There is an interesting exchange in the comment section under the post CTS acknowledges charity not legitimate - CITS Media Resources Organization.
I’d like to pull this exchange up, since it’s a learning experience, and transparency about religious programming funding from a host is not a norm.
A reader talks about a Canadian religious show called Listen Up TV which airs on CTS.
Just watching “listen up” on CTS (Sunday 7:00PM) and saw a solicitation for donations for the show specifically…I don’t understand how a private broadcaster can ask for donatioans…very confusing…
Listen Up TV host Lorna Dueck responded with this:
Thank you for asking important questions and for giving us the opportunity to respond to those raised about Listen Up TV. I just want to clarify that CTS gives Listen Up TV airtime in exchange for our show. We appreciate our place in their scheduling. It’s a barter deal, CTS air time, our content.
PJR, we value relationships with viewers like you, and are glad you want to understand us better. Here’s who we are: Listen Up TV is not a private broadcaster, but a charity licensed to spread the Christian Gospel. We have not been able to cover our production costs with sales of commercials, or banner sponsorships that we tried to do for the past five years. So this fall, buoyed by opinions that viewers would rather be asked to support the show than lose it, we began asking for donations for our media charity, Media Voice Generation. You can see our CRA registration that we have held for six years at that link and also click over to see our Board and staff members. Mr. Manning is our vice chair, Dr. Franklin Pyles has been the founding Chairman of this charity.
Our donations are used to promote the Christian gospel through research of how Christianity is being applied in all spheres of life, to take that research and produce compelling TV news analysis with it, and then to disseminate that media content through TV, print and web outlets. We currently air on seven networks, with donations being used to produce this Christian content, and to purchase airtime on the Global TV network where we have yet to strike a barter deal as good as the one we have on CTS. We welcome your further questions about Listen Up TV.
I thought that would be the end of it, it’s rare to have anyone from religious broadcasting in Canada stop by a blog. The reader goes on to say:
“Thank you for asking important questions and for giving us the opportunity to respond to those raised about Listen Up TV. I just want to clarify that CTS gives Listen Up TV airtime in exchange for our show. We appreciate our place in their scheduling. It’s a barter deal, CTS air time, our content.”
Hmmm interesting. I understand that religious programs BUY time on religious networks and solict donations to pay for the air time to “spread the gospel”.
I have never heard of a “barter deal” of this nature before, and I cannot imagine a private non religious broadcaster like global going for such a deal. I find it rather strange that of all the channels you cite, only CTS gives you this “barter” arrangement…
Having watched your program it seems more like a christian version of a current affairs program. I have never witnessed any “witnessing” as it were on your show.
Interesting to that you had charitable status for six years. I guess that comes in handy now that you need it…just sayin as they say.
I’m hearing bartering is a common practise with Canadian religious shows even with religious networks outside Canada.
Yes, all the networks we are on except Global TV give us that same barter deal that CTS provides for us. When someone “barters” your show, it means they place your content but you still have to find another way to pay for creating that content. It’s a common TV term, and more common in mainstream broadcasting.
Commercials that we could sell, articles we could sell, fees from speaking engagements and the occasional product sale are all part of the revenue stream at Listen Up, but over our short history, that revenue has never reached higher than 10 per cent of our productions costs. So for all our six years of broadcasting, we’ve been privately knocking on doors requesting financial partners.
Mainstream broadcasting is funded on the advertising model, based on audience numbers watching, commercials are sold on the costs per thousands watching. (think $50 for a early Saturday morning on a specialty channel vs. the $2 million the Super Bowl ad will pull in during February) Audiences are not big enough on all these faith based networks to be sustained by commercial revenue.
Every producer works hard to find adequate revenue to produce the stories that draw an audience. We’re convinced Christianity needs to be lived out large in the Canadian media landscape, and accept that fundraising to tell that story is part of the Listen Up TV mandate.
Television is a business: bartering and begging do not bode well for quality programming. I find this information depressing, especially under a post which deals with one of the networks running an unauthorized charity. If shows don’t pay for their time, why pick the pockets of the public?
Published 1 month, 3 weeks ago 21 comments
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
- Podcasting
- Jimmy Swaggart and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
- Deceptions about sexual orientation harder to broadcast in Canada
- Religious Right Alert for Canadians - it's up!
- Blogging, eh what?
- Pod casting -Godcasts
- Tame little ol' ladies - yeah right
- The State of the Canadian Church
- A bloggers widow
- Stephen Colbert and Bill O'Reilly
For blog design, Wordpress themes or blog help, see cre8d design.
