Image by jodigreen via Flickr

The National invited its At Issue panelists to get especially meta-CBC during last night’s newscast.

The debate circled around the CBC financial woes and the role of our national public broadcaster. There was talk of partisan politics, francophone programming and the current dire media landscape.

Small-c conservative Maclean’s editor Andrew Coyne was at odds with Allan Gregg and Chantal Hébert, who both validated and defended the need for the CBC. [Coyne wrote more today.] But the best line was not delivered by one of the three panelist.

Coyne defied the broadcaster’s traditional role as pan-Canadian nation-builder and argued for a user-pay cable channel similar to American network HBO. The “best long-term solution” in the face of fickle advertising revenue and government subsidies, he said, is to charge only those who actually watch.

Should it try to be a broad, populist network and, in which case a lot of the distinction between it and the private networks start to disappear, or should it try to be a narrow, elite broadcaster, in which it runs into this issue of why should the broad masses of the public pay for a network that only a minority are watching.

Such soul-searching is also rampant inside the CBC, but Coyne’s market-based strategy is fundamentally opposed to the goals of the corporation, which aim to connect all Canadians to the diverse Canadian experience through distinct and quality programming.

With that in mind, Allan Gregg with Canadian market research group Harris/Decima rebutted:

 The public broadcaster is not a business. It is a public enterprise, a public service, designed not only to amuse or gain a large audience night after night after night by appealing to the lowest common denominator, but by creating better citizens by informing us about our country and ourselves by drawing us into a shared collective experience.

If it were left in the hands to cable TV producers, Gregg said, he and his fellow panelists wouldn’t make it to air because there wouldn’t even be a newscast when Survivor and the Amazing Race can draw a larger audience. Unlike the public broadcaster, he continued, a private network can’t — and maybe won’t — deliver context and understanding and analysis.

Coyne said Gregg’s argument assumes there is no paying audience for discerning programming. This audience exists, said Coyne, and it’s “illogical” that a government subsidy is the only way to fund the CBC.

Toronto Star political columnist Chantal Hébert said the CBC and especially Radio-Canada cannot “be starved through the backdoor” if the Conservative government ever hopes to find electoral success in Quebec. It is a mistake to direct cultural policy based on economic circumstances.

She also said the public service is not a luxury but a right; integral to nation-building, the CBC is not something citizens should have to pay for.

In the last 1o seconds, the next-to last word went to Coyne who said there is no reason we can’t pay for the CBC as we pay for other public services, including transportation.

But Peter Mansbridge held the columnist to task:

“And you’ll offer up your dollar to start that?” he asked.

“I’ll be first in line,” said Coyne.

“Or just your speaking fee from Chicago tonight?”

Mansbridge laughed, and the tone was jovial. But the friendly jab illustrates an important point. Coyne could afford to pay whatever was needed to view and listen to CBC programming.

Not all Canadians nor those who call Canada home would have the same access. The CBC should not have to be a priviledge.