After Michel Rochon opened the session, Julie Caron-Malenfant, Executive Director, Institut du Nouveau Monde, and Michelle Bested, Engagement and Social Enterprise Manager, Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, presented the approach. 

Alain Saulnier, Guest Professor, DESS in Journalism, University of Montreal, gave a presentation on “Journalism and Democracy: Information and Disinformation, the 21th Century Battle.” Here are the highlights: 

• Journalists have an undeniable role to play in democracy but they have lost their monopoly on communication and now have lots of competition.
• Even large media groups have lost some of their importance, compared to web giants.
• The ability of the media to reach parts of the population, like youth and conspiracy theory believers, has declined. 
  • Traditional media consumption is limited among youths.
  • The media are sometimes condescending.
• The media are not the only ones experiencing a legitimacy crisis – so do all the other institutions in the industrial era.

Download the presentation

The presentation was followed by a plenary question and comment session:

• Polarization isn’t limited to politics, it also affects what is considered true and false; there is a whole world out there that we don’t know. Do we have research that shows to what extent the population is divided between these two media worlds, before trying to decide what to do in journalism? If we do, what do these studies show? 
  • This issue hasn’t been sufficiently explored.
  • People trust the media more in Canada, especially in Quebec, than in the United States. Readership has never been so high. 
• Maybe journalism practices should change and the relationship between journalists and the public should be recast, in order to go towards people and the issues they deem important and to explore solutions with the public?

Simon Claus, Researcher at CRICIS, presented introductory notions on “Media Concentration and Information Pluralism”:

• Media concentration, with a few oligopolies, isn’t limited to Canada: it is the same in all capitalist economies. 
  • Time/Warners’s merge in USA, later purchased by AOL. 
  • Bell, Rogers, and Vidéotron’s purchases of media groups. 
• The CRTC allows these transactions to facilitate the creation of large Canadian media groups that will compete with groups in the US. 
  • There is a long history of debates on media concentration and pluralism.
• Monopolies often result in content that isn’t very diversified while healthy competition tends to ignore niche topics.

Download the presentation

After the presentation, participants were divided into sub-groups for questions and comments:

• Outside Quebec, it is important to preserve independent media in the smallest provinces and in minority contexts, and, in Quebec, the same can be said of regions: with limited coverage and few journalists, the conditions are right for disinformation.
• Canadian news tends to be very Ontario-centric and are not very representative of other parts of the country, but rather than talking about local coverage, we should discuss coverage in terms of content: Who decides the angle? Who is talking?
• Information pluralism also requires voice pluralism, through the inclusion in the media of racialized people as well as other under-represented groups and diverse opinions. 
• The established media’s business model needs reviewed, looking at the Swedish model, possibly, to help smaller voices be heard; looking also at the APTN pilot project where reporters are seconded to cover remote Aboriginal communities; or looking at turning some Quebec media companies into co-ops.
• The lack of financing leads to cuts in the number of journalists or to the death of some media. Media concentration is linked to the financial model.
• Convergence and concentration have a huge impact on the way media people work, but the main problem is acceleration. For example, Bell Media rescued Noovo but must ensure that there are thresholds for local and original content. We must also ensure that there are mechanisms in place to guarantee independence.

Your Content Goes Here

Pascale St-Onge, President, FNCC-CSN, gave a presentation on media’s threatened pluralism and diversity:

• Economic conditions have consequences for media companies, for journalists and for plurality in all its forms.
• Content discoverability is more than crucial if the media are to compete with other large media groups.
• With the media under economic pressures, content designed for specific communities and more fringe publications are disappearing.
• Solutions involve reshaping the legislative framework, supporting the media aimed at minority audiences, and offering incentives for hiring ethnically diverse people.

Download the presentation

The presentation was followed by a plenary question and comment session:

• When looking for solutions to media financing issues, we should think of journalism as more than an ideal and limited model. Emerging and thriving types of journalism – opinion, promotion and entertainment journalisms, for ex. – can be a source of revenues for more traditional forms of journalism. 
• The media haven’t sufficiently acknowledged the changes that are happening; they must define their niche.
• We should not deregulate the media sector or protect information and news. 