Because every Canadian TV station needs a certain amount of Canadian Content. They need to maintain a good ratio so they can balance out the high-paying American programs (Hagee/Hinn/700…).
…and you don’t really get what they’re saying about “bartering”. It’s actually a good ida. I’ll eleborate more when I have time tonight.
Lorna Dueck’s rare transparency and willingness to answer probing questions in public forum is both refreshing and welcome.
It is somewhat apparent that Lorna is not seeking to hide behind a stonewall of silence or an air of mystique and intrigue and for that she must be commended.
When it comes to leadership at Crossroads, CTS and the ilk it would seem that God is beginning to separate the sheep from the goats.
I wonder if CTS has bitten off more than it can chew.
It’s a little like Jonah swallowing the whale.
CTS has to pay carriage fees for two satellite
operators–Bell and Star Choice. Moreover, it now
has additional stations/studios in Calgary and
Edmonton and two low-power repeater transmitters
in London and Ottawa. On the satellite services,
the signals have to be paid for by the subscriber.
I don’t know about cable distribution but the situation
with Miracle Channel and Rogers should be mentioned
here briefly. Rogers told Miracle Channel it wanted
$50 thousand a month to put the channel on its
service. In addition, the channel was available only
to those who had digitial (set-top) converters.
CTSTV is on cable systems in may places of the
country (and away from the cities cited above)
but it isn’t always on the lower channels
where one doesn’t need a converter box to see it.
This means that CTSTV is visible in some parts of
the country only with a converter box and/or by
paying a premium to the carrier. I’d like to know if
CTSTV is paying the cable companies fee for carriage
of their signal. If they are paying such a fee and
considering the land-based transmitters and the
satellite channels, I wonder if it’s a case of Jonah
swallowing the whale and coming down with a
great case of indigestion. It seems the Pepto-
Bismol is donations from outsiders.
It gives more ammunition to my argument that
religious broadcasters should hire an outside
non-evangelical organisation to manage its money
and business plan. It’s too easy to be filled with
the “Holy Spirit” and proceed overzealously and
not see the real dollars and sense of the situation.
Thanks Chris, an explanation would be helpful.
Looking forward to it. There is some under the CITS Media Resources Organization post, I think this Listen Up TV discussion is more helpful away from the CTS post.
Listen Up TV bartering air time has to do content distribution and content distribution networks, not the regulatory infractions by CTS.
I can’t enter this discussion much other than parroting what I read online – I’ve not watched Listen Up TV.
Appreciated grace Tim.
“I think this Listen Up TV discussion is more helpful away from the CTS post.”
I agree – and fairer to Listen Up too.
I’ve moved this comment up from the CITS Media Research Organization/CTS post so Listen Up TV staff can discuss their company practises with interested readers as fairly as possible. BD
I wonder if CTS and ListenUp TV follow Canada Revenue Agency’s guidelines concerning bartering…
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it490/it490-e.txt
Lorna, if you read this, can you tell the readers whether you adhere to bulletin T-490 and if not, then why are you exempt from doing so? Also, do you know if CTS adheres to this bulletin?
“Television is a business: bartering and begging do not bode well for quality programming. I find this information depressing, especially under a post which deals with one of the networks running an unauthorized charity. If shows don’t pay for their time, why pick the pockets of the public?”
This is what I am trying to get at in my tortured way.
Lorna is “transparent” here, but what of her show…does she explain this bartering arrangement to viewers before the pitch comes up at the end of her program for funds?
What other shows on CTS have this model? You bring up a good point about television being a business. If CTS wants to act like a private broadcaster, and compete in that sphere, then it needs to abide by the same rules…ditto for the “current affairs” programming. It can’t all of a sudden don charitable garb in the name of religion when money becomes scarce.
I wonder about vision TV…I believe they buy most of their programming..or most of it…I think they would be most interested in these goings on….
I thinks as well, in light of the somewhat tangled relationships that appear to exist in canadian evangelical circles, that such arrangements need to be completely above board if one has charitable status and solicts funds to spread the gospel.
The issues with CTS, apart from listen up, should make this quite clear to all
Hi Bene D,
You can watch Listen Up TV on line and read their blogs at: http://listenuptv.com/listenup/homepage
I have a great deal of respect for Lorna Dueck and have a link to Listen Up on my blog because I have often found interesting and relevant articles there.
Blessings!
Hi pjr:
I’m in the dark, Listen Up TV is a non-entity in my life and I see the board members are listed on the site:
Chairperson: Dr. Franklin Pyles – President, Christian and Missionary Alliance of Canada
Vice Chair: Mr. Preston Manning – President and CEO, Manning Centre for Building Democracy
Secretary Treasurer: Gilles Chaput Past CEO, BDO Dunwoody LLP
Additional Members:
Mr. Robert J. Acheson – Investment Banker, Chairman, Robert Acheson Investments Inc.
