media? Yes, but not uni-formly. Respondents who had participated in media campaigns during the past 5 years were somewhat less satisfied with media coverage of their group and its issues (averaging 2.1 on a 5 point scale), than respondents who had not (2.53 average score).

Similarly, media campaign participants rated Canadian media’s democratic performance lower (2.04 average) than did non-participants (2.65).

With respect to the likelihood of future par-ticipation in media reform campaigns, there is a nearly linear relationship with dissatisfaction with media’s democratic performance. Those least likely to participate gave the media’s dem-ocratic performance an average score of 4 (out of 5); rather unlikely, 3.25; possibly, 2.125; rather likely, 2.0; and very likely, 2.18. There is a small group of respondents who rank Canadian me-dia as quite good, but who nevertheless are quite likely to participate in future campaigns.

There is also a relationship (though not so strong) between future likely participation, and dissatisfaction with media coverage of respon-dent’s own NGO: 48.4% of those dissatis-fied with media are “very likely” to participate,

Implications:

Encouragingly, there is widespread support for using the instrumentality of the state to achieve democratic reform of media. Perhaps not sur-prisingly from a sample of institutionalized ad-vocacy groups, many of them seeking to influ-ence government policy, there is little evidence of hardcore libertarian or anarchist/autonomist sentiment. At the same time, a careful reading teases out issues that could be divisive for media reform coalitions, such as copyright (free access vs. revenues for creators) and the relative empha-sis on public subsidies and political support for mainstream journalism, for public service me-dia, and for independent or community media.

MEDIA DISSATISFACTION AND ACTIVISM

What conditions are likely to induce NGOs to participate in media reform campaigns?

The small scale of this project permits only limited bivariate analysis, but we were able to explore the hypothesis that dissatisfac-tion with mainstream media is likely to corre-late with greater involvement in media activism.

Our sample is fairly evenly divided between participants and non-participants. Of those sur-veyed, 50% have previously engaged in cam-paigns or joined coalitions that aimed to influence the media or change communication policy, in the past 5 years; 40.4% have not (Q21). (See Tables 2 and 3 above, for a breakdown by NGO sector.)

Respondents are equally divided on the likeli-hood of their participation in future such cam-paigns: 50% said it is rather or very likely; 38% said possibly or don’t know; 12% rather or very unlikely (Q27). Thirteen respondents offered fur-

ther comments, mostly explaining reasons for reti-cence: Such campaigns are not within our mandate (5 respondents); it would depend on the content of the campaign (3); our resources are too limited



These very preliminary findings indicate that those groups that are least impressed with Canadi-an mainstream media’s democratic performance – unions, civil and human rights, political advocacy, independent media, and arts and culture groups – are also those most likely to engage in media and communications activism (Tables 2 and 3).

This study does not fully address an impor-tant avenue for future research: the potential for participation in more targeted issue based cam-paigns or alternative frames. Considering the nearly unanimous support for Internet access and Net Neutrality, would a higher percentage of respondents report interest in participating in a campaign focused on these specific issues? What about a campaign to re-imagine journal-ism? Or an initiative to “open up” our media system rather than to “democratize” it (play-ing on the popularity of Internet access issues)? The survey results suggest that inviting NGOs to participate in these specific issues/frames would lead to more interest and engagement.

compared to 30.8% of those who are satisfied.

Finally, Table 13 shows the aver-age evaluation of the media’s democrat-ic performance by each NGO sector (Q3).

TABLE 13. PERCEPTION OF CANADIAN MEDIA’S

DEMOCRATIC PERFORMANCE BY SECTORType of Group Average Score #

Religious groups 3.67 3Professional/service association 3.50 2Foundation 3.00 2Environment 3.00 1Research/think tank 2.33 3Gender 2.33 3Media 2.27 11Arts & Culture 2.25 8Political/advocacy 2.17 6First Nations 2.00 1Labour/Union 1.60 5Civil and human rights 1.33 3

TOTAL 48


dia and media activism are integral components.

Goals and Strategies

The goals of the organizations we interviewed are as diverse as their personnel, but they can be roughly grouped into several categories. First, there are groups (mainly trade unions) that direct-ly provide services to a well-defined, occupation-ally-based membership. They typically conduct or assist with collective bargaining; and they have relatively large budgets based on membership dues, budgets that can cross-subsidize public ad-vocacy, political lobbying, professionalized media relations and research, and large-scale internal communication. Such organizations include the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), the Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU), the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Radio & Televi-sion Artists (ACTRA), the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT, a confederation of mainly unionized local faculty associations), and the Canadian Students Federation (CFS).

A second layer comprises smaller, focused groups that engage in capacity-building on behalf of other organizations and causes: Renewal, the Maytree and Douglas-Coldwell Foundations; the W2 Community Media Arts Centre in Vancouver; the Columbia Institute (CI), which fosters individual and organizational leadership for sustainable com-munities; and Check Your Head (CYH), a Vancou-ver-based youth-driven organization that educates young people on global and social justice issues.

A third layer comprises membership-based organizations that focus on advocacy for social sectors and progressive causes. These include the Council of Canadians (COC), Canada’s larg-est citizens’ group, with about 70 chapters across the country, working for “progressive change for

Given its small scale, the survey was supple-mented by a set of personal interviews as a means of triangulation. Twenty respondents from 18 NGOs (independent media, foundations, trade unions, and progressive advocacy organizations, as identified in footnote 2 above) were interviewed on 16 themes broadly paralleling the survey questions.

The respondents’ comments broadly corrob-orate the survey. The responses are categorized into four over-arching themes: the relevance of media to organizational goals and activities; the organization’s self-placement on the political landscape, in relation to allies, opponents, and social movements; perceptions of the media; and media reform campaigns as a political option [for a list of interview questions, see Appendix II].

ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS AND THE MEDIA

The respondents collectively combine a wealth of experience in community service, journalism, arts, social movement organizations, and public policy advocacy (Question #1). Encouragingly, several respondents currently employed in non-media SMOs had previous experience working with independent media (the Rideau Institute) and/or with communications policy advocacy (an associate executive-director with the Canadian Association of University Teachers had been in-volved with the Campaign for Press and Broad-casting Freedom, campaigning against press concentration in the 1990s). We certainly cannot conclude that media activism constitutes a foun-tainhead for other forms of activism; but it does speak to a density of experience, expertise and po-tential for networking in Canada’s public interest advocacy community, of which independent me-

3 Interviews with NGO Representatives

Interviews with NGO Reps


of membership service, policy influence and re-search (Questions 2 and 2b). Thus, considerable effort is invested in both internal communication (particularly in the large membership-based or-ganizations), and in outreach via media relations.

The “asymmetrical dependency” of social movement organizations (SMOs) on media ac-cess is well noted in social movement research. At stake for SMOs are the purposes of mobiliz-ing constituencies, validating their existence as politically important collective actors, and enlarg-ing the scope of conflict with the intent of fa-vourably shifting the balance of forces (Gamson and Wolfsfeld 1993). These considerations could induce SMOs either to avoid media reform co-alitions (if, for example, they perceive success in obtaining access within the existing media system) or to join them (if frustration with lack of access constitutes a “shared grievance” for otherwise di-verse groups). It is worth considering the potential for Internet access and openness (Net Neutrality) to be attractive to both groups that put energy into “getting the word out”, as well as SMO’s who use the Internet to mobilize constituencies. It is no-table that all of our respondents expressed inter-est and concern for Internet access and openness.

Achievements and Obstacles

Perceptions of organizational achievements, disappointments, obstacles and threats (Ques-tions 4, 5 and 6) provide further clues to the po-tential for media reform coalitions. A common theme was pride in the sheer survival of their or-ganizations, notwithstanding a difficult financial and political climate; some, such as CAUT and TWU, had seen significant expansion. Recogni-tion by mainstream media, when it was achieved, was taken as a hallmark of success. For instance, the Rideau Institute stated that “we are now posi-tioned as a credible voice for progressive foreign policy views…We are solicited by media, get ac-cess to A list programs; both formal and informal access.” The centerpiece of achievement for most groups was their campaign work, and especially specific policy successes that they may have en-

grassroots democracy and against corporate or elite political determination [of] the kind of coun-try and culture we live in”; the Consumers Council of Canada (CCC); Friends of Canadian Broadcast-ing (FCB), which promotes quality and quantity of Canadian programming throughout the audio-visual system, with a particular interest in the vi-tality and independence of public broadcasting; the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA), pro-viding research and consultations on public poli-cies affecting the arts and Canadian cultural in-stitutions and industries; and the Rideau Institute (RI), which focuses on foreign and defence policy.

Each of the above three clusters includes orga-nizations in the fields of media, arts and culture, as well as several with broader or contiguous focuses. In addition, we interviewed two independent me-dia outlets: the weekly Toronto magazine NOW, and the online Vancouver newspaper The Tyee.

In size, these groups range from those with sev-eral staff members and budgets as low as $180,000, to those with 40 staff and budgets of $5 million or more (COC). Some are not membership-based or have memberships of a few hundred; the larg-est have memberships (COC) or contributors (FCB) of fifty to sixty thousand (Question 3).

