National Campus Radio members want to be self-regulated. That is a proposal under review by the CRTC in Public Notice 2011-797: Call for comments on the National Campus and Community Radio Association’s proposed Codes of Conduct and proposed guidelines and best practices.

The last time I wrote about the association of campus radio stations was last September, in relation to the Association having passed a resolution at its annual convention calling for “a comprehensive boycott of Israeli media institutions at the national and international levels.”

That resolution has been made an issue in an intervention by The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) in the CRTC’s review. According to CIJA,

the NCRA’s BDS policy will render their proposed codes of conduct woefully deficient in the application of equitable content and balance, with an ineffective complaints mechanism. It is our position that, if the NCRA proposal is approved, every Israel related complaint against them would have to be adjudicated directly by the CRTC, given the inherent bias resulting from the NCRA’s BDS policy. Instead, it would make far more sense for the NCRA to adhere to the CAB Code of Ethics and be regulated by the CBSC, where complaints could be adjudicated fairly and broadcast programming held to a higher standard. Should the NCRA be granted its own self-regulated codes of conduct, we will ultimately be forced to intervene in their license renewal with the CRTC.

By virtue of a resolution passed by the National Campus Radio Association at its 2011 Plenary, it is not clear that the Association can simultaneously demonstrate the balance required to adjudicate a complaint and adhere to resolution F7 requiring that the body will

Work toward the condemnation of Israeli policies by encouraging that resolutions be adopted by our respective radio stations, associations, and organizations.

This appears to be in direct conflict with NCRA’s proposed Guideline 3 to:

encourage balance in our programming schedules by… actively engaging a variety of volunteers, and encouraging community involvement in our programming, thereby providing the means for diverse points of view to be represented.

These appear to be incompatible.

You can’t always expect online polls to be representative.

A research firm like Angus Reid knows that.

Sure, maybe the online population’s love of breakfast cereals matches the general population, but there are certainly areas that we can expect to be skewed by only surveying online users. I suspect that use of technology is one of those areas.

That is why I am reading the latest Rogers Innovation Report with a critical eye. Don’t get me wrong. The report has some very interesting and helpful information to understand how people are using technology. I just don’t think there should be confusion about whether this is supposed to be representative of the Canadian population at large.

The important caveat is found near the bottom of the press release under the heading of “About the survey”:

From January 13^th to January 23^rd 2012, an online survey was conducted among 1,403 randomly selected adult Canadians that own a smartphone or tablet and use texting, social networking, video calling, email, instant messaging, or BBM. All were Angus Reid Forum panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 2.6%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to region and gender. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

Let’s parse this.

It is an “online survey”, so we eliminated the 20% of Canadian households that have no home computer. The survey was of “Canadians that own a smartphone or tablet”, which knocks out half of cell-phone users who do not yet have a smartphone, and then further reduce that to eliminate the subset (likely small) who don’t use their smartphone or tablet for the kinds of things we expect them to. The results were weighted for geography and gender, but no other weighting – apparently – for age, intensity of internet use, etc. We also know that the sample was drawn from existing Angus Reid Forum participants – people who like to fill out online surveys in exchange for compensation.

Is that subset of the population representative of Canadians in general or even technology users in general?

The Rogers Innovation Report has some interesting information. Just be careful extrapolating the results.

Media Awareness Network (MNet) released a thought provoking report [report pdf, press release] yesterday.

It is worth looking at.

The report found there are still significant challenges to overcome before digital technologies can succeed in enriching students’ learning – one of the main barriers being students’ lack of digital literacy skills. Interestingly, the report says that typical school filters and policies banning or restricting networked devices in the classroom may take away opportunities needed to help youth develop digital literacy skills, such as good judgment and responsible use.

These are among the findings in Young Canadians in a Wired World, Phase III: Teachers’ Perspectives.

In the study, MNet sought to better understand how digital technologies are being integrated into classrooms, enhance learning, and examine the impact on the teacher-student relationship.

Digital literacy has been a frequent issue raised on these pages – although I had focused on Canadians that are not yet connected, Canadians who do not yet have a computer.

MNet’s report examines the need to improve skills among kids who may be competent at using and navigating, but not necessarily digital literate.

All of the teachers we talked to indicated that their students loved working – and playing – with smart phones, iPods, iPads, computers and networked devices of all kinds. But they also agreed that simple access to networked technologies has not made their students better learners. In spite of the fact that young people demonstrate a facility with online tools, many students lack the skills they need to use those tools effectively for learning. There is also a real propensity on the part of students to take what they find online as “given”.

Improved digital literacy is a critical element in building Canada’s information economy. In the absence of a National Digital Strategy, where will we find leadership in developing these skills?

The failure to set out a coherent National Digital Strategy is contributing to confusion over how pieces are supposed to fit together.

We have seen the government make various spending announcements, tinker with R&D initiatives, introduce modernized copyright legislation and enhanced digital surveillance powers – all without a clear target in sight. Yesterday’s release of the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” did not mention “National Digital Strategy” despite its impact on telecommunications services providers?

As I have written before, the strategy should have been released first.

Privacy, modernized copyright, support for increased R&D, digital law enforcement investigative powers and more are all important parts of our government’s strategy. But let’s face it, the strategy itself must be at least as important. Otherwise, how important can these piece parts be?

In the absence of a road map to a prescribed destination, shouldn’t we at least get a clear statement about the direction toward which we are heading?

I’ll add communications competition and foreign investment to the list of issues that should flow from a coherent strategy.

What about digital literacy and business transformation?

The national digital strategy is yet another file opened nearly 2 years ago with much fanfare – a cross-ministerial initiative to consider a broad national digital strategy – and never completed.

Would it have been easier for the government to win support for its initiatives if there had first been a road map set out?

How does this government want to lead Canada in a fast paced global Digital Economy?

A year ago, I was already frustrated with lengthy delays in the foreign ownership file.

Then Minister Tony Clement opened the foreign ownership consultation at The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit: June 7, 2010. That was 20 months ago.

At the time, I warned against a lengthy review process. I spoke with the Canadian Press right after the consultation was launched:

Industry analyst Mark Goldberg, who also organizes the telecom summit, praised the government’s initiative but also said it is prudent to quickly advance the plan, because the leaving the future uncertain could actually hurt all of the carriers.

“Once you open a process and there’s uncertainty as to which direction is going to be followed, it creates an overhang for the capital markets. The ability of companies to raise capital during that interim period of uncertainty can’t be overstated,” he said. “It could be extremely damaging to small players and large players alike to have a lengthy period of uncertainty when you’ve got such a capital intensive business.”

The government continues to procrastinate, hampering the investment climate. While I have preferences for what the rules should look like, they take a backseat to simply having a decision put in place.

In the absence of clarity, investors will look elsewhere and Canadian companies will pay a premium for capital. That adds to costs, reduces investment, hampers job growth and leads to increased consumer prices.

Four months ago, I called it “A dusty file.” We’re long overdue for the Minister to start cleaning.