The CBC -What to do

[Handsome Rob]

Choosing between heritage and healthcare is a false dilemma: we don't have to fund one or the other.

And - yes - I do believe that general disinterest will cause the profile of this country to fade, without support.

True, but we ought to fund one. Every single Canadian has an interest in health care, whether they like it or not. Buy rates of attendance, less than 10% have an interest in venue's of the arts.

[Michael Hardner]

Buy rates of attendance, less than 10% have an interest in venue's of the arts.

Depending on what you're saying, and what you're citing...

How many Canadians watch television, for example ? My guess is that many do.

[g_bambino]

Person: I paid $6,000 for my lose 80 lbs overnight pills, and I didn't lose any weight!

CBC: Oh that's terrible, that evil, evil corporation. We're going to go run a smear campaign against them because you were to lazy to have any common sense to differentiate between obvious scam and un-obvious scam.

Hmmm... I must have missed that particular episode. I'm sure you can tell me its air date; no?

[ToadBrother]

There's still some CBC television I find decent: The National, At Issue, and Marketplace jump to mind. A curtailed CBC TV presence might not be bad.

I like Mansbridge better than I like Robertson or Newman, that's for sure. Frankly, I like CBC radio a lot more than I like CBC TV. I think the last actual CBC series I enjoyed was The Beachcombers, when I was about eight years old.

To be fair, I find the other domestic network TV shows suck pretty bad too. I remember hearing that Wayne and Schuster had to kick serious butt to get their own TV show made the way they wanted, and were constantly butting heads with CBC's management.

[Handsome Rob]

Depending on what you're saying, and what you're citing...

How many Canadians watch television, for example ? My guess is that many do.

How many actively watch the CBC, besides Hockey? If this wasn't a significant problem, shouldn't the CBC be making money from happy advertisers like most of the other networks?

Hmmm... I must have missed that particular episode. I'm sure you can tell me its air date; no?

The Magic Pills.

Another great one, how to not read a cell phone contract and blame the carrier for following it.

[Michael Hardner]

How many actively watch the CBC, besides Hockey? If this wasn't a significant problem, shouldn't the CBC be making money from happy advertisers like most of the other networks?

As with most things, there is a third way. CTV and the specialty networks have found a way to make regional programming that works so the CBC should be able to as well.

[g_bambino]

The Magic Pills.

Another great one, how to not read a cell phone contract and blame the carrier for following it.

Huh. I thought you were being flippant. Sorry.

Though, that said, I still generally like the programme; I quite enjoy unearthing the dodgy practices of companies myself, so the show will obviously appeal to me. That pill one (which I haven't seen), for instance: I've long wondered how companies can get away with making false claims in their advertising. I'll try and watch that episode when I have a chance. Thanks!

[ToadBrother]

As with most things, there is a third way. CTV and the specialty networks have found a way to make regional programming that works so the CBC should be able to as well.

And their programming, for the most part, sucks just as bad. W5 is just a more sensationalistic version of the Fifth Estate.

Frankly, other than CBC's news coverage, most Canadian programming is just plain gawdawful. Terrible production values, bad acting (because most of the good actors go south of the border where the star system gives them at least some chance of making it big) and so forth. Every once in a while a show will break through the unmitigated mediocrity of Canadian television production, but for the most part, people would rather watch House, Lost or The Office.

[Michael Hardner]

Frankly, other than CBC's news coverage, most Canadian programming is just plain gawdawful.

No argument here. They need to look at the Trailer Park Boys and other examples that worked to figure out ... why. I had a book awhile back called the Encyclopedia of Canadian Television and I had to put the book down for laughing at the awful series.

I remember reading once that a New York Times critic called The Littlest Hobo just a video of a dog walking around. The Trouble with Tracy... how did these ever happen ? It's like "The Producers"...

[M.Dancer]

but for the most part, people would rather watch House, Lost or The Office.

There have been a few shows over the past 20 years that stood out...