Ms. Susan Martinuk – Columnist, Calgary Herald / Freelance Media Commentator
Mrs. Debbie Giesbrecht – Co-Owner of White Stone Construction
Mr. Fred Reinders – Chair & CEO Reinders Group of Companies
I made an error re: the board chair and I apologize.
An interesting question has been put forward in #6; the Revenue Canada document is readable and hopefully we’ll find an answer.
Hi Belinda:
Thank you.:^)
Thank you once again for your questions. Media Voice Generation is a registered charity in Canada. We operate as Listen Up TV because that is the familiar name of the television show currently seen on seven television networks. Our CRA charitable mandate allows us to use any form of media, including, but not limited to television media for the purpose of spreading the Christian gospel. Listen Up TV asks people who value the service we provide in media to donate funds so that the work may continue. The survival of a charity necessitates a high degree of public trust and accountability, and as such, our financial records, and operating processes are open and transparent. Our financial records are audited each year and we are happy to demonstrate to the public that we operate within the scope of CRA charity legislation, and our charitable mandate.
I am wondering whether a detailed answer concerning the specific CRA bulletin mentioned (IT-490) is best handled in a blog setting like this, or in another way. It is extremely important that we maintain the public trust and so I would like to invite Tim, who asked the question, to contact us directly at our number 905-336-9777. We would be happy to discuss this, or other questions about our operation.
PJR, keep in mind also, when thinking about Listen Up TV and CTS – the former is a charity, the latter is not. As such different rules apply.
“PJR, keep in mind also, when thinking about Listen Up TV and CTS – the former is a charity, the latter is not. As such different rules apply.”
Yes and that is exactly my point…the chameleon like nature of CTS and listen up..who appear to by private by one turn and a charity by another…when it suits their needs…
PJR: perception is not always reality and the reality is that Listen Up operates under a charitable framework, CTS does not. That’s Lorna’s point I think – but your thoughts speak loudly to the need for charities to make it clear to the public that they are charities – and all the more so when the services of a charity are delivered through a commercial entity whether at arms length or not. For the sake of good order and clear understanding it’s an opportunity for clearer communication and is in the best interest of all concerned.
PJR – only registered charities can call themselves a charity – anyone who refers to themselves as a charity when they are not steps well over the line; inviting the delights of audit, investigation, censure and possible prosecution depending on the circumstances by the requisite authorities.
Yes, it is true that Listen up is a registered charity. Obtaining this status is not that difficult and many a nefarious enterprize has been allowed to scam the public for a period of time until their status was taken away.
I am not maintaining that Listen up is doing this. My concern lies in the fact that at best Listen up is a current affairs program. How does this program “spread the gospel”.
The second question is this. If Listen up can do this why can’t the fifth estate or W5 do the same. They can declare themselves charities and “barter time” with CBC and CTV respectively…
Just wondering.
It is becoming more and more difficult for organizations to qualify for charitable status as the criteria is becoming more stringent – and that’s a good thing.
When it comes to maintaining charitable status a charity must demonstrate that it is operating under it’s charter and that ultimately is a matter for the charity and the CRA to resolve if there were to be an issue.
The Fifth Estate and WFive are not charities and they could not just declare themselves such as you suggest without serious consequences – unless they were to obtain charitable status through CRA via the prescribed application process. So not sure where you’re headed with that…
To my mind at least the quality of the Listen Up show and the work of Lorna Dueck is of a high standard and the challenge for her and her production company must be how to keep going when funds are so tight in the marketplace – Christian and secular. Therein must lie the rationale for the barter arrangement that at least helps keep the wheels turning in this repressed economic climate.
I have no connection with Lorna Dueck or her Listen Up show but I feel I should ’speak up’ for Lorna and her team as they show an integrity and a depth of character that is welcome on the Christian broadcasting landscape.
PJR, you’ve raised another interesting, and important question around the subject of charitable purpose. Each charity, ourselves included, has letters patent that guide what your charitable purpose is. CRA grants the charity its charitable status based in part on an understanding that the stated purpose of the organization is in fact charitable.
In the letters patent for Listen Up TV (which is a rather lengthy document) it is stated that we use news and current affairs to spread the Christian gospel. You’ve suggested that you can’t see that connection.
I’m always glad to hear that feedback. Allow me to explain how we attempt to do that, and over time, to improve at doing that.
