It is fairly common knowledge in Canada that no one has an inherent
right to broadcast. One must apply to the CRTC for a license to
broadcast. The CRTC may grant or deny the application for a broadcast
license for any reason whatsoever -- solely at its discretion. Of
particular interest to me, is the fact that the CRTC routinely calls for
public input prior to granting a new license or renewing an existing
license. The presumption I make is that the CRTC allows the public to
give reasons why a license should not be granted, or, in the case of an
existing license, not renewed. The point, of course, is that the CRTC
allows the public a say, and that the wishes of the broadcaster, from
the CRTC's perspective, is secondary to the interests of the population.
Which, arguably, puts any private citizen seeking the revocation of a
broadcast license on solid footing in such a pursuit. i.e., it's
permissable and encouraged by the CRTC for the people to, in effect,
say, "No!"
I would be inclined to think that any interested party would also be
well within his/her/its rights in shoring up sup****t for an intervention
through the CRTC. It would hardly stand to reason that the common
citizen should be expected to appear before the CRTC as the sole voice
of dissent. Regardless, I think what really matters is that there is
no guaranteed right to broadcast in this country. And it makes no
difference if you're a broadcaster of music and entertainment or news.
Freedom of the press does not extend to the public airwaves, and this
is something that does not even need to be the subject of debate; it's
just the way it is.
The power of gold meets the power of cold hard reality. It should be
an interesting clash.
|