Made in Canada

The Newsroom

CODCO

4 on the floor

History Bites

Rent a Goalie

[Bob]

Different level of government.

I'm aware of this, but let's not forget that the source of all these funds remains the same - the Canadian taxpayer.

I don't know if you watch Curb Your Enthusiasm, but there's an episode where Larry lends $10 000 to his friend on the understanding that his friend had an urgent need for the money. Larry later finds out that this friend is organizing a celebration with a guest comedian (Richard Lewis, who is Larry's close friend) being paid $10 000 for appearing and performing. When Larry confronts this friend about the lavish party and expensive guest comedian, his friend tells him, "Oh, I didn't use THAT ten thousand dollars you lend me for the party, I used THAT ten thousand dollars for something else." Even worse, Larry is uninvited from the party by this friend because of Larry's separation from his wife, because this friend of Larry's wants to avoid the likely awkwardness at the party from having Larry and his wife under the same roof. :-)

My point is that we shouldn't be afraid to rank the importance of various social services regardless of what level of government provisions these services. So, although the CBC can be viewed as a federally-run service, and health care and largely being provincially-run, it's all the same money. How can we as Canadians justify spending on less-important needs such as subsidizing Trailer Park Boys when there aren't enough MRIs across the country to give us reasonable wait times?

The "different level of government" comment doesn't make those of us who recognize this problem feel any better about it.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Bob

[Michael Hardner]

How can we as Canadians justify spending on less-important needs such as subsidizing Trailer Park Boys when there aren't enough MRIs across the country to give us reasonable wait times?

You can go pretty far with that, and end up deciding that only healthcare should be funded. The cost for arts funding is relatively low, is the thing and adds to quality of life.

In principle, I'm in favour of what you say - but as at a restaurant there are many things on the menu.

[Bob]

Choosing between heritage and healthcare is a false dilemma: we don't have to fund one or the other.

It isn't a a false dilemma, because the funding of both objectives comes from the same finite source of funds. Just as you make choices with your money regarding what to spend it on (and what NOT to spend it on), so do all levels of government. I also think it's interesting that you're equating public funds being spent on media and the arts to "heritage". Perhaps that's true in some ways (maybe a CBC documentary on Canadian history), but it's also untrue in many more ways (subsidies spent on CBC news). There's no other way to examine this.

I also never said that public financial support had to be absolute towards one objective or the other. What I suggested, which I don't think is controversial, is that some public services are more important than others. That doesn't mean we need to drop all public financial support towards broad public interests in favour of other broad public interests, rather we should trim and transfer where necessary. Perhaps we can spend LESS on media and arts and MORE on healthcare.

And - yes - I do believe that general disinterest will cause the profile of this country to fade, without support.

Perhaps, I myself am unsure. I'm also unsure what the profile of this country is. Since this country is so heavily composed of immigrants, it seems to me that it's understandable why so many Canadians have some sense of detachment from Canadian history. For example, "it wasn't MY ancestors that fought on Vimy Ridge". I think it's natural for people to have a stronger sense of connection with history that their family was directly affected by, and given Canada's high level of immigrants (and of course the children of immigrants and so on...) it just seems to fit that Canadian identity is more broadly based on shared values and less on a shared sense of history. I'm also unsure that public subsidization of media and arts substantially reinforces the Canadian profile (whatever that may be).

I think I'm somewhat going off on a tangent, so I'll stop there.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Bob

[Michael Hardner]

It isn't a a false dilemma, because the funding of both objectives comes from the same finite source of funds. Just as you make choices with your money regarding what to spend it on (and what NOT to spend it on), so do all levels of government.

But you don't pick one or the other. You can pick both.

I also think it's interesting that you're equating public funds being spent on media and the arts to "heritage".

Isn't Bev Oda the heritage minister in charge of arts funding ?

Perhaps we can spend LESS on media and arts and MORE on healthcare.

