Michael Geist on the CBC

If you happened to miss Michael Geist's article on the CBC at Canada.com today you should go now and unmiss it. Geist is, according to his website , the Canada Research Chair in Internet & E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and his article echoes much of what has been said, in various forums in discussing what the future of the CBC should look like.

I do not agree with him completely, but I rarely agree with anyone completely. For example:

While the 500-channel universe may have eroded the need for publicly funded programming choices,

is not really a statement that I can get behind. I think that the erosion of commercial funding is going to make publicly funded, or at least subsidised programming a necessity if Canada is going to have a voice in North America or the world.

But beyond that, Geist points out steps that the Norwegian, British, and Australian public broadcasters have taken to create a more user friendly, on demand, content rich, interactive public broadcasting experience. As you know if you've been reading this blog for any time at all, I'm all for that.

Public Broadcasting's new test kitchen?

I was reading Tod Maffin's post "Public radio should embrace technology. Or not" and the related articles. It occurs to me that podcasting and vidcasting (coming soon) can serve public broadcasting in, at least, two ways.

The first is obvious, it provides a means of reaching more eyes and ears. It allows people, as tivo and digital cable have done for television to watch or listen to the programs they like regardless of when those programs are scheduled to air. It allows people who do not live in Canada (whether they are Canadian or not) to have easy access to Canadian programming they like. In short it allows radio to adapt to listeners lives and schedules rather than the other way around.

The second, and perhaps most exciting for public broadcasting is that it allows for more content. Air time is expensive and is limited to 24 hours a day (per channel). Server space is cheap and virtually limitless. This means that programming, developed by broadcasters or independents can be tested and developed with a live audience. This is especially valuable to public broadcasters where a successful show is usually a result of creativity rather than special effects and star power (creativity costs way less). Because of the interactive nature of the internet audience feedback can be taken into consideration and kinks can be worked out before a show is brought to air, or brought to a broadcaster for a 'pitch'. It is even possible that shows can be brought to broadcasters with an established audience (which should help considerably with that pitch.)

There is no question of whether or not to accept new technology - if you are in the media you have to accept new technology, and asking whether broadcasters should serve their current, loyal audience or go after new ones is also a non-starter. Audiences are not static, ratings go up and down and this weeks mega-hit can be next weeks bomb. Broadcasters have to keep up with audiences and deliver quality programming to them, in the way they want it and now at the time, place and in the format they want it. New technology makes it considerably easier for broadcasters, especially public broadcasters, to determine these things.