Apart from the capacity-building groups, and excluding the two organizations that are them-selves media outlets, some of the groups (TWU, FCB, CCC, ACTRA, RI) engage in the “insider” strategy of direct interaction with policymakers or regulators. Public pressure on government through the media may complement political lob-bying, but in some cases, it may alienate policymak-ers. The available interview data does not permit a clear judgement on the balance between insider and outsider strategies, and the relative depen-dence of the NGOs on internal media, access to “mainstream” media, or “insider” lobbying. But it is notable that most of our respondents mention public communication, “getting the message out,” political lobbying, and/or shaping public opinion as amongst their top current priorities, and as integral to the achievement of their other goals,


did mention media coverage as obstacles. Inter-estingly, one organization cited concerns with the campus press’s perceived tendency to make news rather than report it, and with what it regards as a “hyper critical” and unaccountable blogosphere. Most respondents, however, focused on the dom-inant media. The Douglas/Coldwell Foundation noted that Canadian media are biased in favour of the centre-right, and “have not been favour-able to social democracy”. The PSAC laments that it receives less media coverage than it would like, though notes that “we get a fair shake”. The COC, which has actively supported media reform, sees the main obstacles as vested political parties and corporate media that serve a minority cor-porate interest over the majority public interest.

POSITION IN THE POLITICAL FIELD

Opponents and Allies

Who do the NGOs identify as their main op-ponents and allies (Questions #7 and #8)? The answers to these questions offer evidence regard-ing the potential for successful media reform cam-paigns. When specific policy goals are pursued, such campaigns usually require both collabora-tions between groups that cannot achieve victories on their own, as well as the strategic identification of opponents that constitute a shared grievance as a basis for movement mobilization. For instance, the use of media mogul Conrad Black as a symbol of the evils of media concentration, helped the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom assemble a broad “common front” in the 1990s – though in policy terms, the campaign failed to reverse the expansion of Black’s media empire.

The most common opponent identified was the Conservative federal government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Some respondents ex-panded that category to most recent Canadian prime ministers (FCB), the “political establish-ment” (CAUT), or “anyone who feels that free markets should determine public policy” (COC). Several trade unions indicated oppositional re-

joyed. Some of these victories were essentially de-fensive in nature, as the hegemony of neoliberal-ism has not allowed much space for progressives to set the political agenda in the past two decades. For instance, The RI played “a key role” in pre-venting foreign takeover of the space division of the MDA corporation; the FCB helped defeat op-position to a CRTC licence being awarded to CBC NewsWorld several decades ago. Some respon-dents found silver linings (such as informing the public, or showcasing the organization) in cam-paigns that had not achieved their policy objectives.

Conversely, in identifying their major disap-pointments (Question 5), government policy also loomed large. The COC felt that government needed to adopt trade policies that serve people and communities rather than corporations. The RI expressed disappointment with inability to turn public opinion into government policy on the Afghanistan war in which Canada has been heavily involved. FCB would like to be on the winning side of CRTC decisions more often. ACTRA was frustrated with the lack of updated copyright legislation. Several were disappointed over lack of funding or interest from both gov-ernment and other non-profits. Some of the la-bour-oriented groups felt there had been setbacks in contract negotiations and collective bargaining.

In identifying the obstacles to achieving their goals, at least 10 of the respondents mentioned funding, sustainability or revenues, a concern par-ticularly acute during the current economic reces-sion. FCB, while it is relatively well-funded amongst citizens’ groups in Canada, contrasted its budget with the billion-dollar companies that are often its opponents. Other obstacles mentioned included competition with other NGOs, division amongst public interest community, and opposition or lack of support from government. Several mentioned the impact of the post-9/11 political climate and the government’s strategic use of the Afghanistan war, in demobilizing the progressive movement.

While no non-media NGOs mentioned com-munications policy, several non-media respondents



fied the FCB as a close partner; the FCB recip-rocated, and also identified the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union, as well as the Council of Canadians, the CCPA, OpenMedia.ca on certain issues, and organizations represent-ing sectors involved in media and cultural pro-duction. Some organizations (W2, the Columbia Institute, Rideau Institute) mentioned supportive relationships with individual journalists or corpo-rate media outlets. Of the two independent media outlets interviewed, NOW asserted the impor-tance of (organizational and editorial) indepen-dence, but indicated a positive relationship with the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, and its membership in the Association of Alter-native News Weeklies. The Tyee acknowledged the labour movement, Media Democracy Day, the CCPA, and other media that use Tyee writers.

Overall, several patterns emerge with respect to alli-ances:

1. The closest entity to a common opponent is the Harper government;

2. Corporate media are not universally per-ceived as opponents;

3. There are support-ive relationships with-in the media and cul-tural sectors, and public interest groups more broadly;

4. The organizations most likely to be men-tioned more than once are the Council of Canadians and the CCPA, but there is no sin-gle nexus or hub for progressive activism. It has been suggested that media activism itself could constitute such a nexus for counter-hegemonic movements (Hackett and Carroll 2006, Chap. 11). Amongst our respondents, it is only a relatively small and local group, the youth-oriented Check Your Head that sees itself in this light, and speaks to the need

lationships vis-à-vis the employers with whom they collectively bargain. Capacity-building groups, not directly engaged in policy struggles, were less likely to identify specific opponents.

Corporate media were identified as an oppo-nent mainly by groups already based in the media field. FCB mentioned Izzy Asper (the late head of CanWest Global), the Rogers and Shaw cable companies, and several CBC presidents. The Tyee noted a “little dust-up” with CanWest Global, one of Canada’s largest media corporations, which has been known to intimidate critics with lawsuits. “Tyee was a threat to CanWest”, its editor stated. NOW fingered “the deep pockets of the Toronto Star,” publisher of a rival weekly paper. ACTRA identified private broadcasters (presumably due to their reluctance to finance and support Canadian productions), and in relation to collective bar-gaining, producers (who could also be allies in po-litical lobbying). Amongst non-media groups, CAUT identified right-wing me-dia critics, but only as secondary opponents.

As for allies, responses varied considerably. Re-spondents seemed most likely to identify groups with compatible objectives but that were not direct rivals for the same fund-ing or membership “ter-ritory”. For example, CAUT identified its coun-terpart organization in Quebec, trade unions in the post-secondary education sector, and civil liberties groups. The COC identified other pro-gressive groups with distinct mandates, such as the Sierra Club, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Greenpeace and the David Suzuki Foundation. The RI counted political allies in dif-ferent parties – social liberals and “homeless red Tories” as well as “of course New Democrats”. Within the arts and media sector, ACTRA identi-


of a progressive social movement. Anti-pov-erty, consumer protection, environmental, and public service causes also all received mention.

By contrast with our online survey – and this may be the most important difference between the two data sets – none of the interview respon-dents used the label “media democracy” or “me-dia reform”. The independent media and com-munications policy groups would be the most likely sector to adopt such a frame. But they do not explicitly do so. The independent newspaper NOW provides an upbeat but relatively apolitical conceptualization: “We are part of all of the peo-ple working to change the consciousness and how we live in this country, for a more just and sus-tainable, and more pro-happiness consciousness: less commercial, more happy.” The Tyee sees its goal as “rounding out the civic conversation”. The FCB respondent was reluctant to define a movement orientation for his nonpartisan orga-nization, but was willing to define core values as the promotion of democracy and patriotism (as distinct from narrow nationalism) in broadcast-ing, as well as the link between media and democ-racy. W2 sees itself at the hub of a movement to build community communication infrastructure.

PERCEPTIONS OF THE MEDIA

Almost all the respondents described cover-age in the ‘mainstream’ media as important or even essential (Question #10). The exceptions were the DCF, which felt that “dominant Cana-dian media [had] not been favourable” to social democracy, and NOW, which was ignored by its larger commercial rivals. Otherwise, respondents shared the CCC’s view that “If you want to in-fluence public opinion then you have to have ac-cess to the media.” NGOs use mainstream media to shape public opinion and agendas, to influ-ence decision-makers, and to communicate with their own members. Many of them have dedi-cated communications and media relations staff.

What are the implications for mobilizing a

for this kind of creatively eclectic approach:

“Some people frame what’s happening globally as a movement of movements because there is so much happening around social change…We have the ca-pacity to tap into all of those (other move-ments)…We’ve had sort of a bumblebee approach, going into different orchards and taking different bits of nectar from different kinds of freedom flowers and then taking them with us in our work, so they land somewhere else…Groups who have approached us to do work with them and bring what we do…probably wouldn’t if we were the Canadian Youth Peace movement, or whatever. It’s be-cause of this nexus that I think we’ve been quite successful at instilling that.”

A Social Movement?

Most groups do situate their work in relation to one or another broader social movement (Ques-tion #9). Though there is variation on how that movement is identified, the responses do indicate an expansiveness of vision beyond the immediate priorities or specific issues of particular groups. The union-oriented organizations consider them-selves part of a broader labour movement, with some additions: CAUT also situates itself as part of a civil liberties and human rights movement, deriving particularly from its core value of aca-demic freedom. TWU also sees itself as part of a broader social democratic movement (which is the raison-d’être of the Douglas-Coldwell Foun-dation). ACTRA extols a mission to promote rec-ognition of the importance of culture in Canada.

Several respondents situated themselves as part of a loosely defined “progressive” move-ment. The COC related this movement to the World Social Forums, and indicated that a pro-gressive movement can be “all things to all people, depending on where you are coming from.” The Rideau Institute defines its vision as broader than just a peace movement, but as part



we get our voice heard,” implying that the respon-sibility for positive coverage lies at least partly with the NGOs themselves. The CCC lamented that the media are “crisis driven,” so that CCC is accessed not routinely, but only in response to breaking sto-ries. The Maytree Foundation worries that layoffs and funding cuts in the news outlets may jeopar-dize its currently strong relationship with media.

Some respondents noted the growing impor-tance of new media and social networking tools to their work; CYH commented on their still un-tapped potential for social movements in Canada.

