What’s really being offered for sale at the CBC?
The current uprising of journalists at the CBC is a remarkable phenomenon and an indication that something vital is at stake.
Journalists do not do this under normal circumstances. It’s a long-standing convention for reporters to avoid advocating in public on any issue. And journalists don’t tend to write about themselves.
But when the issue is the integrity of journalism itself, who will investigate and inform Canadians about what is potentially being lost?
The spark that has ignited this unusual revolt is the launch last month of a paidcontent division called CBC Tandem. It means somebody who wants to sell or promote something can hire the CBC to create articles, podcasts or programs — so-called “sponsored content” — that will look and sound like the CBC.
The intention of CBC Tandem will be to put what is essentially an advertisement, delivered in the form of a story or an interview, in front of as many eyes as possible.
The purpose is to prompt readers and viewers to buy something or think about some brand in a commercially positive way. According to the press release, CBC’s marketing officials intend to “leverage the credibility” of the CBC network to entice customers to buy this new service.
CBC officials have defended CBC Tandem by saying the CBC has been offering sponsored content for years, so this new venture is no big deal.
But the journalists’ outrage suggests that something important has changed.
Many of the names will be familiar: Peter Mansbridge, Brian Stewart, Linden MacIntyre, Adrienne Clarkson, Bob McKeown, Tony Burman. There are also hundreds of current CBC journalists who don’t feel that they can risk going public with their concerns. These are the very journalists who have worked hard to build the reputation of the CBC — a reputation that is now apparently for sale.
CBC spokesperson Chuck Thompson has been quoted as saying “all key stakeholders” were consulted as CBC Tandem was being developed. Clearly, the journalists and the CBC’s employee union, the Canadian Media Guild, were not on that list.
It’s also clear that these decisions are not being made in consultation with the CBC’s principal stakeholder — the Canadian public. Rather, they are being made behind closed doors by executives hired to find all possible revenue streams at the CBC.
As Canadian media options become increasingly littered with sponsored material, something important has been lost. There is rapidly diminishing time and space to consider fundamental questions of quality of life, fairness, equality, environmental preservation and healthy communities.
What happens when the material we read and watch no longer boosts political and scientific literacy and fails to provide the transparency essential to developing informed citizens who can participate in the creation of a vibrant society?
CBC journalists are being assured by their managers that the sponsored content will be clearly identified, that there will be a firewall between CBC journalism and the paid-for content. But is that enough to prevent readers and viewers from being deceived?
Who will ensure that the firewall is effective? Will people pick up on the cues, that words like “sponsored, supported, special” are euphemisms for advertisement? And will people care about the potential deception as long as the content entertains or interests them and is delivered under the trusted flag of the CBC?
It is long past time for a vigorous discussion about the importance and relevance of independent journalism as local news outlets disappear and one of Canada’s last independent public spaces is eroded by commercial content.
This is an opportunity to reaffirm the value of both the CBC and independent journalism. And as the media landscape becomes increasingly noisy, it’s a chance to reclaim public spaces free from the pressure of someone trying to sell you something.