My name is John Muir.  I live in the city of Peterborough, Ontario.



I have worked in all areas in radio and the performing arts for roughly 

twenty five years, having had the privilege of establishing a radio 

undertaking about thirteen years ago, and the further privilege of 

experiencing both the successes and failures of this and other non-

profit cultural organisations. 



The opinions expressed here are my own.  While these matters have been 

discussed at with those who I work with in my capacity as a general 

manager of a campus station and in the larger community, they should 

not be presumed to be official and/or sanctioned positions. 



A) Why not a review of all radio in Canada?



In hindsight, the administrative convenience of fabricating "sector" 

divisions within radio broadcasting has undermined the intent of the 

Act's directive that broadcasting in Canada is one system. 



Opportunities to access and reflect on the role for radio, as a whole, are 

not available to the public during individual license application or 

renewal processes. 



By divining a "sector by sector" review of radio, the potential for an 

overall analysis of the radio system is missed. 



Segmenting is a managerial expediency and leads to oversimplification. 



B) Role of Campus Radio & the Balance requirement:



Subsequent to representations from certain c/c stations the CRTC 

(PN92-72 - 02Nov92) amended the role of c/c radio to include the provision 

"programming serving the needs of socially, culturally, politically and 

economically disadvantaged groups within the community." 



It would appear that many c/c entities see this as their exclusive purview. 

(Transcript of "Campus Radio Review Discussion" held at UVic - 12Jun98) 



Is it the opinion of the Commission that other varieties of licensees have no 

obligations in these matters? 



I would contend that it is the role of all licensees to serve the needs of 

the socially, culturally, politically and economically disadvantaged. 



Further, it was argued at the "Discussion" (and elsewhere) that given this 

new role, c/c licensees should not be obliged to provide balanced 

programming, beyond making the offer of air time to "the other side". 



I contend that the offer (or non-offer) by the licensee, nor the acceptance 

or refusal of air time, by a particular group or individual, does not 

directly satisfy the "right of the audience to be informed about differing 

views on matters of public concern." (CRTC PN93-78).  Rather is it a tool 

(among many) which a licensee can utilise to meet the balance requirement. 



Thus, I would also assert that the notion that c/c licensees must produce 

programming in accord with a complainant's opinions should an offer of air 

time be refused, does not, in itself, satisfy balance. 



In fact, pandering to particular complainants, could be construed to show 

that a licensee has failed to meet its obligation to "retain full control 

over all decisions concerning the management and programming of this 

station..."  (usu CRTC condition of licence).  I am delighted with the 

present state of affairs.  Namely, that individual licensees (as producers) 

are to decide and argue for how balance is to be achieved in their 

particular communities, and that the CRTC (as regulator) does not dictate 

how balance is to be achieved.  The CRTC is not a producer. 



Balance is premised on the idea of a "right to hear" a range of points of 

view on matter of public concern.  Airing one opinion and that of a 

complainant is not a range.  I believe the meaning of "alternative" in the 

context of the CRTC's definition of the role for c/c radio should be 

interpreted to encourage and stimulate expression, rather than less. 



It has been argued that c/c radio should be the "voice of voiceless" with 

other varieties of radio licensee following their own missions and virtually 

unlimited channel capacity from other emerging media, c/c radio should be 

released from the balance obligation. 



These opinions clearly resonate with arguments made by single faith (mainly 

Christian evangelical) interests who oppose the balance policy during the 

CRTC review of policies pertaining to religious broadcasting in 1993. 



As some Commissioners stated, a broadcast licence is a licence to participate 

in the Canadian broadcasting system. It is not a right but a privilege, 

granted only to those who are prepared to pledge their commitment to freedom 

of expression by providing access to *all* voices which might be raised on 

issues of public concern 



(* = my emphasis)



As last note regarding the role of c/c radio



In my experience, most people listen to radio as individuals and not in 

groups.  The usage of the term "group", portends towards a "market" analysis 

of the system which does not well serve a well-informed interpretation of 

the Act.  Canada is not only a MARKET. Note:  The term "market" is referred 

to in the Act only twice. Once, in the calculation of license fees, and once 

further regarding distribution of CBC programming services outside Canada. 



I would suggest that the word "groups" be replaced by the word "individuals" 

or perhaps that clause be amended to read; 



  "programming serving the needs of the socially, culturally, 

   politically and economically disadvantaged within the 

   community." 



C)  Ownership



Shortly after licence renewal in 1993 Trent Radio (CFFF) received the 

following from the CRTC. 



  Decision CRTC 93-430-1



  Trent Radio



  Peterborough, Ontario

  Correction to condition of licence for CFFF-FM - Trent University



  The commission hereby corrects Decision CRTC 93-430, specifically the

  condition of licence pertaining to the structure of the board of directors,

  by replacing the phrase "the majority of directors be students" with

  "representatives of the student body, faculty, alumni or administration

  representatives of the university or college with which the station is

  associated, considered together, form the majority of the board of

  directors."  This language is consistent with the commission's "Policies for

  community and campus Radio", as set out in Public Notice CRTC 1992-38



Firstly, where the heck is Public Notice CRTC 1992-38 on the CRTC

web site, and the rationale to go with it???