Respondents were fairly evenly divided in their perceptions of the CBC (Question #12). Only CYH, Maytree and the Tyee reported a positive relationship without qualification; Maytree ad-ditionally noted CBC’s assistance in launching the Diverse City Voices Program. FCB, CFS and PSAC also felt that CBC is somewhat different from other media, though their responses are qual-ified. FCB feels that while CBC gives them a “fair shake,” CBC executives resist giving the Friends coverage for fear that it would be perceived as “self-dealing”. About a third of the respondents opined that CBC was no better or worse than other media outlets. Several praised the French-language CBC service in comparison to English-language networks. Two organizations, the CCC and COC, felt they actually had a difficult relation-ship with CBC, although COC noted that CBC radio, as a “more intellectual enterprise,” has been much more responsive than its television services.

Independent, community and alternative media drew more nearly unanimous endorsement from the NGOs, at least in principle (Questions #13, 13b). Many respondents identified specific independent media outlets that had been helpful in their work, particularly the online journal rab-ble.ca, the Tyee, campus radio stations, the urban weekly Georgia Straight in Vancouver, and vari-ous blogs and citizen journalism sites. Less com-mon but still utilized, were the weekly Courier in Vancouver, Walrus magazine, the Association of Alternate Newsweeklies, and Canadian University

media reform movement? It is debatable whether the media’s democratic deficit constitutes a shared grievance for the NGOs we interviewed. As with the survey, most of them indicated that they had relatively positive relationships with media, even if they did not always receive their preferred level of coverage (Question #11). ACTRA ap-peared to be most confident with its coverage in mainstream media; it is able to use celebrities amongst its membership to garner media atten-tion. Rather than treat “the media” as a homo-geneous category, many respondents offered insightful distinctions between different outlets and types of media, along such axes as region, editorial ideology, and the presence of special-ized journalists. Several respondents noted the need to build relationships with specific reporters rather than just media outlets per se. That quite pragmatic position may vitiate the potential for a systemic critique of the media as an institution.

There were, however, some challenges cited in dealing with the media.

* The RI noted important regional differenc-es in the press. While its current relationships with media in Ottawa are positive, previous working experience in Vancouver showed the media to be “bitter and partisan” as well as “more conservative, parochial, provincial [and] very difficult to work with.”

* CAUT felt that provincial jurisdiction over its issue area, post-secondary education, minimized the level of coverage in national media, apart from the Globe & Mail’s full-time reporter on university issues.

* The COC described its relationship as sometimes good, sometimes not. The Conrad Black era in Canada’s press, the late 1990s, were “very dark days” due to his intervention-ist editorial approach, right-wing views, and corporate ties that shaped public discourse.

The respondents also varied in their diagnosis of problems in the media. The TWU sees a chal-lenge in “managing the message and making sure


Not surprisingly then, our respondents were unanimously and resoundingly emphatic that “net throttling” and a two-tiered internet would negatively affect their work (Question 14b). Main-taining net neutrality is considered essential. As

the RI sum-m a r i z e d , “We rely on open ac-cess media,” and added, “We need to make sure that access is an impor-tant part of the Internet, even the r u r a l / u r -ban divide, which I still think is a prob lem.” CAUT felt that throt-

tling would limit its distribution capacity and its presence on the Internet, and cited existing issues with Google searches. Net throttling is an “expres-sion of corporate control” of the medium, said the COC, one that is contrary to the interest of users. The COC sees a role for government regulation of the Internet to constrain corporate interests and safeguard it as “a medium for free speech”.

Throttling is already affecting the Internet; the TWU cited an incident during a labour dispute in which Telus shut down a key communications website run by the union. Beyond such direct cen-sorship, ACTRA worries about the implications of cross-ownership between broadcasters and In-ternet service provision, so that Bell is “able to fast track broadcasting that’s coming over CTV.ca, for example.” The Tyee stated bluntly, “It’s a life or death issue for us, no question.” Others put it in broader perspective. “If you have to pay for knowledge,” stated the CI, “some people are go-

Press. Several respondents (CFS, CAUT, ACTRA, FCB) offered a qualifier: alternative and commu-nity media did not necessarily help to reach their target audience or broader publics as efficiently as mainstream media. On the other hand, they and most other NGOs do re-turn calls and conduct in-terviews with independent media. Some respondents also pointed out that in-d e p e n d e n t media could help NGOs connect with constituen-cies, par-ticularly the young, who do not see themselves reflected in mainstream media; that independent media can act as a “catalyst” and popularizer on behalf of the entire public interest community, and can sometimes bring stories to the attention of the dominant media. Indeed, the COC’s awareness of mainstream media’s limitations have “increasingly led us to seek alternative ways of expressing our concerns,” and to make a two-year commitment “to work with and support rabble.ca as a progres-sive grassroots expression of popular democracy.”

What about the Internet (Question #14)? While some of the trade unions indicated they were only beginning to utilize the Internet to its potential, most respondents felt it was a critical or even essential part of the work they do. Ease of information distribution, communication with members and stakeholders, and the importance of an Internet presence for the organization, were cited as key rationales. The RI also cited fund-raising, lobbying and research as important uses.



pressed. The Rideau Institute acknowledged that “the more [media] players there are, the greater impact we’re able to have…Changing the nature of media itself is important.” But “it’s not the only factor influencing the diversi-ty of voices in the media;” more importantly in the RI’s view, NGOs themselves could be more effective in their media relations techniques.

But have NGOs translated their concerns into active engagement in media or communication reform cam-paigns? Would they likely do so in the future (Questions #16, 16b)? Most of the respondents who addressed these questions (the response rate was lower, perhaps for logistical reasons) could recall some level of past involvement which, not surprisingly, was more likely to occur on issues of great-est direct relevance to their man-dates, expertise or membership. For some, public engagement with media and communications policy issues was relatively tan-gential. For instance, the RI had secondary involvement on copy-right issues through consumer groups with which it had worked. More directly, the RI publicly raised the issue of potential con-flict of interest, on the part of particular journalists who had ac-cepted generous cash prizes from defence lobby organizations.

A higher level of engagement was manifested by the Council of Canadians, which has actively

supported the OpenMedia.ca, SaveOurNet.ca and rabble.ca. The COC was a bulwark of the CPBF’s campaign against media concentration in the 1990s, when it also worked with NewsWatch Canada to monitor newspaper content before and after Conrad Black’s takeovers. The TWU devel-

ing to be disadvantaged. It’s the antithesis of de-mocracy.” Friends agree: “It’s an important sort of wholesale issue affecting the future of democracy.”

Importantly though, while the Internet and lo-cally responsive alternative media were identified as means whereby dominant mainstream media could be circumvented, most respondents expressed the wish for improved access and diversity in the latter.

DEMOCRATIC MEDIA ACTIVISM, ANYONE?

Given the specific con-cerns expressed above, do the NGOs feel that a more diverse, representative, acces-sible and democratic system of public communication would help achieve their goals (Question #15)? In principle, the respondents agree. CAUT sees itself, inter alia, as part of a larger communication rights movement: “Having public channels of commu-nication is absolutely essen-tial for the advancement of knowledge, but also the pro-tection of basic rights.” The COC concurs: “It would fur-ther more progressive demo-cratic values and concerns.”

“It would make our job a lot easier if there was freer access to what is now controlled by the very few” stated the CCC. The Columbia Institute identi-fied specific policy goals: “limiting foreign owner-ship to protect [and] ensure local content, secur-ing long-term funding for community and public broadcasting, and ensuring a broad range of easily [accessible] media in communities large and small.”

At the same time, realistic caveats were ex-


in Vancouver and other cities. ACTRA noted col-laboration with Friends of Canadian Broadcast-ing and the CEP union. The Consumers Council of Canada has worked in conjunction with “con-sumer friends,” Quebec groups, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which (in the words of its website piac.ca) undertakes legal and re-search services on behalf of consumers in the areas of telecommunications, energy, privacy, the information highway, electronic commerce, finan-cial services, broadcasting, and competition law.

What about future participation in communica-tions policy campaigns? Of those few NGOs that addressed this question, the response was gener-ally positive. ACTRA said “foreign ownership of broadcast media is always on our radar.” The CI referred to the importance of alternative and lo-cal media in promoting dialogue on the climate change issue, which is at a pivotal moment given “the economic meltdown and the opportunity for remaking things right now.” The CAUT referenced the need for strong public and publicly account-able channels of communication, and indicated plans to work with students and others for a coali-tion on copyright that could go beyond defending the educational exemption for fair dealing, to chal-lenge restrictive copyright regimes more generally.

oped a campaign of public awareness on the export of telecommunications jobs to the Philippines.

The Tyee indicated a distinctive role for in-dependent media outlets in relation to media re-form, and that is to give publicity to issues and debates around communication and democracy - a role not likely to be performed by the cor-porate press. “I don’t see us as a movement or-ganization,” said its editor, “more as an honest broker of these conversations and these facts.”

There is little evidence of communications activism in international arenas beyond the level of national policy. One exception was CAUT’s “very active” participation in the International Network for Cultural Diversity, an effort to push back against the encroachment of trade agree-ments that were increasingly defining broadcast-ing, the internet, and communications and cul-tural industries generally, as a tradable commodity.