I'm not sure of the numbers but it seems to me that we spend so much more on healthcare that we could eliminate arts funding and not even notice the change in healthcare.

Just an impression, though.

[Bob]

You can go pretty far with that, and end up deciding that only healthcare should be funded. The cost for arts funding is relatively low, is the thing and adds to quality of life.

In principle, I'm in favour of what you say - but as at a restaurant there are many things on the menu.

I understand, but let me reiterate that I'm not advocating total defunding of media and arts. Still, it's hard for me to swallow someone waiting a long time for a medical procedure (a diagnosis which my identify a time-sensitive health problem, for example) when that wait-time could be reduced by taking money from more trivial objectives.

[Bob]

But you don't pick one or the other. You can pick both.

I understand, what I'm questioning is the wisdom of the degree to which we currently fund both.

Isn't Bev Oda the heritage minister in charge of arts funding ?

I don't know, but why is this important?

I'm not sure of the numbers but it seems to me that we spend so much more on healthcare that we could eliminate arts funding and not even notice the change in healthcare.

Just an impression, though.

Perhaps. But let me think small, for a moment. I remember reading a few years back that an MRI machine costs about $1 million. I can't recall the cost of operating it 24/7, but let's assume that's it's about a $1 million annual cost to maintain its operations. Considering the billions we spend on more trivial objectives such as heritage/culture, media/arts, Aboriginal affairs, we can have a tangible improvement in healthcare with some serious analysis of how we're spending our money.

There are many examples of massive waste we can identify at all levels of government, whether it's the gun registry, Ontario's e-health fraud, or Ottawa's loss with its Simpsons-esque monorail story (the Siemens blunder). The negative impact of the quality of life of many Canadians, in the narrow sphere of healthcare alone, can be measured by various criteria from these scandals. For example, how many hip surgeries could have been performed with these dollars, and how much could we have reduced the average wait-time for such a procedure with the money lost. We can then of course use a similar analysis to compare the utility of spending money on Trailer Park Boys and the utility of spending money on more medical specialists.

I'm not convinced that the money spent on arts/media is so negligible. But hey, I'm just assuming here without having done the necessary homework.

[Michael Hardner]

Perhaps. But let me think small, for a moment. I remember reading a few years back that an MRI machine costs about $1 million. I can't recall the cost of operating it 24/7, but let's assume that's it's about a $1 million annual cost to maintain its operations. Considering the billions we spend on more trivial objectives such as heritage/culture, media/arts, Aboriginal affairs, we can have a tangible improvement in healthcare with some serious analysis of how we're spending our money.

Generally, as I say, I like to talk about facts but the danger is that people decide that the Arts are just window dressing and not helpful to us. In fact, we're a rich enough nation to not only afford the arts but to fund them more fully than we do now.

There are many examples of massive waste we can identify at all levels of government, whether it's the gun registry, Ontario's e-health fraud, or Ottawa's loss with its Simpsons-esque monorail story (the Siemens blunder). The negative impact of the quality of life of many Canadians, in the narrow sphere of healthcare alone, can be measured by various criteria from these scandals. For example, how many hip surgeries could have been performed with these dollars, and how much could we have reduced the average wait-time for such a procedure with the money lost. We can then of course use a similar analysis to compare the utility of spending money on Trailer Park Boys and the utility of spending money on more medical specialists.

The Soviet Union was all about being utilitarian, and they produced a very ugly society.

I'm not convinced that the money spent on arts/media is so negligible. But hey, I'm just assuming here without having done the necessary homework.

The Canadian Heritage Minister (actually, James Moore) indicates in this speech that it's $500 million for the arts ...

This includes $100 million for festivals and events, $60 million for local theatres and small museums, and new money for national arts training.

Considering that it generates economic activity including tourism and the like, it's really not very much at all. The entire budget is $280 B in expenditures, I think, which makes this a fraction of 1%.