Marie-Ève Martel, Journalist at La Voix de l’Est and Vice-President of the Board of Directors, FPJQ, gave a presentation on “Challenges faced by local media”. Here are some highlights: 

• The challenges faced by local media are not really different from those faced by other types of media. 
• Challenge #1: ensure their survival and monetize information. 
  • Not only are local ad revenues decreasing, but GAFAM are also siphoning online advertising. 
  • They are primarily free media that don’t use subscriptions, which means they don’t have access to this type of revenue. 
• Challenge #2: avoid commercial pressures.
  • Advertisers enjoy considerable power. They know that they play a key part in the survival of the media they finance, so they must be handled with care so as to preserve this source of funding. This creates a risk of censorship, and even of self-censorship.
• Challenge #3: maintain a healthy power relationship with cities.
  • Local media is the main source of news.
  • In Quebec, with Bill 122, cities no longer have to publish their public notices in print media. This change resulted in a loss of revenue for local papers.
• Challenge #4 : reconnect with the public.
  • Content offered in local media is seen as just one type of content among many others.
  • There is a lack of knowledge of the work done by local media and of its usefulness.
• Some potential solutions: 
  • Encourage media literacy.
  • Create a fund for the production of journalistic content.
  • Recognize information as a cultural product. 

Download the presentation

Bryan Myles, Publisher of Le Devoir, then gave a presentation on the topic of “Challenges faced by independent media”. Here are his key points: 

• Le Devoir is an independent newspaper, in existence since 1910, an “anomaly in the media landscape”.
  • Today, $7 out of 10 come from subscriptions and donations. The paper is betting on the existence of a future for the subscription model, even though the trend is moving towards free access.
• Independent media won’t go extinct, they will be reinvented.
  • The media can no longer claim to be generalists. Their old role as mass media has disappeared – it started to crumble as early as the 1930s. 
• There are several fault lines: 
  • Free access or subscriptions 
  • Content quality or quantity: if we offer free content, we will rely on advertising for financing, which pushes us towards quantity and not always quality. 
  • Audience indifference when faced with copious content or audience engagement, making us work on tailored content for users who are willing to pay.
• Why resort to subscriptions? 
  • It’s impossible to compete with GAFAM, they are too far ahead. It’s hard to believe that governments will follow through with their dismantling logic.
  • Relying on advertising means that the challenge will be to fit into a relationship economy and find ways to nurture the strong connections we have with our respective audiences. 
• Journalists no longer have a monopoly on news and journalistic ethics won’t be sufficient to maintain the social contract with our readership.
• Journalists must evolve a little. In the current move towards a digital economy, we must introduce new skills that aren’t always found in newsrooms. 

Participants were invited to answer the following question in smaller groups: How can we ensure that local and independent media are sustainable? (practices, financing, role of journalists, etc.) Here is a summary of the discussions that ensued:

• The subscription system, on which Le Devoir relies, can be applied in Quebec because of this province’s cultural specificity. Importing this model would be difficult for English-speaking provinces.
• Subscriptions may not work for all media, even if those with a subscription-based business model don’t have as hard a time as those that rely on advertising.
  • In some regions, because of their declining vitality, both the subscription-based and the advertising-based models are problematic.
• News are a public good but people aren’t willing to pay for this service. 
  • In the past, advertising financed the news, but it is no longer a viable option. Another solution could be public financing. 
  • Public financing and media independence with State financing are not mutually exclusive, so public financing must not be seen as a loss of independence. In Nordic countries, for example, there is no such debate.
  • Philanthropy is an avenue that’s being explored in the United States, especially for topics related to climate change. So far, this approach isn’t used much in Canada, though. 
  • Insisting on keeping a traditional capitalist model, based on the notion that the strongest ones will survive, won’t work. Powerful media groups are more interested in economic considerations that in journalism and they will dominate the sector. We will need to change models and go towards a nonprofit model or one based on subsidies.
• There is no silver bullet. Local media must develop their identity. Local papers must make their own choices regarding what to cover and then they must be accountable for these choices.
• All types of media are different (conglomerates, public, independent…). The situation is also different depending on the province. We shouldn’t be looking for a one-size-fits-all solution because there is no such thing.
• GAFAM aren’t the source of all problems. One problem is linked to new readers and their reading habits. This problem is connected to schools. To what extent are new readers capable of reading a whole document and not just the headline?
• Most people think that the media are not working for the public good? The challenge then is to regain their trust. Surveys show a link between media credibility/trust in media and profitability. 