Each week we choose a news story, or current event around which to build our program. This week, for instance, our program will revolve around what Christian charities are doing to respond to Haiti. In another recent program, we were exploring the rise in human trafficking that is expected around the Vancouver Olympic Games.
We then introduce a Christian perspective to that topic by asking such questions as, “What is God’s perspective on this situation?” “What can we learn about God’s character in this story?” “How do we see the effects of sin in this story?” “How does Jesus’ offer of a new spiritual life apply in this story?”
The communication of that “golden thread” of the gospel message is how we attempt to fulfill our charitable purpose of spreading the Christian gospel through news and current affairs. We are very conscious of the limitations our charitable status, and letters patent impose upon us and it is a frequent management-level topic of discussion to ensure that we stay within those guidelines.
Each week our producers meet and make decisions on what news stories best allow us the opportunity to fulfill that purpose. We often welcome outside voices into that meeting to add to what our own producers can create. Perhaps you’d be interested in sitting in on that story-creation process sometime, and adding your voice into the mix of how we work with news and current affairs stories. We would welcome it. In a previous post, I gave the phone number for Listen Up TV, and so I offer it again: 905-336.9777
To Tim G’s point about “keeping the wheels turning” our perspective is this: Raising adequate funding for the Christian missionary endeavour (broadly speaking) requires a dependence on God for financial provision. We see God answering our prayers as interested donors join their voice with ours through their contributions. We also see God’s provision as we expand the program’s reach without additional cost through creative arrangements like barters.
Lorna:
I guess, I am an unrepentant cynic..but I find that such reasoning leads to excesses like the infamous PTL theme parks and the political posturing under the guise of “spreading the gospel” we see in other ministries.
If christians want to engage society as a whole in the “public square” is it too much to ask that they play by the same rules, and make do without the crutch of charitable status.
PJR: It would seem to me that most if not all charities need to engage society as a whole “in the public square” at some point or another for many reasons of which funding may be just a piece of the communications jigsaw, among other reasons.
By virtue of their charitable status that require charities to operate under a different legal framework there are imperatives and restrictions upon charities that ensure, to some degree, that the same rules that apply to secular corporations and organizations do not and cannot apply to charities. That’s the way it is.
If your rationale is developed further assuming your position that charitable status is a ”crutch” then it would follow that the only conclusion that would satisfy you is that charities should cease to exist – whether the subject charity is “religious” or not.
Perception is not always reality and in the context of the opportunities and challenges faced by charities in making ends meet on a day to day basis and still fulfilling their charity charter my recommendation to those of a more cynical persuasion is to go and work for a charity full time for a couple of years.
Only then will the penny drop methinks.
Most charities are doing a good job out there and are so busy fulfilling their mandate that they often struggle with making ends meet.
Sadly the shenanigans of the few affect the many.
There are some that are so focussed on raising funds that fulfilling their mandate is a secondary consideration. Within discussion streams within BD’s blog there have been a couple of recent glaring examples of such charities that are so blind they cannot see. Funding greed, nepotism, secrecy, over riding concerns about self preservation etc etc.
It’s a shame. Sickening even. On this, PJR, doubtless we would be in full agreement.
“If your rationale is developed further assuming your position that charitable status is a ”crutch” then it would follow that the only conclusion that would satisfy you is that charities should cease to exist – whether the subject charity is “religious” or not.”
I do not question that charities who are involved in charitable wokrds receive excemptions. What I do questions is those “charities” which stretch the definition of charity for their own purposes.
In the case of listen up we have a current affairs program “spreading the gospel”….should people be allowed to set up charities for the sole purpose of creating TV programmes?
PJR, you seem to now concede that Listen Up TV does in fact “spread the gospel?” Can I take that to mean that my earlier defense of how we do that made sense to you? If so, thank you!
There are over 80,000 registered charities in Canada today. This suggests to me that a wide range of work is considered “charitable” in the eyes of Revenue Canada .
“Spreading the gospel,” (which itself seems to have a wide range of definitions), has historically been viewed as one of those core concepts of the Christian faith. In some cases “spreading the gospel” manifests in traditional forms such as Christian pastors who teach the core concepts of Christianity, whether through a church, or another means.
I would suggest also that the work of a charity like the Salvation Army in feeding homeless persons 365 days a year is another manifestation of spreading the gospel.
In the case of Listen Up TV, it is not that a charity is set up for the purpose of creating TV programmes. Rather, the TV program is one of the means by which the charitable work (spreading the gospel) is accomplished. Our charitable charter also allows for more than just producing television, and as such, we also become engaged in using other forms of media (print and online) and other forms of public education about Christianity (such as events, training seminars, public forums, etc)