Opinion by Roger-Luc Chayer (Image : Patrice Roy / Société Radio-Canada)
We are accustomed, with Radio-Canada, Canada’s public broadcaster, to exemplary quality, both in its regular programming across all of its television and radio networks, as well as in its streaming services. This is particularly true of its newsroom, where seasoned journalists usually deliver rigorous, well-crafted and thoroughly documented news coverage.
But let me tell you that, for the past week, Radio-Canada has been offering, in my opinion, one of the most troubling examples of poor broadcast quality in Quebec’s television landscape. And this is all the more difficult to understand when we are talking about a public broadcaster with considerable resources and a budget measured in billions of dollars.
Over the years, we have become accustomed to a certain standard of quality at Radio-Canada, our public broadcaster. Solid programming, seasoned journalists, generally rigorous and well-crafted reporting, delivered with the seriousness that has long defined the public broadcaster’s reputation. Whether on television, radio or streaming platforms, viewers could generally expect a professional product.
And then, for the past week, something has clearly gone wrong.
Let’s be frank: what Radio-Canada has been serving us over the past few days ranks among the worst television has to offer. And the word “worst” has been carefully chosen here.
We are talking, after all, about a public broadcaster with considerable financial resources, substantial infrastructure and one of the largest pools of human resources in the Canadian media landscape. We could therefore reasonably expect better. Much better.
I have been a longtime viewer of Radio-Canada’s midday and 6 p.m. newscasts. And even though, at times, anchor Patrice Roy plays with his pencil a little too much or interrupts his guests a little too often, the information provided by the public broadcaster usually allows me to get a picture of what is happening around the world — whether locally, nationally or internationally — and keep up with the news that interests me.
But since last week, nothing has been going right with the 6 p.m. Téléjournal broadcast from Montreal.
All week long, even though the program normally begins exactly on schedule, we have been subjected to a succession of outages, sometimes complete, sometimes partial, for which no clear explanation appears to have been provided. And for a viewer who relies on Radio-Canada for information, the spectacle has been, to say the least, bewildering.
One evening, there was no newscast. Instead, half the screen was occupied by a Quebec Sign Language (LSQ) interpreter, who was obviously doing her job professionally. But to her left was a huge black square. The result: for viewers who do not understand LSQ, it was impossible to follow the news.
The following day, the same scenario: once again, that famous black square, with half the screen devoted to the LSQ interpreter, who was working hard to convey the information to deaf and hard-of-hearing people. This time, however, we at least had audio.
Another evening, everything appeared to be working normally, even though the space allocated to the LSQ interpreter remained disproportionate for a broadcast intended for the general public. And then yesterday, Friday, it was the final straw: nothing. No audio, no video. An entire week of news effectively ruined.
And in the meantime, I, a loyal Radio-Canada viewer for years, ultimately had to turn to an American network, NBC, to try to understand what was happening in Canada and around the world.
You have to admit, that takes some doing: being forced to leave Radio-Canada to get your information elsewhere because the public broadcaster is no longer even capable of properly delivering its own newscast.
This is no longer just a minor technical glitch. When it happens repeatedly over several days, it becomes a service problem. And for a public broadcaster that claims to provide quality information to all Canadians, that is frankly difficult to accept.
LSQ Takes Up Far Too Much Space
The public broadcaster plays an important role for the Canadian population. But even though it has numerous platforms and considerable resources, it obviously cannot satisfy everyone at the same time.
For the past few days, Radio-Canada has been offering a pilot experience: to the right of the regular Téléjournal, an LSQ interpreter simultaneously translates the news for deaf and hard-of-hearing people.
The intention is certainly commendable. But this format nevertheless raises a question: is it really a good idea to devote such a large portion of the screen to this translation, at the expense of the traditional presentation of the newscast?
I don’t think so.
First, this format is a significant source of distraction when I am trying to follow the news and analyze it in my head in order to form an opinion, as every viewer should be able to do. Yet while the journalist presents the information, a person is constantly gesturing on screen to translate it through signs and facial expressions whose meaning is obviously not understood by the vast majority of viewers.
