On minimizing input

Antonia Zerbisias is once again ahead of the curve on the latest developments surrounding the CRTC, noting that while the planned CTV/CHUM merger required nine months of analysis from the Competition Bureau, the public will only get three weeks to comment on both the merger and the larger role of the CRTC:

(C)an citizens be...assured that the public interest will be protected when the CRTC begins its hearings on the deal in Gatineau on April 30?

Don't bet on it.

That's because viewers, unions, artists' groups and other non-industry parties have only 24 working days to get their interventions to the CRTC before the April 5 deadline.

In fact, they may have entirely missed Thursday's notice of the hearings, which was published without fanfare...

(T)he notice raises other very significant issues that the CRTC "may also wish to discuss" at the hearings including "concentration of ownership, cross-media ownership (horizontal integration), vertical integration, licence trafficking and tangible benefits."

Tangible benefits being the industry term for what broadcasters give back to the system in return for using the public airwaves.

Now this could be good news, or it could be bad news. It's hard to read the bureaucratese.

But the fact that there was no news release, there's little time for public input and that this came in under the radar should, you should forgive the pun, make your antennae wiggle.

Making it even more suspicious is that, just last fall, the CRTC held extensive TV policy review hearings for over-the-air stations and has yet to issue its findings. The policy review for cable TV has yet to begin.

The public has no clue what the CRTC intends with its new policies.

So how can it make an intelligent contribution to the coming CTV hearings, not to mention the CanWest-Alliance Atlantis and Astral-Standard merger hearings that will soon follow?

Given the consistent direction of the Cons in power - both with respect to the CRTC and on other issues - it's hard to see any reason to think that the planned scope could possibly be good news. Instead, it appears glaringly clear that the Cons are seeking to minimize public input both into the merger and the CRTC's longer-term role. And as Zerbisias points out, the result of such exclusion is bound to be far less consideration of the public's interests when final decisions are made in both areas.