CBC Ombudsman to do Internal Investigation

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a quote from the BlogoSphere:

The question of collusion is a tricky one. Personally I'm concerned that favoured reporters or networks would be able to do their questioning with the power of a parliamentary subpoena. Worse than that, a news organization would prepare stories ahead of time, and then frame questions designed to evoke the "break" required to make the story suddenly newsworthy.

[guyser]

Quite simply, they have no room for a public broadcaster. It is too bad that they just can't say that in an election.

Geez, they aren't that stupid .................are they?

Satisfaction for all services is at 89%.

Today, 97 per cent of Canadians feel that CBC/Radio-Canada is essential.

http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/pdf/overview.pdf

I guess the other 3% are here.

Hmm....Ottawa-Gatineau ratings for CBC Radio One...#1 -Ottawa-Gatineau: CBC Radio One holds its lead with a 13.2% share of hours tuned for A12+ (up from 11.1 %).

http://www.mediaincanada.com/articles/mic/...7/radiobbm.html

[jefferiah]

The right wing says two things: If the CBC is successful, it should be sold. If it is unsuccessful: it should be shut down. Quite simply, they have no room for a public broadcaster. It is too bad that they just can't say that in an election.

Actually the point about "if it is so successful" is used as a counter argument to your claims of its so-called success. If the reason is not to fund shows and programming that otherwise would not make it, then why did we need subsidized TV in the first place.

And even if it is not successful that does not mean one shuts it down. The argument is to cut it loose, period. If there are certain areas where its market is very good, then in those areas it could function on its own. Though I assume that even in it's best markets that programming would have to be changed to make it sell. And that is as it should be, because if it sells that means people democratically are choosing to buy in.

Right now The Hour is a show which is expensive to produce, has few viewers and survives. While a host of American shows or other shows are available that people would more gladly watch, the tax payer has to pay for shows he doesn't.

When CBC advertises a new show for the new season it is usually a laugh. Everyone sitting around the TV says "Yeah, I'm sure that'll be great." But there is no incentive for CBC to make a show which has to compete, because the cash is flowing in the form of tax dollars.

Satisfaction for all services is a broad question. What needs to be done is polls concerning whether you are a fan of a certain CBC show. What shows do people watch on TV in general? Are those CBC shows? Are more people watching Little Mosque than CSI? Does anyone watch The Hour? Da Vinci's Crapquest? Dragon's Den? etc etc. As I said before, had you asked me about getting rid of the CBC a few years ago I would have said "No!", even though then there was very little I was ever watching on it. This is why the argument about the CBC has to be made before such a thing could be enacted. Show people the reasoning behind the idea, and that it is good. And then more will get on board. Before the idea became attractive to me I had to have it pointed out to me why such an idea is good.

"Do you think CBC should be cut loose," someone might say.

"No," I reply.

"But everyone pays for CBC to subsidize shows that no one is watching. For instance, Jeff, do you watch Little Mosque, The Hour, etc."

"No."

"Do most people you know actually watch these shows?"

"No."

Etc etc

Edited December 17, 2007 by jefferiah

[M.Dancer]

Right now The Hour is a show which is expensive to produce, has few viewers and survives.

Etc etc

The hour is expensive? Compared to what? It's a talk show in a static studio.....

[M.Dancer]

BTW....LMOTP is no more subsidized than say, Canadian Idol

[jefferiah]

The hour is expensive? Compared to what? It's a talk show in a static studio.....

Good question. And your "compared to what" actually helps make my answer. Expensive is a comparative term. What is expensive for one business venture, may not be expensive for another. Compared to the revenue this show generates it is expensive.

Why do you suppose that private networks, for whom success is necessary for survival, do not try to pick up these shows? And better yet, why does CBC not act more responsibly with tax payer dollars and try to pick up shows which actually have proven they can make it on the free market?

Edited December 17, 2007 by jefferiah

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe they do, and who knows?

Which is kind of my point.

----

Let's separate the CBC's obvious bias (paid from our taxes) from the source of questions of an MP. Apples and oranges.

This is small potatoes - the real hot potatoe is the fact that our dear CBC was about to air a documentary on severe human rights violations in China - seeing CBC will be filming the up coming olympic games in that nasty slave labour camp - they were gently coerced into NOT airing the documentary by the slave owners commonly refered to as the government in China - so - the CBC caved in to the demands of these creepy people - not to shame them till after the contract with CBC and China had be fulfilled..I could see CBC or NBC gaving into the demands of China to hide it's sins - because there would be huge sponsors envolved and the private broadcasters would loose millions in lucre..what the heck -

I guess maybe CBC is not so private anymore and is no longer a "not-for profit" coporation...so as is our medical system - it is "modified public private public private" - they are now in two spheres of operation - and here is a good one - about 2 years ago a container that arrived from mainland China contained enough chemical to created 22 million dozes of Ecstacy - that drug that dehydrates the brain of our adventurous young was stopped in Montreal - there was a small peak in the media then the whole thing disappeared off the radar - you would think that our government would have rebuked China and said - "don't send dope to young Canadians" - but seeing we are still full of guilt about poisoning their kids with opium 75 years ago and destroy their future leadership - opening the door to communism - that it may still be a tit for tat in the old drug war.

