While feeding at the public trough, Canada’s association of campus radio stations apparently want to censor other media voices.
At its annual general meeting in Halifax this year, the National Campus Radio Association passed a resolution (Resolution 2011-F7) calling for “a comprehensive boycott of Israeli media institutions at the national and international levels”, including a call to “Refrain from participation in any form of cooperation, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli media institutions”.
I won’t get into the politics other than to point out that Israel is the only country whose media have been selected for censorship by NCRA, despite its institutions being independent, operating within the only democracy in the region.
What I will look at are the regulatory and communications policy issues raised by this. For example, presentation of diverse viewpoints is a key policy under the Broadcasting Act:
3. (1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that
…
(d) the Canadian broadcasting system should…
(iii) through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society, …
The CAB Code of Ethics requires
Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation
It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers.
Clause 7 – Controversial Public Issues
Recognizing in a democracy the necessity of presenting all sides of a public issue, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature. Time shall be allotted with due regard to all the other elements of balanced program schedules, and the degree of public interest in the questions presented. Recognizing that healthy controversy is essential to the maintenance of democratic institutions, broadcasters will endeavour to encourage the presentation of news and opinion on any controversy which contains an element of the public interest.
The campus radio association resolution is troubling in that it flies in the face of balance required under the Act and under the industry codes. How can a “fair, full and proper presentation” of controversial issues be provided if the democratic free press of a Canadian ally are being silenced by this boycott?
In July, a month after the NCRA meeting, the CRTC handed millions of dollars to campus radio stations [Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-431]. That decision approved the Operational Plan [pdf] of the Community Radio Fund of Canada (CRFC), which affirms its continued accountability to the CRTC in Section C of the plan. “The CRFC also welcomes questions from the Commission throughout the year.”
It seems to me that the CRTC may wish to file a question with the CRFC to determine if the CRFC will establish, as a condition of funding an individual station, an assurance that the station will not silence diverse perspectives and will distance itself from media censorship.
Is the CRFC intended to be independent of the NCRA, which resolved not to cooperate, etc., with Israeli media? The organizations’ websites say that they are operated from the same premises on the second floor of 325 Dalhousie Street, in Ottawa, and that the CRFC’s sole employee was previously the national director of the NCRA.
Mark, this resolution is a not binding on stations; individual member stations make their own choices around supporting any political action. Regardless, I don’t accept that a boycott constitutes any sort of violation of the Broadcasting Act nor the CAB Code of Ethics, and would be curious to see some case law or CBSC decisions that prove me wrong. In fact, I expect such actions are fully protected by the Charter.
I am also curious how this boycott might “silence diverse perspectives”. It seems to me to be focused only on media institutions, not individuals nor particular positions. I expect any station that supported the resolution is fully committed to broad political discourse, and to imply otherwise is disingenuous.
Surprised Listener, the CRFC is a completely separate institution from the community radio associations and takes no position on NCRA or individual station political activities that do not violate Canadian law. Doing otherwise would violate the mandate of the CRFC.
Eric