I don't know the background to this amendment, however ...



1) Universities are generally ineligible to hold licences, granting

administrators and professors (officers of the university)

inclusion in those whose are counted in the majority undermines

this prohibition.



2) Representatives "of the student body, faculty, alumni or administration 

representatives of the university or college with which the station is 

associated" taints the well established "arms-length" relationship between 

media and government. 



Licences of this nature should only be granted to separately incorporated 

entities whose primary aim is producing and broadcasting. 



Change it back!  Please.



D) Foreground vs Spoken Word



The 1993 CRTC "Review" abandoned "foreground format" in favour of spoken word. 



As a consequence;



a)  there is now no requirement to broadcast material where;  "the 

intrinsic intellectual content of the matter broadcast is entirely related 

to one theme or subject" (from CRTC definition) 



b) it order to meet S/W targets programming decisions over-privileges talk 

over other forms of expression. 



The loss of Foreground Format (FF) along with the implementation of S/W 

content provides neither the licensee nor the regulator the criteria to 

assess thoughtfully produced radio programming.  Further, it relieves all 

formal (legal) expectations of music programming to go beyond the "disc-

jockey" format of providing label info along with time checks and weather 

(formerly defined by the CRTC as Gramophone or Rolling format) 



Raising the Canadian Content minimum (qv CRTC Review of Commercial Radio)

and lowering the repeat factor does not deal directly with qualitative

problems.  While not perfect, Foreground Format "pushed" all broadcasters

to provide resources to produce or procure material of a different nature

than a bought in "music service" (which meets CanCon) or syndicated talk

show (ie H Stern etcetera)



In the administration of the Broadcast Act, the CRTC should be encouraged 

to take the quality of programming at least as seriously as content 

quotas. 



The reliance upon S/W and CanCon minima entirely misses the Act's directive 

that; "the programming originated by broadcasting undertakings should be 

of [a] high standard" 



I would thus suggest that;



a) the 1993 amendments to the radio regulations revoking requirements for 

Foreground Format and establishing those for Spoken Word Content are, in 

hindsight, a lamentable mistake; 



b) that some reformulation of criteria of a similar character to the intent 

and nature of Foreground Format requirements be implemented to promote 

*all* possible forms of radio expression; 



c) a specific review of the results of these policies to be undertaken by 

the CRTC as a general review for radio prior to the next series of 

specific (commercial, CBC, community, Native, campus, institutional, 

educational &c) reviews, with the development of qualitative standards. 



E)  Other Issues raised at the 12Jun98 NCRA/CRTC meeting



*  regulations respecting political broadcasts

Leave it alone.  Its a good policy.



*  complaints and the licence renewal process 

All complaints valid, spurious, vexatious &c &c should be a matter of 

public record, and kept for all broadcasters. 



*  regulatory relief for new low-power stations

Beyond incorporation, there is a minimal extra cost and burden to applying 

for a licence for a VLPFM undertaking than say setting up a Webcasting 

operation.  The added work can show evidence of the group's commitment to 

the medium, and their role as a licensee. 



* programming and music categories

How about the inclusion of "radio art"?  Drama is not of itself a spoken 

word production, and in 1998 it would be a mistake to exclude "Rave dJs" 

from being considered artists in their own right. 



*  funding for campus radio stations

c/c radio licensees should look to their local campus and communities to 

seek the means to meet their operational needs. 



*  limitations on advertising and on unrestricted advertising



c/c broadcasters wishing more advertising should consider applying for a 

commercial radio licence. 



*  Commission accessibility availability of staff and assistance,

   up-to-date documents and information, use of clear language



Telephone calling the CRTC is pathetic, however, the CRTC Web site is 

excellent.  The Commission should be encouraged to add all documents 

pertaining to broadcasting in Canada, right back to 1968 and beyond ... 

including documents generated by the Broadcast Board of Governors.   Also 

please add a sequential index of Decision, Public Notices &c. ... 

including PN1992-38 



*  digital radio

Let's leave it for the next review okay?



*  Canadian content applicability to campus radio, appropriate levels,

   distribution requirements, definition



Leave this distribution on a weekly basis (some of us are still doing 

"block programming").  Increase it to 35%, and leave the definition in 

place ... it will only help to stimulate music production. 



*  rules regarding hits

no hits ... low rotation



*  relationship between campus radio and other sectors of the radio industry



Yikes there's that "sector" word again.  Just try and develop some mutual 

respect, remembering that each has their own agenda. 



Commercial Radio manufactures an audience for sale to advertisers;

CBC manufactures a nation; &,

Community Radio .... manufactures a community.



*  situation of campus radio stations in small markets



I hate that "market" word, how about small communities?  How about 

understanding that those granted licences in small communities are 

expected by their community to serve broader needs than those in the big 

city - from one margin to another, and everything in between. 



*  wording on campus radio licences

see ownership above.



[end]