Page - 169 - in Media – Migration – Integration - European and North American Perspectives

Augie Fleras | Ethnic and Aboriginal Media in Canada 169 informal) to respect, reflect, and be more responsive to ethnic and aboriginal differences (i.e. “mainstreaming” – to bring into the centre what once was at the margins). The government Task Force on Broadcasting Policy, co-chaired by Gerald Caplan and Florian Sauvagneau in 1986, addressed the need to include aboriginal peoples and racial minorities (Raboy 1988). The Broadcasting Act of 1991 made provisions for Canadian broadcasting, both in terms of programming and employment opportunities, ‘to serve the needs of a diverse society and reflect the multicultural and multiracial character of Canada.’ The Act not only reinforced the case for “cultural expression” by expanding air time for racialized ethnic minorities; it also insisted on sensitivity training for program and production staff, language guidelines to reduce race– role stereotypes, and monitoring of on-air representation of racial minorities. The institutionalization of the Ethnic Broadcasting Policy established guidelines for portrayal of minorities; in turn a regulatory body was charged with developing broadcasting services that reflected Canada’s diversity. The CRTC requires all television broadcasters (and increasingly radio applicants) to file seven year plans on how they will reflect diversity in their programming and operations, and report annually on their progress (Cardozo 2005) (for comparable developments in the Netherlands, see d’Haenens 2007). Mainstreaming diversity can prove a win/win situation. According to Madeline Ziniak, chair of the Task Force for Cultural Diversity on Television and Vice President at Omni Television, advertisers are waking up to the advantages of multicultural advertising to minorities (cited in Prashad 2006). Demographics are propelling the changes: When people of colour compose nearly 40 percent of the populations in Vancouver and Toronto, the media have little choice but to acknowledge that diversity sells. Despite a more accepting social climate and a powerful business model, institutional inclusiveness does not come easily to commercial mainstream media. Put bluntly commercial media do not see themselves as reform agencies to promote progressive change or to accommodate, even if they may have social responsibilities because of the power they wield. They are a business whose raison d’être is simple: to make money by connecting audience to advertisers through ratings. Institutional practices that generate revenues (for example, stereotyping) will be retained; those that don’t will be discarded. Such a bottom-line mentality will invariably clash with minority demands for balanced and contexted coverage, given media preference for morselization over context, conflict over co-operation, the episodic over the contextual, personalities over issues (see Atkinson 1994). That competing agendas are at play is no less detrimental to mainstreaming diversity. Whereas mainstream media provide a key cross over point for intercultural understanding and exchanges (deSouza and Williamson