An intelligent counter-point

This e-mail was just sent to me to be posted on the blog. I feel it effectively and intelligently counters many of the arguments currently being made in defense of the CanWest deal. This letter is a direct response to an e-mail from Don Peat. Many of the same arguments can be found throughout this blog in the comments section.

Thank you to Prof. Robinson for allowing me to post this on the blog!

--------
Dear Colleagues,

I'd like to question a couple points raised in Don Peat's email, and
offer, afterwards, some words on the business rationale for the Canwest
donation.

(Don's comments are in quotations; my responses follow.)

"Simon Fraser University has received money from Canwest since 1989. Receiving $200,000 in 2001 alone.Yet their students, and their graduates, still speak out against Canwest and Canwest media outlets (http://www.presscampaign.org/articles_4.html)."

1. Actually, this article, written by James Compton, is about the Seattle -WTO protest of 1999. It doesn't mention Canwest by name and was written, it would seem, well before Canwest acquired Southam and the accompanying controversy.

"This article is interesting because it is one of many articles written by UBC students that is critical of Canwest, yet UBC has received $500,000 from Canwest to establish a chair similar to the one they are proposing at Western(http://www.journalism.ubc.ca/faculty_canwest.html)."

2. The study under question (content analysis of press/tv coverage) was conducted between 6 Oct and 6 Nov. 2001. UBC's press release announcing the journalism school's first Canwest Fellow occurred AFTERWARD, on 13 Nov. 2001.


"Clearly, the UBC journalists have not been bought by the Canwest gift nor has their silence been gained. Previous emails have called forevidence, I submit the above paragraphs as evidence that Canwest has been unable to buy silence in other universities or indoctrinate their students."

3. Respectfully, this is weak evidence. Both cases cited occurred BEFORE the disclosure of Canwest connections with their respective universities.

" Fascinating that in a free and democratic society Canwest seems to keep an entire staff of prisoners. Insulting to many of the journalists that work at these organizations who are proud to work for their media outlet and who willingly go to work daily for Canadians but also for Canwest."

4. UWO journalism students in 2002 heard this first-hand when William Marsden, a National Newspaper Award winning journalist from the Canwest-owned Montreal Gazette, spoke in my class about the severe problems associated with Canwest management of the newsroom. To read similar accounts, type in "Canwest and Zerbisias" or "Canwest and
Kimber/Mills" in Factiva or related databases.

"It doesn't give the faculty themselves the opportunity to join in, to as another professor described it, be pro-journalism, to share our values and fight our fight, to stand with us in a grand vision of journalistic 'solidarity.'"

5. Sarcasm aside, your point about the underfunding of journalism students has some validity. (Bear in mind, though, we are constantly told by UWO officials that the per-student cost of a journalism degree is comparable to that of a dentistry degree -for which UWO charges some $18,000 in tuition annually).

Professional students (MLIS and Journalism) need more funding. The university provides no support for professional degree students, unlike thesis-based graduate students, who in FIMS receive more than $15,000 annually. In the past four years, I've funded, from research grants, 6 MLIS and 4 MA-Journalism students, some of whom (Kath Janson an Jennifer Haynes) now work in research-intensive journalism positions at CTV and CBC. However, generally speaking, officials would prefer that I (and others, presumably) channel the bulk of research funding to thesis-based graduate students, for whom FIMS is obligated to provide minimum funding levels.

And $2,500 for one student per year is, frankly, a pathetically small sum for graduate study. (Note the much larger scholarships offered even by Canwest). I've provided far more than this sum to journalism students over the years and I would encourage others to fund journalism students (and MLIS ones, for that matter) from their research grants as well.

6. Finally, what Don Peat's addendum list of Canwest donations doesn't convey is that many of them are part of the "benefits package" that Canwest assembled in order to secure CRTC approval of its purchase in 2000 of broadcaster WIC Western International Communication. (See http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/eng/Decisions/2000/DB2000-221.htm -
CRTC decision: 6 July 2000)

Generally, when companies buy existing broadcasters they are required by the CRTC to offer a "Benefits Package" of spending totaling about 10% of the purchase price. For Canwest, this package was about $84 million, $13 million of which was slated for "grants, scholarships and endowments to assist studies in communications, new media and other such relatedfields at various Canadian colleges and universities." (Curious, isn't it, that journalism isn't mentioned specifically?) It's really a type of 'media concentration' tax (or tithe?) payable not to the state but to
specified third-party groupings, but which still allows the donor to present the donation as a magnanimous act of public service, rather than merely the costs of doing business in a highly state-regulated sector like broadcasting.

FIMS should not, in principle, refuse 'benefits package' donations. (Indeed, our BCE chair, I think, is cut from the same cloth.) But we need to know how and why such donations occur "in the real world", to use a popular phrase of late, in order to understand their significance and any possible shortcomings.

best,
Daniel