Dwayne Winseck, Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University, gave a presentation and here are his key points:

• The State played a key part in the GAFAM culture. These social media companies are strongly criticized for their influence on the media, the economy, society and on democracy itself. 
• Google and Facebook’s domination of the Internet, their advertising activity, and their model are often presented as a type of “vampire economy” responsible for the “journalism crisis” that is shaking up the media sector and cultural industries and is destroying democracy.
• Is the dominance exerted by GAFAM as major as it is often said to be?
  • While Google and Facebook have the biggest and fastest share of advertising of all media, they do not dominate the global advertising market in Canada. 
• Are they responsible for the current journalism crisis and the turmoil in the media sector? Not necessarily:
  • The media sector and businesses that rely on advertising are fighting against Google and Facebook for an amount of advertising that’s stable, or even declining. 
  • Some of the wounds the media suffered were self-inflicted (mergers and acquisitions, linking of media content to telecoms-Internet companies, creation of multisectoral conglomerates…).  
• Are they media companies and should they be regulated as such?
  • The definition of digital platforms as media companies is based on superficial analogies.
  • When attempting to regulate foreign Internet giants, it is important to get a sense of the magnitude of this domination compared to Canadian communication and media giants, or the “Big Five,” namely Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw (Corus) and Quebecor

Download the presentation

Luce Julien, Executive Director of Radio-Canada News and Current Affairs, gave a presentation entitled “No public broadcaster without a public!”. Here are the highlights: 

• Relevance and trust are important issues for all media, but they are even more important for public broadcasters:
  • Public broadcasting must be in touch with what’s happening in the field and tell Canadians about the World. International news is more important than ever. 
  • Public broadcasting must be inclusive: there must be a diversity of opinions, as well as cultural and regional diversity…
  • Public broadcasting must be present on all platforms.

• The main challenge today is public trust:
  • 23% of Francophones trust the media, compared to 40% of the Canadian population.
  • To reinforce this trust, we need to be fully transparent with citizens about journalistic approaches.

• Expectations and challenges for the next few years:
  • We must continue to offer a good service to viewers and listeners who still use television and radio, while at the same time maintaining a digital presence.
  • We must be innovative when it comes to formats, as with Rad, Carbone…
  • We must deal with the labour shortage. 

After these two presentations, participants were asked to answer the following question: How should we see the role of public broadcasters and media in general in the media ecosystem, especially in relation to GAFAM? Here is what emerged from the discussions:

• One thing is obvious: there is one advertising pie and, at best, it is staying the same size. These companies might be growing but the pie isn’t, so some get a smaller part of the pie.
  • GAFAM are one of the reasons why companies are getting a smaller piece of the pie. Governments, the public, and CRTC didn’t regulate them enough in the 1990s, didn’t make them accountable enough for their content production.  
  • When analyzing the impact of GAFAM, linguistic sectors must be considered. 
• Some people suggest offering content for free on social media, others think social media should be used to increase subscription revenues:
  • It is imperative that we offer free quality content online. If a subscription is needed to access all good news sources, then people will only find propaganda on social media, especially in closed groups.
  • It is not a problem if media content ends up on Facebook as long as, at the same time, digital subscriptions increase. Facebook then becomes a means of access, but we still need to make sure revenues are redistributed differently.
• We must constantly adapt to new audiences. Newscasts are still working but their public is older. Content must travel and reach younger audiences. Public broadcasting needs to reach younger people. 
  • However, we must be careful when we measure these audiences’ trust and relevance:
    • The notion of trust in the media is often inadequately measured. The questions we ask are superficial and poorly worded. 
    • The notion of relevance is often associated with quantity: the larger the audience is, the greater our relevance is.
• Participants propose two roles for the public broadcaster, and they are contradictory:
  • Radio-Canada is essential because of the small size of the Quebec market. Resources are available in journalism that are not available in the private sector. 
  • The public broadcaster has started to offer more local and written news. It is moving towards what was traditionally the role of regional written media, and this could take away some of the private media’s advertising revenues.

