Talking with Tom Kent (Part 2)

Here is part two of my interview with Kent Commission chairman, Tom Kent.

——

The Commission report recommended closer ties between newspapers and journalism schools, in-house ombudsmen, more active press councils — some of which have happened. Looking at the newspaper industry today, what has changed, in your view, from your time with the Commission?

While the possibility of government action on the tax proposal died with the budget retreat, the responsible minister did try for months to get partial acceptance of the other commission proposals. His one significant success was the prohibition of future TV licences for newspaper companies. Even that was frustrated because, by the time an existing licence was due for renewal, the Trudeau government was gone and the Mulroney government cancelled the reform.

What has changed since 1981 is, of course, the rise of electronic communication and the consequent decline in both the importance and the profitability of print media.

The Commission report talked about how the lack of competition in some markets had degraded the quality of newspaper content. In your opinion, how has the rise of alternative online news sources affected this conclusion?

Certainly “online” has completed what radio began. Print is no longer the medium for “hot” news. Newspapers now have the character of daily news magazines, providing “background”, detail, analysis, comment rather than news as such. For the most part, they’re pretty poor magazines, but given the weakness of Macleans they’re still important  for Canadian democracy. My guess, however, is that their number will inevitably contract.

In any event, democrats would do well to start thinking about a commission on the quality and freedom of print surviving in some kind of magazine format, along with non-print media in an increasing variety of shapes.

Based on the news industry today, do you still see a need for a Canada Newspaper Act?

While diminished profitability makes repetition of the tax proposal impracticable, a Newspaper Act is still desirable. It should specifically prohibit foreign ownership, eliminate both convergence of ownership with other media and chain ownership of papers (“community” weeklies as well as dailies). But don’t hold your breath!