On the other hand, there is encouraging evi-dence of shared issues and indeed direct collabo-ration within our small sample of respondents. Shared issues included copyright reform, an issue mentioned by several respondents (CAUT, RI, CFS, ACTRA). Several supported the SaveOur-Net.ca campaign on net neutrality, rabble.ca, and/or the annual local Media Democracy Day held



be closely involved in ongoing political debates in Ottawa, such as the hearings by the House of Commons’ Heritage Committee. Participants were concerned that media reform issues might be paid lip-service in reports, but not taken up by politicians. They identified a trend of moving away from using public airwaves for public services to-ward corporate and private interests and swap-ping the capacity and clarity of digital technology for content and quality. There was also consensus on the need for a campaign to address the cri-sis in journalism, particularly local journalism.

Participants agreed on the need to be well in-formed and well organized. OpenMedia.ca needs to become a strong network of people and orga-nizations working for media democracy and capa-ble of intervening in media policy battles. Open-Media.ca should push for more support for public and community media; tighter controls over public funding for media; and policy interventions such as those impacting on Net Neutrality. OpenMe-dia.ca already has toolkits aimed at encouraging citizens to organize their own events to debate the future of the Internet, and is working on drawing up a Declaration of 21st Century Media in support of public service media and citizen participation.

The full minutes of the workshop are included in Appendix II of this report.

As a third branch of this research project, WACC and OpenMedia.ca co-organized a work-shop at WACC’s global offices in Toronto on May 26, 2009. Participants reviewed the find-ings of the survey summarized above, in the context of ongoing happenings in Canada that confront the emerging politically progressive coalition aiming to democratize public com-munication. The workshop was held against a background of a growing media reform move-ment in the U.S.A. and expectations raised by the newly inaugurated Obama Administration.

Participants were given an outline of the main issues facing media reform in Canada, including support for local broadcasting and journalism, in-creased resources for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), and support for mandate-driven and non-profit local media. Participants added more: How to ensure that Canadians have genuine choice? How to create more space for Ca-nadians to find Canadian content? In this regard, participants agreed that new media broadcasting needs regulatory back-up to support Canadian diversity. Issues of privacy, libel, environmental issues related to dependence on ICTs, Net Neu-trality, how to support amateur media production, and who controls the media were highlighted.

OpenMedia.ca activists agreed on the need to

4 The Toronto Workshop on Media Reform


of Free Press as a flagship organization for the US media reform movement (see e.g. McChesney 2004; Nichols and McChesney 2005, Chap. 6). By contrast, Canada offers no obvious comparable catalysts for progressive media politics. Indeed, the most visible media villain, Conrad Black, the press mogul who inspired an oppositional cam-paign in the 1990s, has since been humbled and disgraced through the mechanisms of the system itself. If there is a shared grievance for Canada’s progressives, it is more likely to be the federal Conservative government of Stephen Harper.

Corporate influence over media institutions and policies is more likely to be perceived as a problem by those NGOs already in the media and cultural fields. Our data show, however, that they have no single diagnosis or prescription for me-dia’s shortcomings (Table 21). Support for CBC is widespread, but qualified in some quarters by the perception that CBC differs little from other dom-inant media. Support for independent, alternative media, though also widespread, was mitigated by the reluctance of many NGOs to focus on me-dia perceived to have limited audience reach or credibility with policy-makers. Some of the other communications issues that concern NGOs fairly directly (copyright, the crisis of journalism) bring into play conflicting interests and prescriptions.

Some potential beneficiaries of a more demo-cratic media system have proven difficult to at-tract to media reform campaigns. These include peace and environmental groups, charities (which are constrained by tax rules limiting their involve-ment in advocacy), and journalists in mainstream media. These absences are evident in the response to our survey. Other “gaps” in the building blocks for a media reform movement are less obvious. One is the territorial tension, manifested in a lack

This study has offered a snapshot of the political landscape for media reform in Anglo-Canada. To repeat, its small scale makes it ex-ploratory rather than definitive. But the similar-ity of results from two quite separate samples (the online survey and the interviews), informed by the authors’ own experiences in the move-ment, lend us confidence in its accuracy. The research enables us to summarize the obstacles and challenges, as well as resources and spring-boards, for an ongoing media reform movement.

Obstacles and Challenges

Overall, Canada is clearly not a volcano of media discontent waiting to erupt. As a set of stakeholders most likely to support democratic media reform, the NGOs we surveyed reported positive relationships with at least some segments of the existing dominant media. Their invest-ment in gaining access to dominant media, and to an even greater extent in building and using their own media (Table 7), likely limits their will-ingness to devote scarce resources to challenging and changing the structure of the media system.

The corporate media do not appear to consti-tute a perceived threat or a shared grievance to the same extent as in the US. There, a decade of state repression of citizen-run low-power FM radio, the virtual disappearance of local radio in the wake of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the FCC’s ef-forts to further raise the ceiling on media concen-tration, the arrogance of former FCC chairman Michael Powell, the rabidly reactionary politics of Fox television, the domination of talk radio by right-wing gas-bags, and the perceived collusion of the US media as a whole in the Bush admin-istration’s decision to invade Iraq – all helped to galvanize a remarkable upsurge of media activism in the past decade, and the dramatic emergence

5 Conclusions

Conclusions


in issues related to the media and communication as they begin to recognize the centrality of this to everything else that’s going on in their lives,” ar-gues Canadian media scholar Marc Raboy (quoted in Hackett and Carroll 2006: 147). Most NGOs are well aware of the importance to their primary work of access to, and representation in, media. There is a certain level of awareness of media de-mocracy concepts (Table 9), and a considerable though uneven level of dissatisfaction with me-dia’s democratic performance, dissatisfaction that can sometimes be converted into remedial action. (Note though, that satisfaction with media perfor-mance does not preclude communications activ-ism; there can be other motives, such as engaging in defensive struggles to maintain a valued service like the CBC.) There is solid evidence of past en-gagement with media coalitions or campaigns by many groups, and of intended future engagement.

Ideologically, most of our 75 respondents have a vision broader than their own organiza-tion’s immediate goals. Social justice and human rights are common themes, but many (mainly in the online survey) identified themselves with an emerging and distinct media democracy move-ment. Scepticism towards market forces, com-petition, and the profit motive – the neoliberal

of direct collaboration on spe-cific campaigns, between two of the leading national unions representing media workers; the Canadian Media Guild, and the CEP union. Another is the paucity of policy-rele-vant research conducted by communications scholars or other academics, and with no-table exceptions, their general disengagement from formal regulatory and policy process-es, such as CRTC hearings (Abramson et al 2008; Savage 2008). A vibrant media reform movement would need an ac-tive “brains trust,” and for-tunately, OpenMedia.ca has taken some initial steps to develop one, including the Toronto workshop summarized in this report.

Structurally, the field of progressive civil so-ciety activism in Canada is fragmented, arguably bifurcated between larger state- and economy-ori-ented organizations, and smaller marginal groups. At both levels, NGOs perceive sustainability, and financial and other resource shortages, as their biggest challenges (Table 6). They are hard-pressed to mount campaigns beyond their prima-ry mandates. Their financial precariousness may make them vulnerable to agendas set by funders, of which government is particularly prominent (Table 4). Moreover, it is difficult to identify a hub or nexus for civil society activism in Canada.

Springboards and Resources

While at first sight dispiriting, the above summary of challenges is intended to provide a basis for developing realistic strategies. And our study contains many positive recommenda-tions for a Canadian media reform movement.

At the broadest level, the “mediatisation” of contemporary politics and culture suggests that “more people are going to want to get involved


cific, identifiable and publicly accessible ven-ues and time-frames, such as CRTC hearings.

* Net Neutrality is perceived as win-nable, particularly given US President Obama’s endorsement of this principle.

At the same, given the scope and consequences of the media’s democratic deficit and of the cur-rent policy agenda, Canada’s nascent media reform movement cannot confine itself to a single-issue focus. In that respect, the diversity of perspectives and priorities evident in our respondents’ views of media issues is a resource. It should be possible to find partners for campaigns on a range of issues. The data confirm that independent media, arts and culture groups, and trade unions, particularly those representing media and cultural workers, are

core advocates for democratic communications. Some of these groups are small, but there is a plethora of them, and the research suggests a wel-come culture of collaboration that can help offset organizational fragmentation. Additionally, the re-search reveals potential partners for media reform outside the media/arts sectors, especially human

‘solutions’ to communication shortfalls – is wide-spread. Conversely, there is considerable sup-port for a positive role for the state in shaping a democratic communication environment – par-ticularly, regulatory and financial support for in-dependent, community and public service media, notwithstanding qualifications in some quarters.

More strikingly, there is overwhelming recog-nition of the importance of the Internet to the NGOs’ work, and unanimous endorsement of the principle of Net Neutrality as a regulatory un-derpinning for equitable and affordable access to the Internet. That finding suggests that OpenMe-dia.ca’s particular emphasis on the SaveOurNet.ca campaign, and its recent change of name to OpenMedia.ca, has a pragmatic as well as prin-cipled grounding. Why does Net Neutrality reso-nate relatively highly? As a means of building co-alitions and attracting funding, Net Neutrality has several advantages, compared to other vital issues with which OpenMedia.ca and other media re-formers have engaged (such as media ownership) :6

* There are a large number of stakehold-ers who would be negatively affected by the loss of Net Neutrality, includ-ing many (such as small businesses, and young people as heavy users of digital media) that are not amongst the ‘usual suspects’ of public interest coalitions.

* Net throttling and multi-tiered service constitute an immediate threat to the daily work of most NGOs, as it jeopardizes con-trol over their own means of publication to their own members and broader publics.

