In 2009 WACC Global and WACC North America teamed up with Simon Fraser University communication professor Robert Hackett, and the non-governmental organization OpenMedia.ca (formerly Campaign for Democratic Media) to conduct research whose focus was, ‘What are the “building blocks” for an emergent coalition aiming to democratize public communication in Canada?’

The research was assisted by a grant from the Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere Program of the Social Science Research Council with funds provided by the Ford Foundation.

OpenMedia.ca is a network of public interest organizations and people concerned about media reform and media policy formation in Canada. OpenMedia.ca’s predecessor – Campaign for Democratic Media – was set up in 2007 with encouragement from Free Press, the Media Democracy Coalition and other U.S. media democracy activists. With support from academics, unions and advocacy groups, OpenMedia.ca mounted several notable campaigns, linked existing media reform organizations, and amplified the public interest voice in policy-making.

OpenMedia.ca has launched national campaigns such as Stop the Big Media Takeover, SaveOurNet.ca, and Community Media Now!. It has taken on digital media issues, organized large media education events such as Media Democracy Day, and created a strong presence politically, including staging a Net Neutrality Rally on Parliament Hill. In 2008, it published a series of reports during the election season: ‘Media and Culture: Where do the parties stand’ and ‘Fact vs. Fiction’. Both were made available online as tools to inform citizens about important issues (see http://openmedia.ca/)

Revitalizing a Media Reform Movement in Canada
The research comprised three basic elements. An online questionnaire was prepared and distributed to current and potential allied NGOs. The first step in this respect was to prepare a list of Canadian NGOs in different issue sectors or movements that might be expected to have a stake in media content or regulation, whether or not they were currently active in media policy activism.

The second part of the research entailed telephone and in-person interviews with key individuals in Canadian advocacy groups, selected by OpenMedia.ca on the basis of their potential for future involvement. A set of questions was produced, roughly parallel to those posed in the online survey, concerning the NGOs’ mandate, strategies, priorities, resources, achievements, obstacles, opponents, allies, identification with social movements, relations with and perceptions of media, and involvement with coalitions on communication policy.

Thirdly, a workshop of 19 activists, advocates, academics, trade unionists, and independent media producers, including many members of the OpenMedia.ca national steering committee was held May 26, 2009, at WACC’s global headquarters in Toronto. The meeting discussed communications/media policy issues in Canada, current activities and campaigns of OpenMedia.ca, the initial results of the online survey, the work in this area done by workshop participants, and potential future strategies and campaigns.

Findings
Strikingly, there was overwhelming recognition of the importance of the Internet to the work of NGOs and unanimous endorsement of the principle of Net Neutrality as a regulatory underpinning for equitable and affordable access to the Internet. That finding suggests that OpenMedia.ca’s particular emphasis on the SaveOurNet.ca campaign and its recent change of name has a pragmatic as well as principled grounding.

In comparison, ‘diversity of media ownership’ is a less pressing goal for most NGOs, particularly if they feel satisfied with current news media access and/or control over their own media. Compared to Net Neutrality, media diversity seems more difficult to define and its benefits less obvious. Also, there is no single venue or process by which it can be ‘won’ in the short term and its apparent challenge to media corporations may have negative repercussions.

At the same, given the scope and consequences of the media’s democratic deficit and of the current policy agenda, Canada’s nascent media reform movement cannot confine itself to a single-issue focus. In that respect, the diversity of perspectives and priorities evident in respondents’ views of media issues should make it possible to find partners for campaigns on a range of issues. The data confirm that independent media, arts and culture groups, and trade unions, particularly those representing media and cultural workers, are core advocates for democratic communications.

Shared values of media openness, access, and innovation (defined not only in technological but also social and political terms) may offer a route to popularize support for at least some dimensions of media reform. Indeed, the comments unequivocally supportive of equitable access to the Internet, from both survey and interviews, suggest that an alternative strategy to coalesce NGOs around this issue and related frames could be productive.

The research also suggested that key factors limit the formation of a media reform movement. These include the lack of a unified progressive social movement in Canada, as well as the disinclination to date of existing progressive organizations to recognize and act upon the relevance of communications structures and policies to their own primary mandates. One key task for a media reform movement is to make existing progressive social movements aware of the relevance of media issues. Internet access and Net Neutrality seem to constitute an especially promising entry point.

It may well be that the concepts of ‘media reform’ or ‘media democracy’ fail to resonate with many of the constituencies that would need to mobilize if a more democratic public sphere is to be achieved in Canada. Media reformers need to consider whether a unifying master frame is possible and necessary, and/or whether different ‘thematic frames’ should be adopted for different campaigns and constituencies.

Given the marked social and technological changes in today’s ‘information societies’, re-imagining journalism in the 21st century, is one route to explore. A model with considerable potential is that of ‘peace journalism’, which tries to illuminate structural and cultural violence as it affects the lives of ordinary people. Framing conflicts in terms of several parties pursuing many goals, it makes visible peace initiatives and potential solutions and it equips people to distinguish between self-interested positions and real objectives.

Similar principles could be applied to media reform, highlighting democratic deficits, ensuring a diversity of voices and opinions, providing greater access to information and knowledge, and encouraging community involvement in media ownership and control.

The full research report is available here.