We could obviously multiply the situations in which part of the public might need linguistic assistance or a particular accommodation. But Radio-Canada is making a specific editorial choice here regarding accessibility, and the question is whether that choice remains relevant when the main broadcast is already seriously disrupted.
What is the actual benefit, for Téléjournal viewers, of having these simultaneous translations directly on screen? The very same Téléjournal could easily be broadcast on another channel or another streaming platform, accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing people.
And the same logic could apply to those who wish to follow the news in Arabic, Tagalog, Greek, Chinese or any other language. The technology exists. Streaming platforms today make it possible to multiply channels, language versions and accessibility options without necessarily altering the viewing experience of the majority of viewers.
This is obviously not about questioning the need to make information accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing people. The issue raised here concerns rather how this accessibility is integrated into the television image when an outage is already affecting the normal broadcast of the bulletin.
And What About Patrice Roy’s Silence?
Throughout this week of broadcast problems, I used the Téléjournal contact form every evening to reach out to Patrice Roy in order to alert those responsible for the program to the technical problems viewers were experiencing. This seemed all the more reasonable to me because Mr. Roy regularly invites viewers to write to him to share their observations and comments.
But despite these repeated messages, no response.
Obviously, one must be cautious before interpreting this silence. We do not know whether the messages are read directly by Patrice Roy, filtered by a team, forwarded to another department or simply buried in a large volume of communications. It would therefore be unfair to attribute a specific intention to the anchor without knowing Radio-Canada’s internal procedures.
But for the viewer, the result remains the same: viewers are invited to communicate, they take the time to do so, and they receive no reaction.
And this is where the issue becomes more interesting. When an anchor publicly asks the audience to send him their comments, that invitation creates a certain expectation. A viewer can reasonably believe that their opinion will at least be considered and, in some cases, that they will receive a response.
When the silence becomes systematic, however, that invitation can ultimately be perceived as one-way communication.
The public could then see it as indifference, or even a certain lack of consideration toward viewers. Some might even interpret this lack of response as arrogance. These are not necessarily Patrice Roy’s intentions, but that is indeed the impression his silence can create.
And in this case, the comments did not concern a personal preference or the choice of a subject on the Téléjournal. They concerned repeated technical problems that actually prevented viewers from properly following the news bulletin.
One can therefore ask: what is the point of inviting the public to communicate with you if, when they take that invitation seriously, they never receive the slightest response?
For a public broadcaster, this is not an insignificant question. The relationship with the public should not be a one-way conversation. Viewers do not necessarily expect Patrice Roy to personally answer every email. They can, however, expect their comments to be taken seriously and, above all, expect invitations to engage in dialogue to be more than a simple formula delivered on air.
Because when you continually ask the public to speak without ever responding, you risk giving them the impression that their opinion is welcome… but that it does not count for very much.
ADVERTISING
READ ALSO
How Can We Distinguish Fact from Fiction in News and Information?
An in-depth analysis of fake media outlets, ghost media, content recycling, misinformation and the growing difficulty of distinguishing genuine journalism from websites that merely look like legitimate news organizations.
Certified Media: Gay Globe Strengthens Trust in the Face of Misinformation
An examination of the growing challenges facing legitimate journalism in an environment where misinformation spreads rapidly, and an explanation of Gay Globe’s approach to verification, credibility and journalistic standards.
Gay Globe: 30 Years of Journalism
A look at three decades of journalism through an interview with Roger-Luc Chayer, including the major changes that have transformed LGBTQ+ journalism, traditional media and the way news is produced and consumed.
11,900 Articles Published: Gay Globe Reaches a New Historic Milestone
A retrospective on nearly three decades of independent LGBTQ+ journalism, from the origins of Revue Le Point in Montreal to Gay Globe’s development into a bilingual digital and print media organization.
Let’s Have a Laugh: Analysis of Gay Globe by Artificial Intelligence — Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok and Claude
Four artificial intelligence systems were asked to analyze Gay Globe as a media outlet, its editorial positioning, journalistic approach, history, digital strategy and place within the LGBTQ+ media landscape.
An Ethical and Deontological Certification for Gay Globe
An article examining journalism, misinformation, professional standards and the importance of ethical and deontological principles in an increasingly complex media environment.