* As a regulatory issue, it is discussed in spe-

6. By comparison, “diversity of media ownership” is a less pressing goal for most NGOs, particularly if they feel satisfied with current news media access and/or control over their own media. Compared to Net Neutral-ity, media diversity may be more difficult to define concretely, its benefits are less obvious, there is no single venue or process by which it can be ‘won’; it may not seem realistically achievable in the short term; and its open advocacy, to the extent that it challenges media corporations, may have negative repercussions for an NGO’s standing in the newsroom.

Conclusions


approach of a positive frame less dangerous to their charity status. NGOs may also find such a frame less hazardous to their media con-tacts and journalists would surely find such a campaign more inviting.

Key factors limiting the forma-tion of a media reform movement may be the lack of a unified progres-sive social movement in Canada, as well as the disinclination to date of existing progressive organizations to recognize and act upon the relevance of communications structures and

policies to their own primary mandates. These considerations suggest strategic consequences. First, one key task for a media reform movement is to “conscientize” existing progressive SMOs to the relevance of media issues, and Internet access and Net Neutrality seem to constitute an espe-cially promising entry point. A key task for media reformers is to build larger and tighter coalitions and networks. Civil society groups will likely better understand the stake they have in media and tele-communications policy if more of these organi-zations are consistently actively engaged in media policy reform, and indeed in building the media reform movement. Media reform organizations should consider some kind of expansive institu-tional structure, such as an association or network that can facilitate communication and engagement with a broad and diverse array of organizations.

Secondly, our findings starkly raise the ques-tion of framing. It may well be that the concepts of “media reform” or “media democracy” fail to resonate with many of the constituencies that would need to mobilize if a more democratic public sphere is to be achieved in Canada. Me-dia reformers need to consider whether a unify-ing master frame is possible and necessary, and/or whether different “subframes” or “thematic frames” should be adopted for different cam-paigns and constituencies (O Siochrú 2005). Our data suggest encouragingly that most respondents

rights groups, and broadly-focused progressive advocacy organizations. Campaign-framing, and coalition-building, of course go hand in hand. For instance, although it is not easy to simplify (O Siochrú 2005) and is not yet very familiar to many activists, the frame of “communication rights” may be suitable for attracting human rights activ-ists to media reform campaigns. It is encouraging that WACC is creating a global clearinghouse for communication rights information in Toronto. Future research and activism will undoubtedly disclose new partners, beyond the NGO sector: for example, currently municipal governments in the Vancouver area are allying with community groups to wrest control of community television away from monopolistic cable companies that are reducing coverage of city council meetings.

The shared values of media openness, access and innovation (defined not only in technologi-cal but also social and political terms) may offer a route to popularize support for at least some dimensions of media reform. Indeed, the com-ments unequivocally supportive of equitable ac-cess to the Internet, from both our survey and interviews, suggest that an alternative strategy to coalesce NGOs around this issue and related frames could be productive. It may also be the case that a journalism campaign with a positive frame might be more inviting to peace, environ-mental groups, charities and journalists in main-stream media. Charities might find the soft lined


media” frame, however, does have advantages.

It connotes a recognition of the growing im-portance of digital media, as distinct from con-ventional mass media. It could appeal to constitu-encies beyond “progressive” SMOs. In particular, it could appeal to a younger generation of activists and new media users, and could bring those work-ing on media reform closer to related and bur-geoning communities that are focused on Open Source Software, Open Data, Open Web, Open Content, Open Education, Open Government and many more. At the very least, “open media” should take its place alongside other longstand-ing media change frames, such as communication rights, media democratization, free press, and me-dia justice (Hackett and Carroll 2006, Chap. 4).

Current strategies and frames for me-dia reform will likely persist and should not be dismissed, but as this study suggests, it is worth exploring new strategies as well.

do regard themselves as part of a broader move-ment, which can be categorized rather broadly as progressive. However, they do not coalesce around a specific political ideology, issue or or-ganization, and it may be that communication values, rather than a specific political ideology, will more effectively coalesce organizations for democratic change in media.7 Responses to this study suggest that values such as openness, acces-sibility, participation, choice, diversity and inno-vation may resonate well with NGOs in Canada.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Responses to this study suggest that values such as openness, ac-

cessibility, participation, choice, diversity and innovation may reso-

nate well with NGOs in Canada.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thus, the frame of “open media” suggests it-self as productive, at least as a thematic frame, and possibly even as a master frame. However, such a frame is itself not without risks. It would take work to avoid, first, diverting it to the neo-liberal themes of further “opening” Canadian media to unregulated market forces. And second, narrowing the media change agenda to the liber-tarian project of removing blockages to access at the expense of considering other dimensions of a genuinely democratic public communication system, including equality, justice, dignity, solidar-ity, responsibility and accountability. The “open

7. Re-imagining journalism in the 21st century, given the marked social and technological changes in to-day’s “information societies”, is one avenue to explore. A model with considerable potential is that of “peace journalism”, which tries to illuminate structural and cultural violence as it affects the lives of ordinary people. Framing conflicts in terms of several parties pursuing many goals, it makes visible peace initiatives and poten-tial solutions and it equips people to distinguish between self-interested positions and real objectives. Similar principles could be applied to media reform, highlighting democratic deficits, ensuring a diversity of voices and opinions, providing greater access to information and knowledge, and encouraging community involvement in media ownership and control.

Conclusions


Abramson, B.D., Shtern, J. & Taylor, G. (2008). “Commentary: ‘More and Better’ Research? Critica-Communication Studies and the Problem of Policy Relevance.” Canadian Journal of Communication 33(2):303-317.

Anderson, S. (2008). “The fight for the open Internet.” Canadian Dimension 42(1) (January/Febru-ary): 38-40.

Angus Reid (2009) “Canadian Predict Cheaper Cell Phone Rates Over the Next Year” Angus Reid. http://www.visioncritical.com/2009/12/canadians-predict-cheaper-cell-phone-rates-over-the-next-year/

Babe, R. (1990). Telecommunications in Canada: Technology, Industry and Government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Barney, Darin (2004). “The democratic deficit in Canadian ICT policy and regulation,” in Marita Moll and Leslie Regan Shade (eds.), Seeking Convergence in Public Policy and Practice: Communications in the Public Interest, vol. 2, Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, pp. 93-110.

Barney, Darin (2005). Communication Technology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Beaty, B. & Sullivan, R. (2006). Canadian Television Today. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Benson, R. & Neveu, E. (2005). Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Cambridge UK: Polity.

Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on art and literature., (edited and intro-duced by R. Johnson) Cambridge: Polity Press.

Campaign for Communication Rights in the Information Society [CRIS] (2005). Assessing Communi-cation Rights: A Handbook. CRIS (September). www.crisinfo.org.

Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission [CRTC] (2007). PN 2007-20-3, “Review of the regulatory frameworks for broadcasting distributions undertakings and discretionary programming services.” Ottawa.

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission [CRTC] (2009). “CRTC extends exemption for new media and calls for a national digital strategy” Ottawa.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2009/r090604.htm

Carroll, W.K. (1997). “Social Movements and Counterhegemony: Canadian Contexts and Social Theories,” in W.K. Carroll (Ed.), Organizing Dissent: Contemporary Social Movements in Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. (pp. 3-38). Toronto: Garamond.

Carroll, W.K. & Hackett, R. (2006) “Democratic media activism through the lens of social movement theory.” Media, Culture & Society 28(1): 3-104.

Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union [CEP] (2004). Canadian Media: How to make it diverse, democratic and responsive. www.cep.ca./policies/mediapolicy_e.pdf

References


Couldry, N. and Curran, J. (eds) (2003). Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Department of Finance Canada (2009) “Immediate Action to Build Infrastructure” Ottawa.

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2009/plan/bpc3d-eng.asp

Dichter, A. (2005) ‘Together, we know more: Networks and coalitions to advance media democracy, communication rights and the public sphere 1990-2005,’ unpublished paper presented to Social Sci-ence Research Council ‘Necessary Knowledge Workshop,’ New York (April).

Downing, J. D.H. with Ford, T. V., Gil, G. and Stein, L. (2001) Radical Media: Rebellious Communi-cation and Social Movements, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Duncan, K. (ed) (1999). Liberating Alternatives: The Founding Convention of the Cultural Environ-ment Movement. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Edge, M. (2007). Asper Nation: Canada’s Most Dangerous Media Company. Vancouver: New Star.

Gamson, W.A. and Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). “Movements and media as interacting systems,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528: 114-25.

Hackett, R., & Carroll, W. (2006). Remaking Media: The struggle to democratize public communica-tion. London: Routledge.

Hackett, R. A. and Gruneau, R., with D. Gutstein, T. A. Gibson and NewsWatch Canada. (2000). The Missing News: Filters and Blind Spots in Canada’s Press. Toronto and Ottawa: Garamond Press/Ca-nadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Hanke, B. (2005). “For a political economy of Indymedia practice,” Canadian Journal of Communi-cation 30(1):41-64.

Hoover, Stewart. (1995). “Mass media and religious pluralism,” in Philip Lee (ed.), The Democratiza-tion of Communication. Cardiff: University of Wales/WACC, pp. 185-198.

Klandermans, B. (1992) “The social construction of protest and multiorganizational fields”, in A.D. Morris and C.M. Mueller (eds), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press: 77-103.

Klandermans, B. (2001). “Why social movements come into being and why people join them,” in J. Blaue (ed.), Blackwell Companion to Sociology, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 268-81.

Klinenberg, E. (2005). “Channelling into the journalistic field: Youth activism and the media justice movement,” in R. Benson & E. Neveu (eds.), Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press:174-193.

