Right now, as we pause for regime change, there’s a perfect opportunity for CBC Television to take a close look at where it has been and where it is going. But just when there should be a lively debate about what’s next for Canada’s most important cultural institution, everything has gone disconcertingly quiet.

The result: a lost opportunity to re-invent CBC Television at a time when the future of public broadcasting is in jeopardy.

In July, after six years as head of English-language services, Richard Stursberg was abruptly and gracelessly dumped by CBC president Hubert Lacroix. Alas, it seems the change had everything to do with personality conflict and nothing to do with policy.

Indeed, Lacroix made a point of praising Stursberg for turning CBC Television around. And while a search goes on for a successor, Lacroix has installed Kirstine Stewart, Stursberg’s chief lieutenant, as interim leader. She is widely expected to get the job permanently.

But it could be suicidal for the CBC to continue its single-minded pursuit of ratings. Unfortunately, that has translated into giving up most of the elements that gave the CBC its distinctive identity.

There have been a few respectable success stories, such as Being Erica. But The Tudors, though technically Canadian, has hardly any connection with this country. And we no longer expect ambitious special projects such as its memorable miniseries starring Colm Feore as Pierre Trudeau or the epic documentary series Canada: A People’s History.

The main problem is not what shows have been developed but what has been whittled away. Where are the dramas and ambitious series that tell stories about our history? Ever since the cancellation of Opening Night, with very rare exceptions like this week’s Billy Bishop special, there’s hardly any chance to bring the best work of our performing artists to the small screen.

Even worse is the marginalization of current affairs programming, which for decades was one of the CBC’s strengths. The fifth estate has managed to stay on the air, though with fewer episodes; however, it would be a wild exaggeration to say the program is being nourished and supported.

If there is one essential role a public broadcaster must play, it is to dominate news coverage. But a recent attempt to spruce up The National has flopped, and CBC continues to lag seriously behind CTV News in attracting viewers.

This is a far cry from those glory days of the 1980s when The National shared the hour with The Journal, which consistently provided stimulating coverage you couldn’t find on any other network. Today, with the exception of one night a week, when the “At Issue” panel provides a needed zap, the CBC’s big news package tends to be flabby. An hour is simply too long to be sustained by a single anchor, no matter who.

What’s needed is a fresh new vision. By turning off its traditional loyalists and losing its unique character, the CBC becomes so similar to other channels that there’s less and less reason to fight for its continued existence.

If Stephen Harper wins a majority, he might choose to save about $1 billion a year by withdrawing funding for the CBC — at which point public broadcasting would become a thing of the past.

You might think federal Liberals would be expressing concern about the future of public broadcasting, but they don’t seem to be paying attention.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

But then, why should others rush to the defence of the CBC if its board and management choose to make themselves extinct?

mknelman@thestar.ca