Regular readers will know that this correspondent has long been appalled by the power of the CRTC to influence the actual content of television news reportage.
Equally appalling has been the extraordinary lack of concern shown by most journalists about the reality of a gang of appointed partisan hacks enjoying such power.
No doubt emboldened by this, alas, the CRTC has decided that it's time to play editor with the print media as well.
And, with a few notable exceptions, most print journalists seem to be simply shrugging it off.
The entre into editorial control, of course, is this whole notion of imposing a formal code of journalistic conduct between various parts of newly-converged media conglomerates.
The CRTC does not have -- and is not meant to have -- any control at all over the print media. But, with the multi-channel universe and the Internet making much of their work less relevant than it used to be, CRTC commisars, er, commissioners, were recently seen extending themselves into print at the CTV and Global TV licence renewal meetings.
Mind you, the whole notion of this code is being sold as a protection for journalists against the vagaries of the corporate convergers.
In reality, however, it's not good news either for journalists or, more importantly, journalistic freedom. Nor, for that matter, is convergence.
The notion of a code, championed by what Post writer Terrence Corcoran properly calls the ``grandees'' who run the CRTC, is designed supposedly to force a separation between the newspaper and television newsrooms of multi-media corporations.
Rather than tell the CRTC to take a hike -- since they have absolutely no jurisdiction over print -- media mogul executives fell all over themselves promising to come up with ``voluntary'' codes to satisfy the inappropriate meddling from the CRTC hacks and hackettes.
It flows from the imposition of a code on Quebecor, in return for the CRTC approval of that company's acquisition of a host of major Quebec television assets. Under the code, journalists, editors and all news managers are completely prohibited from exchanging information between the television side and the print side of their operations.
The code decrees that all journalists ``shall at no time transmit, receive, exchange or discuss information by phone, fax, Internet or other technology with information professionals'' in Quebecor's newspaper newsroom. A breach of the code could bring journalists and their organization before a supervisory committee.
Even though CanWest Global kingpin Leonard Asper told the CRTC -- and quite rightly so -- that such an imposed code ``is bordering on, if not unconstitutional and a serious imposition against freedom of speech,'' CTV and Global still decided to respond to CRTC pressure by forming their own voluntary common code, a set of basic principles which, they say, would be adhered to as long as the CRTC did not impose the principles as a condition of the networks' licence to operate.
How stupid are these people? If may not be imposed this time, to be sure. But a few years down the road, when CRTC power mongers trot out the same notion, they'll be able to say `well, you guys already have a code. All we want to do is formalize it. What's wrong with that?'
As for so-called ``convergence journalism'' itself, well, the bad news is that it will certainly result in fewer jobs or journalists.
Asper, for example, said openly that in his world a print or broadcast reporter could be assigned to cover say a city hall meeting. The reporter would bring the details back and the assignment editor could decide what to use for both print or television. So instead of a television reporter and a print reporter covering the meeting for the converged corporation, you'd have one reporter doing double duty. Stay tuned!
Donna Logan, director of the school of journalism for the University of British Columbia recently told the Canadian Press that ``One of the things that has always disturbed me about journalism in Canada is that there were too many reporters chasing so few stories. Converged journalism offers an opportunity to break out of that mould by freeing up reporters to do stories that are not being done and are vital to democratic discourse.''
Is she serious? What converged journalism really does is provide an opportunity for the TV-print operation to cover the stories with a single reporter instead of two or more reporters.
They're not interested in freeing up reporters to chase stories they're not doing now. They're only interested in freeing up their bottom lines by doing the same work with fewer reporters.
That, and the CRTC's nightmare code, doesn't spell a happy future for journalists.