Klinenberg, E. (2007). Fighting for Air: The battle to control America’s media. New York: Metropoli-tan/Henry Holt.

LeMay, R. (2007) “Labor unveils AU$4.7 billion broadband plan” ZDNet Australia

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Labor-unveils-AU-4-7-billion-broadband-plan/0,130061791,339274391,00.htm

References


Listening Project (2004). The Makings of a Social Movement? Strategic issues and themes in commu-nications policy work. Philadelphia: OMG Center for Collaborative Learning.

McChesney, R.W. (1999). Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

McChesney, R.W. (2004) The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

McChesney, R.W. (2007). Communication Revolution: Critical junctures and the future of media. New York & London: New Press.

McChesney, R.W., & Hackett, R. (2005). “Beyond wiggle room: The democratic deficit of US cor-porate media, its global implications, and prospects for reform,” in R. Hackett and Y. Zhao (eds.), Democratizing Global Media: One World, Many Struggles, Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield (pp. 225-44).

McChesney, R.W., Newman, R. & Scott, B. (2005). The Future of Media: Resistance and reform in the 21st century. New York: Seven Stories.

Melucci, A. (1996) Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Moll, M. & Shade, L.R. (eds.). (2008). For Sale to the Highest Bidder: Telecom policy in Canada. Ot-tawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Mueller, M. Kuerbis, B. and Page, C. (2004). Reinventing Media Activism: Public Interest Advocacy in the Making of U.S. Communication-Information Policy, 1960-2002, Syracuse, NY: The Convergence Center, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University (www.digitalconvergence.org), 15 July.

Napoli, P. (2007). Public Interest Media Activism and Advocacy as a Social Movement: A review of the literature. Media, Arts and Culture Unit, Ford Foundation. (April; draft).

Nichols, J. and McChesney, R.W. (2005). Tragedy and Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy. New York, London: New Press.

Nowak, 9 (2008). “Rogers, Bell, Telus: The most profitable cellphones around” CBC Online.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09/04/tech-profit.html

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] (2008). “Broadband Growth and Policies in OECD Countries” Seoul. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/57/40629067.pdf

Opel, A. (2004). Micro Radio and the FCC: Media Activism and the Struggle over Broadcast Policy. Westport, CN, and London: Praeger.

O Siochru, S. (2005) “Finding a frame: Toward a Transnational Advocacy Campaign to Democratize Communication,” in R. Hackett and Y. Zhao (eds.), Democratizing Global Media: One World, Many Struggles, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield: 289-311.

Peers, F. (1969). The Struggle for Canadian Broadcasting, 1920-1951. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.


Perlmutter, T (2009) “Canada needs plan to compete in digital world: NFB chair”. CBC Online http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2009/12/30/nfb-digital perlmutter.html?ref=rss -

Powers, M. (2005). Moral Arguments for Media Reform: A Study in the Ethical Universe of the World Association for Christian Communication. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Canada. [R. Hackett, supervisor].

Raboy, M. (1984). Movements and Messages: Media and radical politics in Canada. Trans. D. Homel. Toronto: Between the Lines.

Raboy, M. (1990). Missed Opportunities: The Story of Canada’s Broadcasting Policy. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Raboy, M. (1995). “The role of public consultation in shaping the Canadian broadcasting system,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 28(3), September.

Raboy, Marc and Shtern, Jeremy (2008). “The horizontal view,” in Marc Raboy and Jeremy Shtern, with William J. McIver, Laura J. Murray, Sean O Siochru and Leslie Regan Shade (eds.), Two Tiers of Freedom: Communication Rights and the Right to Communicate in Canada, unpublished ms.

Rodriguez, C. (2001). Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizens Media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Savage, P. (2008). “Gaps in Canadian Media Research: CMRC Findings.” Canadian Journal of Com-munication 33(2): 291-301.

Skinner, D. (2008). “The struggle for the soul of Canadian media.” Canadian Dimension 42(1) (Janu-ary/February): 41-43.

Skinner, D., Gasher, M., & Compton, J. (eds.)(2005). Converging Media, Diverging Politics: A politi-cal economy of the news media in the United States and Canada. Lanham MD: Lexington Books.

Skinner, David, (2004), “Reform or Alternatives? Limits and Pressures on Changing the Mediascape.” Communique. Union for Democratic Communications. Volume 19, Spring: 14-38.

Starr, J. M. (2000) Air Wars: The Fight to Reclaim Public Broadcasting, Boston: Beacon Press.

Thomas, P. (2006). “The Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS) Campaign,” The International Communication Gazette 68(4): 291-312.

Winseck, D. (2008). “Media merger mania.” Canadian Dimension 42(1) (January/February): 30-32.

Winter, J. (2007). Lies the Media Tell Us. Montreal: Black Rose.

References


Revitalizing a media reform movement in Canada:AN ONLINE SURVEY

Welcome! You have been asked to participate in this study, entitled ‘Revitalizing a media reform movement in Canada: Survey and workshop.’ The objective of this study is to survey organizations and activists on their views regarding the role of media in achieving social change in Canada. We would like to learn more about your organization and the type of work in which you are involved. We also want to know if you believe that a better media system in Canada would improve the prospects for social change, how you feel we can improve these media systems, and if you would be interested in supporting media reform campaigns.

This project is a collaborative effort between the Campaign for Democratic Media (CDM - http://www.democraticmedia.ca), professor Robert Hackett at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, and the World Association for Christian Communication (WACC – an international organization concerned with communication rights for all www.waccglobal.org). This study has been made possible through funding from the Social Science Research Council’s Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere program. In addition to this survey, we shall be conducting interviews and a workshop. The results will be published and made available on the collaborating organizations’ websites and/or elsewhere online by the end of the year.

We need to add a word on confidentiality. Please consider any written comments you make in this survey to be on the record. If we quote you in the final report, we will identify you only by organiza-tional affiliation, not by name. However, if you grant us permission (at the end of this survey), your name and organization will be listed in an appendix to the published report, which may also be post-ed on the website of the Social Science Research Council (http://www.ssrc.org/) or elsewhere unless otherwise requested by you in the space provided below. While the overall survey results may be used in subsequent studies, your individual comments (beyond what is published in the final report of this report) will not be used unless you authorize us to do so.

While we would appreciate your answering every question below, you are not obliged to do so. The researchers have not sought permission from your employer or any other agency regarding your participation in this survey. This questionnaire is made available through www.surveymonkey.com, which is a licensee of the TRUSTe Privacy program; for its terms of use and privacy policy, please see http://www.surveymonkey.com/Monkey_Privacy.aspx. Through this online application, the re-sults of this survey will be stored on a server located in Portland, OR and according to the US Patriot Act may be searched by the law enforcement agencies.

Entering the survey indicates that you understand the purpose of this research and accept the above conditions regarding confidentiality. To enter click the “Next” button at the bottom of this page.

Copies of the results of this study upon its completion may be obtained by contacting the princi-pal investigator:

IAppendix

Online Survey Questionnaire


Professor Robert Hackettc/o School of CommunicationSimon Fraser University8888 University Drive,Burnaby, B.C. CanadaV5A 1S6

Phone: 778.782.3863Email: [email protected]

Any complaints about the study may be brought to:

Dr. Hal Weinberg, DirectorOffice of Research EthicsSimon Fraser University8888 University Drive,Burnaby, B.C. CanadaV5A 1S6

Phone: 778.782.6593Email: [email protected]

Entering the survey indicates that you understand the purpose of this research and accept the above conditions regarding confidentiality.

***************

The current state of Canada’s media system is quite dismal and filled with uncertainty. Public confi-dence in media is quickly dwindling as we fall victim to the backwind of government policies that fa-vour big media companies. Journalism in Canada is crumbling as a result of media concentration, the general economic slowdown, and lack of access to credit. Journalists are being laid off with nowhere to go. And while the current transition from analog to digital media and increased utilization of wire-less spectrum create new possibilities, big telecom companies are trying to become the gatekeepers of the Internet, and a potentially large segment of our population is at risk of being left out of the national conversation.

Organization Information:1. Name of the organization or group you represent• Your title•

Please describe, in a few sentences or less, the main goals and objectives of your organization2.



Please check off one category that best describes your organization’s main area of focus.3. Environment• Peace• Ethnic• Gender issues• Religion• labour/union• Media• Technology• Arts/culture•

Civil & Human rights -First Nations -Professional associations/service organizations -Political/advocacy -Foundation -Charity/education -Research/think tank -Other (please specify) -

Please estimate how many signed-up members your organization has:4. under 50• 50-99• 100-499• 500-999• 1,000-4,999• 5,000-9,999• 10,000-49,999• 50,000-99,999• over 100,000• don’t know• not applicable (e.g. this organization is not membership based)•

Regardless of whether they are signed-up members, how many people are on your organization’s 5. main contact email list?

don’t know• under 50• 50-99• 100-499• 500-999• 1,000-4,999• 5,000-9,999• 10,000-49,999• 50,000-99,999• over 100,000• not applicable (e.g. this organization does not use an email list)•


Please estimate your organization’s annual revenues:6. don’t know• under $1,000• $1,000-4,999• $5,000-9,999• $10,000-24,999• $25,000-99,999• $100,000-249,999• $250,000-999,999• $1-5 million• $5-25 million• over $25 million•

Please rate the importance of the following sources of funding for your organization from 1 to 5 7. (1=Not important; 3 = Somewhat important; 5 = very important; N/A or don’t know)

individual membership duesa. membership dues from affiliated organizationsb. individual donationsc. government grants or contractsd. grants or contracts from labour unionse. grants or contracts from for-profit businessesf. foundations and philanthropiesg. products or services (including publications, consulting) provided by our organization for a h. feeOther (please specify)i.

