Would anyone care to claim that commercial broadcast media deliver an appropriate amount of public service for their license to use the publicly owned airwaves? Or are the airwaves publicly owned? Can a person actually own something as ethereal as a portion of the broadcast waveband? Shit, I could negotiate with somebody somewhere to own all the helium atoms in Alpha Centauri. Such a state of ownership would be more in keeping with traditional property rights as I assume that those atoms actually exist. Since there is no apparent practical value in that ownership and no drain on any imaginable community resources I could happily parade naked up and down Granville Street carrying a picket sign bearing the relevant declaration. No one outside mental health services would care very much.

Physical laws of nature apply to radio frequencies as well and not forgetting possible community health risks often associated with human-generated electrical emissions, use of “bandwidth” is limited and is an issue with which society is concerned. In Canada there is an existing law, known as the Broadcast Act, that is supposed to ensure a return of service to the community and balanced if not diverse coverage of political issues and cultural representation. The relevant government agency in Canada is the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), a body which is perceived by many broadcast operators as being too powerful and intrusive, hindering the money-making process.

It is the process of making money that exists as the primary force in commercially funded communications. Broadcasters exist as “units” of transnational corporations, many of which are diversified conglomerates. I do not wish to deal with the issue of the workers in this industry, many of whom I regard as well-intentioned, since their influence is subservient in the overall dynamic to that of the bottom line. Competition restricts the ability of corporations to provide services to the community that do not enhance profit. Issues of access to information and culture are not unexpectedly at odds with the process of maximizing earning potential. Since it is impossible for the corporate dynamic to lend itself well to serving good intentions, it is the role of government to intervene and ensure a balance.

In commercial broadcast operations where virtually 100% of revenue is obtained by selling air time, one might be drawn to question the popular assumption that the audience is the customer. It is not. The customer is the buyer of air time: the audience is a “product” which is delivered to the advertiser. Any community service which results from this situation is motivated by corporate self-interest and seeks to convince the audience that the broadcaster is a good “corporate citizen” and is cheerfully performing its ethical obligations.

This current historical period is commonly referred to as “the information age,” and Western nations widely practice representative government which requires popular approval from time to time. In a jurisdictional area that is relatively widespread, current affairs issues are communicated largely by means of mass media so it would seem unwise that the responsibility for this be left to a very small group of corporations who must choose to service the interests of stockholders and relegate the power of the public to its obviously less important status.

Further than this, it is in the interests of corporate culture to feed itself with cheap and available labor and willing and unthinking purchasers of its products and services. It is to the commercial broadcaster’s advantage to have public monies used in the creation of a trained workforce and it is to the discredit of self-styled (and government supported) community broadcasters that they operate as a training ground and as a test market.

There is no significant market force to compel corporate culture to educate the masses. Analogously, it is much easier to sell Christianity to the mentally challenged than it is to win over converts amongst doctors of philosophy.

Although Canadians have made astoundingly bad choices like electing Brian Mulroney twice, it is my opinion that as imbecilic as we are there is a great deal of hope for the realization of a society that is thoughtful, critical and understanding: something that corporate culture is unable to facilitate.

If you buy this pitch of mine so far, it is quite likely that you agree with me in my assessment of the inevitable shortcomings of a communications system owned and operated by You Know Who. So the problem is this: what to do to ensure that the public airwaves are put to use in a more constructive manner. Do we impose a complex system of content-oriented rules and regulations on corporate media? No. They fight and claw against existing impotent broadcast regulation: getting this dog to heel would require immense and unending sources of energy.

The answer may lie in required funding. Some might say that since these operations use public resources without adequate compensation that they should share their revenue equally with public concerns, maybe a 50/50 split on advertising revenue. Well, some of them can’t manage to avoid paying taxes altogether and they do make some conservative financial risks and provide employment so how about a 50/50 split of the net profits? Sure, sure. Net profits would mysteriously dwindle like the imported beer supply at an all-you-can-drink media schmooze. No, I propose a relatively small tax of revenue at the source, say 7% of gross revenues and if this cost is eventually added onto the price of a soft drink, so be it. The business community would be the first to argue that consumers make the real choices and the extra hundredth of a cent is funding a system of communication that can help in making more positive choices.

The well-meaning people within corporations can sleep more fitfully, community voices can better be heard, discussion of issues can escape the intellectual straitjacket of segments and soundbites, it’s a better fucking world and everybody wins.

Administering this “Seven Percent Solution” is an important issue better left to another article...

A note to campus/community broadcasters:
Until some version of the above pipe dream could be realized, c/c stations should learn to live without the cement shoes of advertising revenue, keeping their operations run primarily by volunteers. The biggest expense in a c/c station’s budget is the cost of labor. While it would be nice to be able to pay people for their efforts, have stable and reliable full-time staffs and while it would be lovely for folks like myself to have the opportunity to work in such a wonderful field and still make the mortgage, this is a mistake. It is self-defeating and anyone who participates in it will likely end up working for Shaw or Southam or Moses Znaimer at the end of the day regardless. Although many of us operate in a campus environment, c/c radio is not the "farm league," developing talent for an industry which refuses to fund us, often considers us a threat and has little or no understanding of our motives.

Your resident marginalized looney tune,
John.

P.S. Consider conflict of interest issues when salaried employees of c/c radio influence NCRA advertising policy.