Open media, open democracy

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support for as little as $5 per month!

There was something different in the air this time. The room still screamed of bureaucracy: the decorative flags at the front of the room, the plain suits, the stenographers. But the July CRTC hearing on traffic management (a.k.a net neutrality) had a dynamism to it that seemed foreign to the walls that contained it. Normally a hearing like this would be reserved for so-called "stakeholders." This time around there was a buzz in the room, and that buzz was literally the twitter of public discussion that forced its way into a hearing.

The CRTC's traffic management hearing attracted an exceptional 11,000 submissions from people across Canada, an important number that I stressed in my own presentation before the commission. However, the public comments represent only a small facet of a larger constellation of citizen engagement that collectively appears to be opening up the CRTC's processes.


Prying open bureaucracy

Usually at hearings, citizen groups present their positions, send out a press release, and hope that the media relay the public interest perspective. Even when the media does cover the public interest perspective, citizens are brought into the discussion as onlookers to a representative-based discussion rather than as equal participants.

At this particular hearing, citizens made it very clear that they were not just going to sit passively but that they were going to actively participate in the discussions via social media tools. Net neutrality advocates like Michael Geist, and citizen groups like the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) "live tweeted" and blogged about the hearing, while hundreds of people from across the country tuned in, discussed and debated as the hearing unfolded over the course of a week.

There was such a strong awareness of cyber participation that before Michael Hennessy, Telus Senior Vice-President, Regulatory and Government Affairs started his presentation, he gave a shout out to everyone on Twitter. Later into the hearing, Michael Geist invited citizens to post questions that they thought the commission should ask Bell Canada -- it appeared that at least one of the commissioners was following online and utilized citizen input when dealing with representatives from Bell.

Crumbling divisions

The division between government and citizens is breaking down. There is a movement for openness taking shape in Canada and elsewhere, where people are re-imagining government and citizenship with a renewed relationship among the two. That new relationship is characterized by government decision-making that is, as public policy consultant David Eaves puts it, "as flat and transparent as possible that both nourishes and draws from its most valuable resource: its citizens." An example of how this movement is expressing itself can be seen by the city of Vancouver's recent enactment of an "Open Motion." The city is now committed to bringing the community into City Hall by embracing transparency, engaging citizens and soliciting their ideas, input and creative energy. Local governments in other places like Toronto and Calgary are pursuing similar policies.

Back to the CRTC hearing: What does all this amount to? The public was invited into the hearing in the usual tokenistic fashion. However, this time citizens took it upon themselves to bring the hearing out to the public.

People are no longer satisfied with "public consultations" that are not truly engaging. Canadians have an appetite for more -- for government institutions and their processes to be fully citizen-based. Albeit slowly, the CRTC seems to be evolving with public pressure, which should make for better decision-making.

This is only the beginning

It's clear that Canadians are tired of decisions being made in their name but that don't reflect their interests. We're not waiting for the government to figure this out. Expect government agencies and institutions to be confronted with these circumstances repeatedly in the future, provided we have an open communications system that we can use to self-organize. An open Internet and wider communications infrastructure is an essential ingredient that enables this evolution in citizenship and government relations. It is appropriate then that the first wall to break down be the one between our communications regulator and the citizens for whom it is supposed to operate.

It's encouraging that the CRTC has taken steps to make way for citizen participation such as setting up an open online consultation leading up to the hearings, but more needs to be done. It should be the citizens that define the questions that frame these hearings and online consultations. As such, the CRTC and policy makers must make stronger efforts to come out to, rather than pull in, citizens -- to go where the conversations are happening.

Government captured by citizens

In one of the CRTC's first statements after assuming authority for telecommunications in 1976, the commission said: "The principle of 'just and reasonable' rates is neither narrow nor a static concept ... the commission views this principle in the widest possible terms, and considers itself obliged to continually review the level and structure of carrier rates to ensure that telecommunications services are fully responsive to the public interest."

Bell, of course, tried to dodge CRTC oversight by arguing that these areas were not within the purview of the CRTC. The CRTC forcefully disagreed.

I hope the commission will embrace this watchdog spirit again. While some have questioned how much the revolving door between commissioners and industry, the undemocratic appointment process, and political pressure affect the CRTC's decisions; opening up the CRTC to citizen involvement may be the best disinfectant for such impurities. The most reliable way to stop a regulator from being captured by industry is by citizens making sure it's captured by them.

Steve Anderson is the national coordinator for the Campaign for Democratic Media. He is a contributing author of Censored 2008 and Battleground: The Media and has written for The Tyee, Toronto Star, Epoch Times, Common Ground, and Adbusters.

Reach him at:, or

Media Links is a syndicated column supported by CommonGround, TheTyee, and VUE Weekly.

Media Links by Steve Anderson, Common Ground,, TheTyee, VUE Weekly is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. You must attribute this work to Steve Anderson, Common Ground,, TheTyee, VUE Weekly (with link).

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.