What are your organization’s top two priorities for the next 3 years? [Please list]8.

In pursuing its goals, how often does your organization carry out the following: (1. Never 2. 9. Seldom; 3. Sometimes; 4. Often Don’t know N/A

publish reports and other educational materials, etc.a. produce videosb. produce website updates/blogsc. issue news releases to the mediad. utilize other means of attracting media attentione. use paid advertisingf. lobby government officials, industry, politicians, partiesg. court challenges/legal casesh. engage in rallies, demonstrations, protestsi. use other forms of direct action or creative confrontation (sit-ins, boycotts, civil disobedi-j. ence)fund-raisek. send direct mail to supportersl. build and mobilize a membership base or network of supportersm. Other (please specify)n.



What would you characterize as the major accomplishments/achievements of your organization 10. in the past 5 years?

What are some of the major challenges or obstacles that your organization faces in achieving its 11. goals?

How often does your organization engage in collaborative projects or campaigns with other 12. organizations?

Never• Seldom• Occasionally• Often• Constantly•

Please list up to five of those organizations with which you have collaborated or partnered in the 13. past 3 years.

How familiar are you with each of the following concepts, organizations, or people? Rate from 1 14. (never heard of it) to 5 (very familiar). [3 = Familiar]

Global climate change• Canadian Institute for Public Interest Media• Net neutrality• Open source software• Friends of Canadian Broadcasting• rabble.ca• David Suzuki• Media Democracy Day• CanWest Global• Free Press (US organization)• Robert W. McChesney• Communication rights, or the right to communicate• SaveOurNet.ca•

Do you consider your advocacy work to be part of a social movement?15. Yes• Sometimes• No • Don’t know•

If so, which one(s)?

Consider the coverage of your organization and its issues in mainstream Canadian media (major 16. press, radio and broadcasting outlets). Please rate your level of satisfaction, from 1 (very dissatis-fied) to 5 (very satisfied). [3 = Satisfied]

Comments/Explanation


How does coverage of your organization and its issues in the CBC, compare with coverage in 17. other mainstream media? Please rate CBC’s coverage from 1 (much worse than other mainstream media) to 5 (much better than other mainstream media). [1 = much worse; 3 = the same; 5 = much better; don’t know; N/A]


Does the quality and diversity of journalism in Canada affect your work?18. Yes• No•

If so, in what ways?

In your view, how well are Canada’s mainstream media performing their role in a democratic 19. society? Rate them from 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). [3=average]

Additional comments

How, if at all, would you like to see the media changed?20.

In the past 5 years, has your organization engaged in campaigns or joined coalitions that aimed to 21. influence the media or change communication policy/regulation?

Yes• No• Don’t know• Not application•

If yes please explain.

Have independent, community, and alternative media ever been helpful to the work of your 22. organization? Rate them from 1 (never helpful) to 5 (very helpful). [3 = sometimes helpful; Don’t know; N/A]

Please explain.

How important is use of the Internet to the work of your organization? Rate from 1 (not at all 23. important), to 5 (very important). [3 = Somewhat important; Don’t know; N/A]


Would your work be negatively affected is large Internet Service Providers could develop a two-24. tiered service, where those with the most money could use a priority fast lane, and everyone else had to use a slow lane? This would also mean ISPs could limit which services or applications that are available to your and your organization.

Yes• No•

Please explain



In your view, how important is it that all Canadians have affordable access to the Internet? Rate 25. from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). [3= Medium importance]

Comments

Would you or your organization be likely to participate in future campaigns to change the media 26. and communications policy? Rate from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). [3 = Possibly; Don’t know; N/A]


Basic Information27. Name• Address• Address2• City/town• State• ZIP/postal code• Email address• Phone number•

May we publish your name and/or organization in a list intended as a resource for other re-28. searchers and activists? (Note: We would not include email addresses in such a publication.)

Yes, you may list both my name and organization• You may list my name only• You may list my organization only• I choose not to have either my name or organization published.•

Thank you for contributing to our study. Learn more about media issues in Canada at:http://democraticmedia.ca


The semi-structured interview schedule comprised the following questions:

Please provide a brief synopsis of your biography as a participant in advocacy work and the non-1. profit/NGO sector.

What are your organization’s core goals or mandate, and the strategies used to achieve them?2.

What is the main issue or priority on which you are working now, and in the near future? What is 2b. currently at the top of your organization’s agenda?

What resources (staff, networks, communication outreach, funding, membership, etc.) does your 3. organization have to pursue its goals – and where do you generate them from (membership, donations, foundations, grants, etc?)

What would you say have been your organization’s main achievements?4.

What have been your organization’s main disappointments (things you would have liked to 5. achieve, but have not been able to)?

What are the main obstacles in the way of your organization achieving its goals and which is the 6. greatest current threat?

Who would you identify as your organization’s main opponents?7.

Who would you identify as your organization’s most important and consistent partners/allies in 8. the past 5 years?

Does the organization see itself as part of a broader social movement? If so, which one(s)?9.

How important to the organization’s success is its representation within/access to ‘mainstream’ 10. Canadian media?

How would you characterize the organization’s relationship with the media and has the media 11. generally been helpful, a hindrance, or irrelevant?

How about CBC? Has its performance or your relationship with it, been different from other 12. media?

IIAppendix

Interview Questions

Interview Questions


How about independent, community, alternative media? Have they been important or helpful in 13. your organization’s work?

If the independent media sector was more popular or powerful, would that help your organiza-13b. tion pursue its goals?

How important is access to/use of the internet?14.

How would it affect your organization’s work if telecom companies could limit which services 14b. and applications have online access (net throttling), or if the Internet was turned into a two-tiered medium where those with the most money could buy access to a priority fast lane, and everyone else had to use a slow lane? Would these developments impact your work?

Would a more diverse, representative, accessible and democratic system of public communica-15. tion help your organization achieve its goals?

Have you personally or your organization ever supported campaigns or organizations on media 16. or communications issues?

Can you imagine circumstances where you would do so in the near future? What would they be?16b.


Workshop: Tuesday 26 May 2009

Venue: WACC Global Headquarters308 Main StreetToronto, ON. M4C 4X7

PresentLeslie Regan Shade (Concordia University); Keith Knight (Anglican Church of Canada); Bev Mur-phy (Anglican Church of Canada); David Skinner (York University); Karen Wirsig (Canadian Media Guild); Robert A. Hackett (Simon Fraser University); Steve Anderson (National Coordinator Open-Media.ca); Philip Savage (McMaster University); Jacqui McDonald (OpenMedia.ca); Trish Hennessy (Policy Alternatives); Anita Krajnc (Progressive Aesthetics); Dan O’Brien (ACTRA); Matt Adams (rabble.ca); Paul de Silva (Canada One TV); Michael Lithgow (Simon Fraser University), Arnold Amber (Communication Workers of America) Brent Patterson (The Council of Canadians); Randy Naylor (General Secretary, WACC); Philip Lee (Deputy Director of Programs, WACC).

Introductions1. The workshop was opened by Randy Naylor, General Secretary of WACC, who highlighted WACC’s long-standing involvement in communication rights and media reform ranging from the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) to the Campaign for Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS) to involvement in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). He thanked the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) for their generous financial support of the survey through a Small Collaborative Grant.

Participants introduced themselves and the work of their different organizations.

Current communications/media policy issues in Canada2. Professor David Skinner presented an outline of the main issues facing media reform, including emerging topics such as supporting local television and journalism, increased resources for CBC, supporting mandate driven and non-profit local media; ongoing issues such as Internet (new media) broadcasting, Net Neutrality, community broadcasting, and the switch to digital television. There is also a watching brief on issues such as possible erosion of Canadian ownership regulations and the possible merger of the telecommunications and broadcasting acts.

Participants raised other issues: How to ensure that there is Canadian choice – that Canadians have options? How to create more space for Canadians to find Canadian content? In this regard, new me-dia broadcasting ‘needs regulatory formation to support Canadian diversity’. ‘Important to look back at what happened in 1990s: consolidation led to losses of investigative reporting and the subsequent

IIIAppendix

OpenMedia.ca/WACC Workshop Minutes

OpenMedia.ca/WACC Workshop


impact on informing Canadians and voter apathy regarding political questions.’ There is a ‘real issue to be addressed around the de-professionalization of journalism – apparent abundance of choice but no real diversity at local level.’

Other comments included: User-generated media are very professional and we should beware making an artificial divide. What are the resources available and impact on long-term sustainability? Much go-ing on re new wireless communication. Copyright bill is an issue, plus privacy issues, libel issues, and environmental issues relating to dependence on ICTs. How to support amateur media production? Who controls the media? Big media are still very powerful in shaping messages.

It was generally agreed that OpenMedia.ca and others need to be closely involved in ongoing • hearings in Ottawa, such as the Heritage Hearings. Depressing that they do not appear to be interested in media reform issues which might be paid lip-service in reports but not taken up by politicians. Viewers are left out of the equation.Moving away from use of public airwaves for public services to corporate and private inter-• ests with no explanation of what is going on.Swapping volume and clarity of digital technology for content and quality.• Threat to local stations: if you have no way to reach a local audience, why have a local sta-• tion?Is there any opportunity under fee for carriage to support local cultural initiatives? Vast • potential in local programming and finding ways to fund it given the interests of local com-munities and audiences.Problem of stranglehold of cable companies on decision-making at CRTC and in other • areas of media policy-making. Need to return to issue of public right to communication and to public understanding of what is actually going on in media ownership and control.Problem of changing thinking patterns and getting messages across especially using poten-• tial of new media; finding space for public service issues such as genuine community/local media production that has its own resources and strategies.

