|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Across Canada - 199716784
|
Suspensive conditions of licence for Bravo!
|
1. In Public Notice CRTC 1997-157 dated 23 December 1997, the Commission announced an application by CHUM Limited requesting that the Commission suspend the application of the conditions of licence on sex-role portrayal and the depiction of violence in television programming as long as the licensee of the specialty service Bravo remains a member in good standing of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
|
2. The Commission, by majority vote, approves this request. In this regard, the existing conditions of licence 7 and 9 are deleted and the following substituted therefor:
|
7. The licensee shall adhere to the guidelines on gender portrayal set out in the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' (CAB) Sex-Role Portrayal Code for Television and Radio Programming, as amended from time to time and approved by the Commission. The application of the foregoing condition of licence will be suspended as long as the licensee (i.e. Bravo) remains a member in good standing of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC).
|
9. The licensee shall adhere to the guidelines on the depiction of violence in television programming set out in the CAB's Voluntary Code Regarding Violence in Television Programming, as amended from time to time and approved by the Commission. The application of the foregoing condition of licence will be suspended as long as the licensee (i.e. Bravo) remains a member in good standing of the CBSC.
|
3. The Commission received an intervention from MediaWatch opposing the supensive conditions for Bravo because a Montréal radio station owned by CHUM Limited continues to broadcast The Howard Stern Show, a program that has been the subject of complaints and has been found by the CBSC to contravene both the CAB's Code of Ethics and Sex-Role Portrayal Code.
|
4. In reply to the intervention, the licensee indicated that the current application concerns the specialty service Bravo which has always complied with the self-regulatory process and has had very few complaints with respect to its programming. The licensee added that it intends to comply with all of Bravo's conditions of licence and the self-regulatory broadcast codes.
|
5. The Commission is satisfied that approval of this application is consistent with its approach toward industry self-regulation. Further, the Commission is satisfied that the status of Bravo with respect to these industry codes should not be linked to any complaints about a program broadcast by a radio station which, although also licensed to CHUM Limited, is recognized by the CBSC as having a separate membership status.
|
This decision is to be appended to the licence.
|
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
Dissenting opinion of Commissioner Andrew Cardozo
|
My reasons for dissenting from the majority decision in this matter are as follows.
|
The Commission received an application from Bravo, requesting suspension of the conditions of licence on sex-role portrayal and the depiction of violence in television programming such that these matters would be monitored by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). The Commission also received an intervention from a public interest group, MediaWatch, opposing this request. (MediaWatch is of the belief that CHOM-FM continues to air The Howard Stern Show in contravention of the guidelines administered by the CBSC, and in essence CHUM Limited (CHUM), which owns CHOM-FM and Bravo, should be held responsible for all its licensees). As such, I felt that the Commission was presented with two viable options.
|
The first option was to approve the application by Bravo based on the recognition that Bravo and CHOM-FM hold separate licences and hence, separate membership in the CBSC. A majority of the Commission chose this approach.
|
The second option was to deny the Bravo application at this time, based on the recognition that, while Bravo and CHOM-FM are operated under two separate licences, they are part of the same corporation, CHUM. CHUM holds the licences for both undertakings and this corporation/licensee has the ability to exercise its corporate responsibility and corporate citizenship in whichever way it chooses. I felt that it would have been more appropriate for the Commission to deny the application at this time.
|
Being members of a large corporate entity has its definite benefits. First, there are the internal benefits related to economies of scale, sharing of resources and creative synergies. Second, applicants for broadcasting licences who are part of larger established corporate entities have various advantages from a regulatory perspective. They can have an advantage in the competitive licensing process because they have experience in the application process and have a proven track record in broadcasting, business planning and marketing.
|
The Commission routinely interacts with corporations such as CHUM, and corporate executives, who may be representing the interests of any or all of its various parts. I believe that it is fair for the Commission to make requests or demands of these corporations on matters that are in the public interest.
|
It is not irrelevant that, in the decision licensing Bravo (Decision CRTC 94-281), the Commission notes:
|
The new service, to be known as Bravo!, will operate as a division of CHUM, which owns 21 radio stations across Canada, and is the largest corporate group in the Canadian radio industry. CHUM...also owns and operates MuchMusic, Canada's original English-language music video specialty service, and is a co-owner (with Radiomutuel) of MusiquePlus, the French-language music video specialty service. In addition CHUM owns six television stations...
|
|
|
The CBSC has found the show to be seriously problematic and has condemned it in unusually strong terms. In its intervention, MediaWatch has also alleged that "Stern's on-going sexist comments and programming decisions create a climate of misogyny and violence towards women". I am not convinced that CHUM has done enough to address this serious problem.