Wonder if some of that cash made though opium is still holding up the banks and Britain and other common wealth nations? Dirty buisness - there are things much worse than a mouthy CBC journalist.

[jefferiah]

BTW....LMOTP is no more subsidized than say, Canadian Idol

Well, CTV is obligated to air Canadian programming. Not that I agree with that either. But there is no comparison between CTV and CBC. CTV had Seinfeld, it has CSI, Criminal Minds, etc etc.

[M.Dancer]

Well, CTV is obligated to air Canadian programming. Not that I agree with that either. But there is no comparison between CTV and CBC. CTV had Seinfeld, it has CSI, Criminal Minds, etc etc.

You mean the CSI which is co-produced and co-owned by Alliance Atlantis?

Buying other networks stuff is cheap programming..and you can run a network doing that....take a look at Global...(which also runs seinfeld reruns...)

But if you really want to make money, you spend money and get the series out into the marketplace and sell it.

Oh and by the way, CBC airs probably Canada's favourite series.....Coronation Street...

[Fortunata]

CBC Newsworld is not funded by taxpayers. The Hour is not funded by taxpayers; that came up on one of the shows. The main channel CBC and CBC radio is funded by taxpayers. Some programming, such as the National, even though it's on Newsworld is probably taxpayer funded since it was on the main channel before Newsworld was created.

[jdobbin]

Actually the point about "if it is so successful" is used as a counter argument to your claims of its so-called success. If the reason is not to fund shows and programming that otherwise would not make it, then why did we need subsidized TV in the first place.

Right now The Hour is a show which is expensive to produce, has few viewers and survives. While a host of American shows or other shows are available that people would more gladly watch, the tax payer has to pay for shows he doesn't.

When CBC advertises a new show for the new season it is usually a laugh. Everyone sitting around the TV says "Yeah, I'm sure that'll be great." But there is no incentive for CBC to make a show which has to compete, because the cash is flowing in the form of tax dollars.

Satisfaction for all services is a broad question. What needs to be done is polls concerning whether you are a fan of a certain CBC show. What shows do people watch on TV in general? Are those CBC shows? Are more people watching Little Mosque than CSI? Does anyone watch The Hour? Da Vinci's Crapquest? Dragon's Den? etc etc. As I said before, had you asked me about getting rid of the CBC a few years ago I would have said "No!", even though then there was very little I was ever watching on it. This is why the argument about the CBC has to be made before such a thing could be enacted. Show people the reasoning behind the idea, and that it is good. And then more will get on board. Before the idea became attractive to me I had to have it pointed out to me why such an idea is good.

The simple fact is that Canadian TV in production, distribution and broadcasting cannot exist without protection. It can't.

The U.S. can produce a show like CSI for just under $3 million. They sell it to Canada for $50 to $100,000 per episode.

All of its production costs are covered in the U.S. already. The Canadian market is just gravy. Some experts suggest that the U.S. is able to dump programs in Canada and elsewhere at below cost in much the same way that other countries dump goods in the U.S. One of the dangers of the unions in California trying to attack Canada with its labour credit programs for production is that Canada has a strong case for program dumping.

In any event, Canadians have turned away from Canadian TV both private and public. Look around at any house and see the pirated U.S. signals.

I'll be the first to admit we need a top to bottom reformation of our communications system. Unlike the Tories though, I don't think it should only be the CBC which bears the brunt of the these changes.

[Michael Bluth]

CBC Newsworld is not funded by taxpayers. The Hour is not funded by taxpayers; that came up on one of the shows. The main channel CBC and CBC radio is funded by taxpayers.

There isn't really a Newsworld web site per se, just a page on the CBC Web site so I got this from the Newsworld Wikipedia page.

CBC Newsworld is a Canadian English language cable television specialty news channel owned and operated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

Because the funding for Newsworld does not come directly from taxpayers, i.e. it is funnelled through the CBC, that does not mean Newsorld is not funded by taxpayers. Any claims to the contrary are false.

[jdobbin]

You mean the CSI which is co-produced and co-owned by Alliance Atlantis?

Buying other networks stuff is cheap programming..and you can run a network doing that....take a look at Global...(which also runs seinfeld reruns...)

But if you really want to make money, you spend money and get the series out into the marketplace and sell it.

Oh and by the way, CBC airs probably Canada's favourite series.....Coronation Street...