Participants were asked the following question: In your opinion, which one of the issues we discussed during the previous sessions deserves more in-depth attention? Here are some of their answers: 

• The sustainability of local media and the modernization of business models (moving away from advertising).
• Trust in media: if people recognize the social value of information, the only option for decision makers will be to (finally) see it as a collective good and to act accordingly, not only with their tangible support but also with increased transparency.
• If the idea is to ensure the survival, quality and diversity of the media sector. the most central issue is how journalism is funded.
• How much readers and citizens value quality information.

Robert Armstrong, former senior executive with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Téléfilm Canada, gave a presentation. Here are his key points:

• The main purpose of regulations is to ensure the advancement of the public interest.
• Why are the media regulated by the federal government instead of provincial governments?
  • Based on the way the telegraph worked in olden days.
  • Quebec tried to regain jurisdiction by arguing that the media were often local and that they processed provincial news. This was rejected. 
• Generally speaking, the legal framework is adequate and allows media to play a role in democracy.
• Bill C-10
  • A new legislation would certainly change some aspects of the current Broadcasting Act.
  • The Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel (Yale Group) prepared a report on Canada’s communication future in January 2020.
  • Its second reading is this week, aiming for June 2020 for its entry into effect.
  • Creation of a new category of broadcasting undertakings: “online undertakings.”
  • Objective: foster “fair and equitable” treatment for both online services and traditional broadcasting undertakings. 
  • Social network users, as well as sharing platforms like YouTube themselves, would not be subject to the regulations when it comes to content published by their users. 
  • While integrating online “curation” and “aggregation” undertakings in the Canadian broadcasting system, Bill C-10 promotes its deregulation.

Download the presentation 

Trine Syvertsen, Professor of Media and Communication at the University of Oslo, gave a presentation. Here are some highlights:

• Scandinavian States are undergoing major transformations and they are receiving praise for their adaptability.
• People often say that all media systems tend to become similar and to resemble the US system, which is not true according to several studies. There are visible differences between countries.
• The Welfare States that support the Nordic media rest on four pillars: 
  • A universal and egalitarian system that tends to compensate for the market’s financial deficiencies. 
  • Considerable freedom of the press and freedom of information.
  • Welfare State provisions in cultural and media policies.
  • Elaboration of consensual and co-operative policies.
• Regarding newspaper growth:
  • The number of printed newspapers grew from 191 (1969) to 218 (2019).
  • Newspapers still went digital. 
• In Norway, a relief fund was put in place for the media in response to COVID-19:
  • $300M.
  • 167 news media organizations applied.
  • Funding to help deal with revenue loss because of COVID-19.

Download the presentation

Participants were asked three questions. Here are their answers:

• Should ongoing and non-partisan financing programs be created for news media, by broadening the mandate of Canada Media Fund, for example?
  • Yes, but there has to be a fund dedicated specifically to news that is managed independently by an authorized body. 
  • A special tax credit should be created. This way, we would not need to create a new institution whose rules will be contested. Current tax credits are vulnerable when governments change.
  • It’s a good idea. The media fund needs to be strengthened and must never be partisan.
  • In Canada, we have one of the lowest levels of media financing. This is a problem in a democracy.
• Do you think that public funding is more problematic than private capital for media independence?
  • Regardless of where the money comes from, independence is a struggle.
  • It is easier to protect the media from government influence than from private interest influence.
  • One key to protecting journalistic independence is to have multiple funders. 
  • Both have pluses and minuses. This is why there needs to be a balance between the two types of funding.
  • Maybe it isn’t a problem in Norway because the country’s history and values are different from Canada’s. They have a formula that may not be applicable here, but it’s still worth exploring.
• In your opinion, what should be the priority for the federal government and/or provincial governments in terms of overseeing the media?
  • Ensuring that media plurality survives. 
  • The idea of having the words “government” and “media oversight” in the same sentence is of major concern. What kind of regulation does the government want? Is there a risk that the freedom of the press will be compromised? It must always be journalists who decide what is shared and published.
  • Thought should be given to the reinvention of some of the funds, especially for small communities and small publishers.