[ToadBrother]

Generally, as I say, I like to talk about facts but the danger is that people decide that the Arts are just window dressing and not helpful to us. In fact, we're a rich enough nation to not only afford the arts but to fund them more fully than we do now.

The Soviet Union was all about being utilitarian, and they produced a very ugly society.

I think these are incredibly important points. Look at Moscow. On one hand, you have the glorious palaces of the Kremlin, and then, on the other hand, you have endless rows of dull, concrete apartment and government complexes. Never was their a sharper divide between one kind of civilization and another than the differences between Czarist and Communist architecture and art.

Governments throughout history have spent money on public art and other works whose purpose was decided non-utilitarian. Some were religious (ie. the Pantheon and the Pyramids), others were recreational (the Coliseum in Rome and its imitations throughout the Roman Empire) and others were triumphant or celebratory (ie. the Eiffel Tower and the Arches of Trajan). Great cities like London, New York, Paris, Athens and Istanbul are littered with works of art great and small, most of which, one way or the other, were paid for out of the public purse. It is a substantial part of what makes these cities great. I mean, strictly speaking, you can celebrate Anglican Communion in any old country church, but there are few buildings in the world as marvelous to behold St. Paul's Cathedral in London.

As well, governments throughout history have employed poets and musicians. Vienna didn't become the music capital of the world in the 17th and early 18th century by accident. An incredible amount of money was spent out of the public purses of the Italian city states during the Renaissance to produce some of the most glorious and beautiful cities every fashioned by the hand of Man.

Since the very dawn of civilization, the arts have always been part of the public works. I wouldn't want to live in a civilization that was as utilitarian as the Soviets aspired (if that's the right word) to. No great works of representation of our victories, our defeats, our tragedies, or aspirations? It doesn't really seem human to me.

Edited May 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

Healthcare healthcare healthcare. We could spend all $280 B of the budget on healthcare and people would still complain about not enough healthcare. Not all of our economy needs to go to hospitalizing people. Some of our nation's funding can and should go to advancing the interests of those with good health. And those interests can certainly include the arts.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe we can combine them and have singing doctors and dancing nurses ?

Morris ? Thoughts ?

[Handsome Rob]

Healthcare healthcare healthcare. We could spend all $280 B of the budget on healthcare and people would still complain about not enough healthcare. Not all of our economy needs to go to hospitalizing people. Some of our nation's funding can and should go to advancing the interests of those with good health. And those interests can certainly include the arts.

I would take the position that people should choose that which they would like to support, and those destined to fail, are going to fail regardless of whether or not we place them on life support for an indetermined amount of time.

We generate more than enough additional wealth placed in consumer spending, that household budgets can justify supporting such things. When you look at the attendance of the dull museums, art galleries and such, I don't for one second by the idea that the existence of said venue alone is responsible for bringing in additional revenues for the community, and if it was such a tourist attraction they should easily be able to afford their own budgets based on revenues alone.

[Smallc]

I like Mansbridge better than I like Robertson or Newman, that's for sure.

Ick. I think that CTV News is far better than CBC TV news now. I really like when Tom Clark anchors and I have always liked Lloyd Robertson. CBC has gotten to where it has lower quality following the reorganization last year, IMO.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Frankly, other than CBC's news coverage, most Canadian programming is just plain gawdawful.

There are notable exceptions, Flashpoint being my personal favourite. It's popular on both sides of the border.

[ToadBrother]

Ick. I think that CTV News is far better than CBC TV news now. I really like when Tom Clark anchors and I have always liked Lloyd Robertson. CBC has gotten to where it has lower quality following the reorganization last year, IMO.

I frankly like Peter Mansbridge a lot more. Don't like Robertson or Clark.

[ToadBrother]

There are notable exceptions, Flashpoint being my personal favourite. It's popular on both sides of the border.

Oh absolutely there are exceptions. I'm an avid fan of Trailer Park Boys (though, to be fair, that is by a much smaller network). But these, to my mind, are the exceptions that make the rule so damned frustrating.