CSI is produced by CBS and Goldman Sachs. Canwest sold off the division after buying Alliance.

Global just doesn't make money from running re-runs. They make money by simulcasting and taking over U.S. signals. They make money by being protected from being bought out. They are well protected just as the distributers and producers are.

Production rarely makes money in a big way. It is why Canwest and Alliance got out of production a few years ago.

[geoffrey]

You say CBC is bias?? I say bias belongs to Duffy on CTV!!!

Sure. But he's funded by selling commercials I can choose to watch or not. CBC's bias is funded by my paycheque. There is a significant difference.

I'd have no problem with the CBC if they funded themselves. Using tax dollars to push agendas exclusively is inappropriate.

If it was up to this conservative party, all the networks in Canada would be a servant to the Cons., like in the US, were more airwaves are run by Republicans! No Thank you. We need balance, the cons can have CTV and the rest of Canada will take CBC and Global!!

The price of Alcan stock just went up.

Like I said, who cares about bias if people are willing to pay for it? All media is biased. That's why the government should stay the hell out of it.

[Michael Bluth]

Like I said, who cares about bias if people are willing to pay for it? All media is biased. That's why the government should stay the hell out of it.

Perfectly well said.

Perhaps incrementalism is the best path in this case.

[guyser]

There isn't really a Newsworld web site per se, just a page on the CBC Web site so I got this from the Newsworld Wikipedia page.

I am quite surprised that you would blatantly ignore the truth. Why would you not read down another 16 lines where it states, and I quote from your same source....

"Newsworld is funded by cable subscriber fees and commercial advertising. Unlike the CBC's main television network, the channel cannot directly benefit from the corporation's public funding from Canadian taxpayers, although it does benefit from synergies with other CBC services.[1]

Newsworld's French language counterpart is Réseau de l'information "

Because the funding for Newsworld does not come directly from taxpayers, i.e. it is funnelled through the CBC, that does not mean Newsorld is not funded by taxpayers. Any claims to the contrary are false.

The only thing false is your entire post...

From the CRTC website.....

25. The purpose of these conditions of licence is to ensure that specialty services funded largely through subscriber fees, are not underwritten by the CBC’s parliamentary grants; tax dollars intended to fund the over-the-air radio and television services. This rationale is still valid and the Commission has re-imposed these conditions.

Hmmm, care to comment?

Edited December 18, 2007 by guyser

[jefferiah]

The simple fact is that Canadian TV in production, distribution and broadcasting cannot exist without protection. It can't.

Does this have anything to do with the fact that no one is watching it? And if no one is watching it......

It's like me saying I should have a government funded salary to be an NHL player cuz no NHL team would pay for me to play.

Edited December 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

You mean the CSI which is co-produced and co-owned by Alliance Atlantis?

Buying other networks stuff is cheap programming..and you can run a network doing that....take a look at Global...(which also runs seinfeld reruns...)

But if you really want to make money, you spend money and get the series out into the marketplace and sell it.

Oh and by the way, CBC airs probably Canada's favourite series.....Coronation Street...

If you really want to make money, you do what makes money. Canadian series do not do that well. When CBC produces a show that can at least compete with re-runs of good shows, then we can talk about spending money to get it out on the marketplace. Right now they spend everyone's money on a load of crap.

Canada's favourite series is Coronation Street????

Just about every week the top 10 shows in Canada are either CTV programs or Global programs, and the majority of those shows which acheive this honor are American.

Edited December 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[jdobbin]

Does this have anything to do with the fact that no one is watching it? And if no one is watching it......

It's like me saying I should have a government funded salary to be an NHL player cuz no NHL team would pay for me to play.

There is an audience for some Canadian programming. Corner Gas and Mosque get 1 million viewers. The problem is the cost of these productions cannot be covered by advertising in Canada. It costs $500,000 per episode of half hour comedy. The fees the stations pay is less than a third of that cost. No program in in drama or comedy pays for itself. Most news in Canada does not pay for itself solely on advertising during the news. If it wasn't a CRTC requirement, most stations would have not have news as demonstrated by CITY TV across Canada. They dropped the news because of the cost.

Sports is probably the one area where advertising covers the cost.

So, are people watching Canadian TV? The answer is yes. Some shows get a fairly significant audience. The problem is they will never pay for themselves.

In a true free market, there would be no Canadian TV at all, no Canadian networks, no Canadian shows, no Canadian ownership. They would be all affiliates of U.S. stations.

I have no idea what the level of piracy is in Canada but many people have opted out of paying for TV service at all.

[geoffrey]

The simple fact is that Canadian TV in production, distribution and broadcasting cannot exist without protection. It can't.

Oh well. We also can't make $5 t-shirts. Doesn't mean the government should subsidize sweatshops. We can't do everything, why waste our money on what we do poorly.