|
The editing of the show, in response to the CBSC reports, deals with only the most egregious comments. The real question about the show is whether the ongoing banter, be it in a humorous or serious context, has too much graphic sex and sexist content, in addition to other forms of offensiveness.
|
Further, I am not convinced that the show meets the "high standard" requirement of section 3(1)(g) of the Broadcasting Act.
|
Threat to Canadian values - core of the concern
|
While the American-produced Howard Stern Show has aired in Canada since September 1998 and is now well entrenched, it clearly presents a serious challenge to community and broadcasting standards in this country. Given the views that the CBSC has clearly articulated, I am concerned that The Howard Stern Show may well be the most serious threat to Canadian radio as we know it, especially to talk radio. Further, given that the show has a special appeal for teenage males, I am concerned that we are raising a whole generation of young men who are encouraged to believe that constant sexist and offensive banter is the desired norm. This is the core of my concern with the show.
|
The show raises the following troubling questions:
|
- Do Canadian listeners become desensitized to the type of language and has this show become the acceptable Canadian norm?
|
- Do complainants become worn down while the broadcaster in question has endless resources to keep up the fight? Do complainants just give up on the CBSC and by extension the CRTC?
|
- How long will it be before radio stations in cities other than Toronto and Montréal also carry the Stern show?
|
- Will competitors in each city be forced to compete by lowering the bar of what is acceptable in Canada?
|
While it is my view that this show is not acceptable according to Canadian standards, it is worth noting that the Federal Communications Commission in the United States has strongly condemned the show and levied significant fines against it. It is not my intention to suggest that the show meets American standards, only that it is American produced and that it is not comparable to any show produced in Canada.
|
|
|
Having noted my concerns about The Howard Stern Show, let me state my views about CHUM. To date, and on many other fronts, I have been impressed with CHUM and the various undertakings for which it holds licences - CITY-TV, Pulse24 (CP24), MuchMusic, MusiquePlus and even Bravo. CHUM's innovative approach actively reaches out to youth. Programming by MuchMusic and MusiquePlus has by and large, demonstrated the ability to be attractive to viewers, economically viable and responsible in terms of the public interest. These services along with CITY-TV are also industry leaders for the way they reflect and integrate the cultural diversity of Canadians and the reality of Canada today. In my view, such programming by CHUM, to date, ought to be a model for other broadcasters.
|
To a large extent, the Stern show is out of character for CHUM. Inevitably, with personalities like Howard Stern who are larger than life, the Stern personality becomes a big part of the CHUM personality. This happens positively or negatively with many broadcasting personalities. Broadcasting history will record that it was CHUM, along with WIC Radio Ltd. (CILQ-FM Toronto), that brought The Howard Stern Show to Canada.
|
The intervention by MediaWatch afforded the Commission the opportunity to ask CHUM to demonstrate that it could exercise good Canadian corporate citizenship with all of its licences in regard to the sex-role portrayal and violence issues. My belief is that an approach of persuasion is clearly preferable to other regulatory mechanisms. The more broadcasters make responsible decisions in the public interest, the less will be the need for CRTC intervention.
|
|
|
I should also compliment MediaWatch for its many years of service in the public interest in its attempts to eliminate sexism in the media. Their intervention helped me greatly in deciding on my view in this matter. Public interest groups, and the public at large, should feel encouraged to intervene more regularly in the public consultation process of the CRTC.
|
|
|
It is also my intention, through this dissent, to demonstrate strong support for the self-regulatory process of the CBSC, which was appropriately established by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
|
Support for Bravo application on advertising minutes
|
It is worth noting that the Commission unanimously approved the application by Bravo to amend the condition of licence increasing from 8 to 12 minutes the advertising material allowed during each clock hour (Decision CRTC 98-150 dated 8 May 1998). I supported this decision because it was not tied to the issue of self-regulation. For me, the issues of self-regulation and advertising are severable, whereas the issue of corporate responsibility should apply in a similar manner to all divisions of a corporation.
|
For all these reasons, I would have preferred that the Commission deny Bravo's application at this time.
|
The Howard Stern Show on TV
|
On 15 June 1998, CHUM announced that CITY-TV would be carrying the Howard Stern television show this fall. I am not commenting on it here for two reasons: first, it is outside the record and time frame of this application regarding Bravo. Second, it would be premature for me as a member of the Commission to pass any judgement on it before the show has even been aired.
|