Current campaigns and activities of OpenMedia.ca3. Steve Anderson, OpenMedia.ca National Coordinator, spoke of the need to be well informed and well organized. OpenMedia.ca is a network working for media democracy and intervening in media policy battles. Broad tactics are needed: from public forums and social media to policy intervention. Media ownership and concentration; support for public media; keeping online communications open and accessible. Pushing for more support for public and community media; tighter controls over public funding for media; policy interventions such as Net Neutrality. OpenMedia.ca is currently working on:

‘Open Internet Town Halls’ encouraging public hearings• Designing an Internet Town Hall Tool-kit aimed at encouraging citizens to organize their • own events to talk about the future of the Internet,A reinventing journalism/local media campaign•


Declaration of 21st Century Media• A media democracy day – one-day public forum on media issues.•

Proposal to link OpenMedia.ca work to upcoming renewal of broadcasting licenses. Also to look at model of Channel 4 (United Kingdom) and SBS (Australia) for problems and lessons learned.

Participants agreed that alternative programming service is to provide an alternative public broadcast-ing service not, as it has been interpreted, to offer minority ethnic language services.

Need to take an international perspective and look at trade agreements and limitations on state subsi-dies (EU model is currently facing these challenges).

Need for OpenMedia.ca participants to do more groundwork, introduce themselves to politicians, to find common ground. Politicians also need to know and to connect with what is happening in the community.

Overview of the survey and interviews of social movement organizations in Canada 4. (about 75), funded by Social Science Research Council; their views/orientation to demo-cratic media [see Appendix 1]

Professor Robert A. Hackett (Simon Fraser University) summarised the results to date of one of the three components of the research – the online survey of advocacy groups in Canada (implied rather than definitive results regarding how to frame issues and to build alliances). He noted that gender and religion are two constituencies that could be better used and remarked on the low responses from peace, ethnic, technology and charitable organizations where more work needs to be done.

Hackett pointed to the importance of government funding to NGOs, which may lead to a certain amount of conservatism. The significance of external funding emphasises the vulnerability of NGO work and need for financial independence. He highlighted general familiarity with the Canadian me-dia reform movement as opposed to US equivalents.

Difficulty of identifying nexus for progressive organizations regarding media reform issues.

Absence of quality journalism and decline in local journalism - media’s lack of resources – could be a framing point for campaigning.

Is there a link between dissatisfaction with mainstream media and engagement in media activism? By and large, yes, but not uniformly.

Need for a concise platform rather than a broad listing of concerns. Internet is clearly very important (open access) to citizenship, democracy, equality, and Net throttling would place limits on distribution of content, mobilization, and have an impact of financing.

The dissemination plan for the research includes a written report for SSRC; publication on web sites (OpenMedia.ca, WACC, CCR). It was proposed that Op-eds in select publications be pursued. Ask groups to write 1,000 words on specific issues related to Canadian media reform (Trish Hennessy of



Policy Alternatives volunteered to help).

5. What work are participants doing in this area?CMG Free TV Campaign. Problem of urban/rural divide. Need to maintain local presence after over-the-air transmitters are shut down. Need for maximum publicity about what is going on and its likely impact.

CWA survey and awareness campaign re chain selling of media enterprises (e.g. newspapers) resulting in loss of local identity, loss of local jobs, and editorial dependence on outsiders.

Problem of finding a sustainable base for advocacy of media reform issues.

Problem of mandatory carriage and transponder space: no space set aside in Canada for not-for-profits, only for provincial over-the-air broadcasters and provincial educational broadcasters. There may be more space than is apparent and the technology is changing. Therefore, advocating for man-datory access is worth campaigning for.

ACTRA working on issues affecting drama, prime time, copyright, Canadian content, and arguing for guarantees. ISPs should have to contribute to producing Canadian content. Against Net throttling, but there should also be dedicated spaces.

Canada One TV campaigning for a coalition dedicated to a not-for-profit national broadcasting reflecting cultural diversity – need for provision in Broadcasting Act for a model that includes local production that tells local stories.

Three further opportunities: Peace journalism movement as a way of reframing journalism theory and practice; global climate justice – communication for social change leading to just and sustainable societies; the Global Media Monitoring Project (GMMP).

6. Where to from here?

6.1 Activities

SaveOurNet.ca campaign• Saving journalism (esp. local journalism) and tying it to local broadcasting• Comparative research on models adopted by other countries• Annual event – Media Democracy Day based on issues• Save local programming (news, drama, etc.)• Local voices/Canadian connections• Re-establish connections: making the issues important• Making global connections: media, social justice, poverty (interconnectivity)• Networking among other language minority groups in Canada (comment that if you want •


to reach out, you need talking points/message/’story’ + vocabulary/glossary of terms and issues)Develop grassroots activism among community centres, schools, university campuses, etc.• Media literacy movement (esp. in schools)• Associations of librarians• Fund-raising to support activities• Tap into dissatisfactions among young people• Reimagining (rather than reinventing) the media: What do you want the media to be?• How to bring the issues of media reform back into the academy to do research or studies in • order to shore up the movement?Toolkits on media reform issues (a series of actions related to topics)• Touchstone questions that resonate (e.g. freedom of the press in the USA) - in Canada space • to tell our own stories?Support local media; think organic media; ‘Think global, buy local’ (media).• Zoom/zap/view/watch/listen/read/text local. ‘Better be local’.•

6.2 Strategising6.2.1 Campaign: Need criteria for evaluating a campaign that is sustainable; resonates with publics; has clear goals and benchmarks for success; venues for intervention; long-term capacity building. Need for focus groups to determine framework for action.

Focus/constituencies/goals/venues: Using rhetoric of (re)connecting to ‘local’. Online campaign aimed at heads of big media organizations and at media practitioners to gain broader attention (a public statement masquerading as a letter to…) ‘You guys control what we see/read/listen to… and here’s what people are thinking about that…’ Useful to insert notion of people being in control of their own media. ‘If you are not in control, who is?’

Concrete support for local media (including community broadcasting)/Net neutrality/developing a new model for public service media.

Short survey among those on e-mail list for campaign theme. Need to make sure e-mail list is repre-sentative of diversity in Canada. Then draft a campaign plan for approval to be launched on Media Democracy Day 2009.

Demographics suggest that there is a large segment of the population disconnecting from main-stream media and going to, or seeking, alternative media to see themselves reflected. Need a con-scious strategy to reach out to them. Tap into existing organizations in diverse communities to get them on side.

Young people may not understand that there is a problem to be addressed. This aspect needs to be built into any campaign – focusing on media content in general, what it might mean to have their ideas and perspectives represented in media.



6.2.2 Event: Hold an event to bring together a broader range of people from throughout the country (e.g. a conference). One possibility ‘Global journalism/local community media’, two days building on issues at York University in March 2010.

Annual Congress of Social Sciences & Humanities conferences (Canadian Communication Associa-tion) at Carleton in 2009 looking at activist collaborations. Take to Concordia next year in May?


ONLINE SURVEY

The North-South Institute Appropriation Art National Campus and Community Radio Association Canadian Council of Muslim Women Briarpatch Magazine Women’s Executive NetworkCinema Politica Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest ClinicC.M.E.S. Community Media EducationConcordia University Canadian Association of Community Television Users and StationsTelecommunities Canada Canadian Artists’ Representation (CARFAC)Women in Film & Television Public Interest Advocacy Centre Straight Goods.ca British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union YES! First Nations Education Council Citizens for Public Justice Canadian Federation of University Women Cultural Human Resources Council (CHRC)Professional Association of Canadian Theatres linuxcaffe Media Education Project Corporate Knights Vancouver Alliance for Arts and CultureMaytree Foundation BC Teachers’ Federation Vancouver Foundation Edmonton Small Press Association (ESPA)Professional Writers Association of Canada CanAssociation of Cultural Executives Politics, Re-Spun Presbyterian Record Association of Chinese Canadians for Equality and Solidarity Society (ACCESS)Aujourd’hui Credo

IVAppendix

Organization Participants

Organization Participants

**Thirteen organizations asked not to be identified. The following is a list of those who agreed to have their name published.


Christian Science Committee on Publication Media Action Média The Media Justice Project (University of Windsor) rabble.ca Canadian Media Guild World Association for Christian Communication (WACC)OpenMedia.ca (formerly known as Campaign for Democratic Media)

INTERVIEWS:

Consumers Council of CanadaThe Council of CanadiansFriends of Canadian BroadcastingCanadian Association of University TeachersRideau InstituteDouglas-Coldwell FoundationAlliance of Canadian Cinema, Radio & Television Artists (ACTRA)Canadian Conference of the ArtsCanadian Federation of StudentsColumbia InstituteCheck Your HeadThe Tyee W2 Community Media Arts CentreTelecommunications Workers UnionMaytree FoundationNOW MagazinePublic Service Alliance of CanadaRenewal


REVITALIZING A MEDIA REFORM MOVEMENT IN CANADA

www.OpenMedia.ca http://www.waccglobal.org/

REVITALIZING A MEDIA REFORM MOVEMENT IN CANADA by Robert A. Hackett & Steve Anderson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5

Canada License. To view a copy of this license visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/

SSRC Report(2)

Documents