[jefferiah]

There is an audience for some Canadian programming. Corner Gas and Mosque get 1 million viewers.

Wooow. 1 million viewers. Belongs right in the same dynasty as Cheers, All In The Family, Seinfeld, etc. That certainly warrants 30 people paying for something one guy in the group wants to watch.

In a true free market, there would be no Canadian TV at all, no Canadian networks, no Canadian shows, no Canadian ownership.

And what does that tell you?

Why must there be Canadian shows? OK lets get this straight. In order for there to be Canadian shows we pretty much have to all chip in even though we are not watching. But it's so important to have Canadian shows that we must all pay for shows we are not watching. Because it would be a horrible loss if we as Canadians were to lose the crappy shows we are not watching.

Meanwhile we all watch American programming anyway, and so basically we've created a job out of nothing and for nothing. That's like me getting money from the government so I can rent Scotiabank Place to put on a concert for no one.

I personally think it's a rather defeatist attitude which says Canada could not compete. And it is this attitude which fulfills itself when we remove the incentive to compete. It is the same attitude which creates crap all over the world. And in nations where this attitude does not exist, there is always a higher level of success. Like saying, "We can't succeed out there, so instead of even trying to compete or make something which is good, we will make laws to protect our own crap and force people to pay for our product."

But if indeed Canadian shows cannot compete, then they certainly do not deserve to be there.

Edited December 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[jdobbin]

Wooow. 1 million viewers. Belongs right in the same dynasty as Cheers, All In The Family, Seinfeld, etc. That certainly warrants 30 people paying for something one guy in the group wants to watch.

And what does that tell you?

Why must there be Canadian shows? OK lets get this straight. In order for there to be Canadian shows we pretty much have to all chip in even though we are not watching. But it's so important to have Canadian shows that we must all pay for shows we are not watching. Meanwhile we will all watch American programming and basically we've created a job out of nothing and for nothing. That's like me getting money from the government so I can rent Scotiabank Place to put on a concert for no one.

As I said, Canadians will watch programs made in Canada for Canada. The audience for some of those programs will place them in the top 20 and often beat the majority of U.S. programming. However, we can't compete in the amount of quantity produced in the U.S. not can we can compete with the overall quality when it comes to attracting money, talent and the like.

If there is interest in having a Canadian voice, it is something that will require investment. Private companies cannot compete because of our smaller market and the low cost of U.S. programming sold in Canada. The U.S. is the only industrial country that doesn't need a policy on an American voice in TV and film. The industry first grew up there and became one of its largest exports.

The true free market for TV and film in Canada would no market. We would just have the signals beamed in from the U.S. or elsewhere with no national content in drama, comedy, variety, news and quite possibly in sports dear to Canadians. There is no market in the U.S. for hockey.

[jefferiah]

As I said, Canadians will watch programs made in Canada for Canada. The audience for some of those programs will place them in the top 20 and often beat the majority of U.S. programming.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "beat the majority of US programming", but I think you are dreaming. Everyweek BBM lists the top shows in Canada. Just about everyweek CBC is absent. Just about every week CTV and Global share alternate spots on the top ten list. Just about everyweek those shows on that list are from American networks.

Yes there are Canadians who do watch shows in Canada made for Canada. They are a minority. Do you know why in America shows like Are You Being Served (UK) is on PBS and not on CBS? Because they have a smaller audience. That is what CBC shows are like here.

Edited December 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[blueblood]

As I said, Canadians will watch programs made in Canada for Canada. The audience for some of those programs will place them in the top 20 and often beat the majority of U.S. programming. However, we can't compete in the amount of quantity produced in the U.S. not can we can compete with the overall quality when it comes to attracting money, talent and the like.

If there is interest in having a Canadian voice, it is something that will require investment. Private companies cannot compete because of our smaller market and the low cost of U.S. programming sold in Canada. The U.S. is the only industrial country that doesn't need a policy on an American voice in TV and film. The industry first grew up there and became one of its largest exports.

The true free market for TV and film in Canada would no market. We would just have the signals beamed in from the U.S. or elsewhere with no national content in drama, comedy, variety, news and quite possibly in sports dear to Canadians. There is no market in the U.S. for hockey.

FSN, the versus channel, and NBC show lots of hockey games. IF there was no Canadian channels, they would have no competition, not only that, they would get fairly high ratings from all the Canadians who love hockey.

[jdobbin]

FSN, the versus channel, and NBC show lots of hockey games. IF there was no Canadian channels, they would have no competition, not only that, they would get fairly high ratings from all the Canadians who love hockey.

The NHL pays NBC to put those hockey games on TV. Without some of the broadcast money from Canada to help underwrite the costs of the NHL, they could not afford to it. The U.S. market makes very little from TV revenue in the U.S.