CBC/Radio-Canada +$3.7 Billion

[Shwa]

Shwa, the money would circulate just as much if it went from my wallet into the world instead of taking a circuitous route through my taxes to the CBC.

By your logic (and the logic of this CBC report), it would be good for the economy if I emptied your bank account and used the money to buy maple syrup to fill my swimming pool. As you said, the money would circulate in Canada and result in economic benefit to Canadian production.

Your "logic" includes fantastical imaginings about absurd bullshit? Come off it August - shit or get off the pot. We are talking about a national service to Canadians that has economic benefits - proven economic benefits and all you got is some vague reference to your taxes?

Good God, what are you? Like 12 or something?

[segnosaur]

Whatever supposed economic "benefit" that we receive from CBC funding/spending must be weighed against alternative uses for that funding; e.g. if the tax dollar that would have gone to finance the CBC either went to other projects, or was returned to taxpayers to be used in other ways.

Fantasy. The report says that the CBC provides an economic benefit right now. Today and in the past . It doesn't rely on day dreaming or wishful thinking about what could be with those mytical tax dollars, it is justifying itself as a positive economic factor in the present.

Ummmm... perhaps you failed to read the rest of my post. You know, the part that dealt specifically with the validity of the report. You see, the report claimed an economic benefit, but if those claims were built on faulty assumptions then those claims must be discarded.

Two of the assumptions in particular jumped out at me:

- The claim that CBC money generates more economic benefit than if it were spent on other programs "according to government spending priorities". However, given the discretionary nature of CBC funding, it is a bad assumption that it would be used as other government revenue

- That money not spent by the CBC on local production would be 'lost'. However, without the CBC providing the "juggernaut" of Canadian culture, its likely other organizations would have the ability for production opportunities. (I'm sure CTV would have been quote happy to pick up Hockey Night in Canada or Kids in the Hall for example)

As one of those fiscal conservative types, this is what I like to hear. Show me the money so we can at least see that our collective investment has some tangible economic value in the field.

Again, you're assuming that the report was actually accurate in its assertion that the CBC generates economic benefits. A little skepticism might make someone question whether a report funded by an organization praising that same organization might have a little bias. (After all, we'd question a report on Global Warning that was released by the Oil Companies, wouldn't we?)

At least the money is being circulated here at home, resulting in economic benefit to Canadian production.

And if that same money were spent on, for example, road improvement it would still be circulated here in Canada (except with the added benefit that the infrastructure might provide long term secondary benefits). Or if it were returned to Canadians (in the form of tax cuts) and they spent it on (for example) a visit to a restaurant or even saved in the bank it would also be circulated here in Canada.

Edited June 20, 2011 by segnosaur

[RNG]

Ummmm... perhaps you failed to read the rest of my post. You know, the part that dealt specifically with the validity of the report. You see, the report claimed an economic benefit, but if those claims were built on faulty assumptions then those claims must be discarded.

Two of the assumptions in particular jumped out at me:

- The claim that CBC money generates more economic benefit than if it were spent on other programs "according to government spending priorities". However, given the discretionary nature of CBC funding, it is a bad assumption that it would be used as other government revenue

- That money not spent by the CBC on local production would be 'lost'. However, without the CBC providing the "juggernaut" of Canadian culture, its likely other organizations would have the ability for production opportunities. (I'm sure CTV would have been quote happy to pick up Hockey Night in Canada or Kids in the Hall for example)

Again, you're assuming that the report was actually accurate in its assertion that the CBC generates economic benefits. A little skepticism might make someone question whether a report funded by an organization praising that same organization might have a little bias. (After all, we'd question a report on Global Warning that was released by the Oil Companies, wouldn't we?)

And if that same money were spent on, for example, road improvement it would still be circulated here in Canada (except with the added benefit that the infrastructure might provide long term secondary benefits). Or if it were returned to Canadians (in the form of tax cuts) and they spent it on (for example) a visit to a restaurant or even saved in the bank it would also be circulated here in Canada.

Again, I wish this site had an "add to reputation" or equivalent button. I heartily agree with this post. I was mentally composing basically the same concepts when I saw it.

[segnosaur]

Broadcasting is cheap. Presumably, people in southern Canada will pay a few pennies to have a radio signal in Northern Canada in the small chance that they may some day be in Northern Canada, or they may meet someone from Northern Canada.

Why should it matter if they "may be in Northern Canada"? Unless the government is about to kidnap me and ship me off to Nunavut, any trips up to the arctic will be done voluntarily, and if its work related I can demand additional pay (in order to subsidize satellite TV/radio).

FTR, I'm against subsidizing the CBC. Some years ago, maybe, but the technology argument forwared by Segnosaur is very valid.

BTW, I favour subsidizing the CBC. I reckon that we can pay for TV through advertising, or through taxes (ie. cable fees).

I find advertising irritating unless it's good.

Well, that's why god invented the PVR.

You know, if you find too many commercials annoying you can just change the channel.

Just out of curiosity though, why should I (as a non-CBC user/viewer) be forced to subsidize the viewing habits of CBC users who just want to avoid "irritating commercials"?

[Wild Bill]

The entire purpose of the CBC is to have a venue for Canadian broadcasting, so we're not overwhelmed by the American cultural machine (so to speak). With a much larger population and more money spent on cultural products, coupled with our population primarily gathered around the border, it's easy to see how this is a very real possibility. However, given the shift in cultural consumption from radio to television to internet, I think it's plain to see that good Canadian productions will always have a market. Perhaps it was important to have sheltered media in the nation-building days, but I think it's less important now and find the whole idea of protecting 'Canadian heritage' to be antithetical to our valued notions of diversity.

Well CC, you started off with one belief but then veered right and qualified it.

You're right, there are some good Canadian productions. However, they seem to come from a private broadcaster, CTV!

What does CBC provide, other than Hockey Night in Canada, where they ineptly lost the theme song?

Please don't cite Little Mosque on the Prairie! I'd rather watch paint dry!

[segnosaur]

The entire purpose of the CBC is to have a venue for Canadian broadcasting, so we're not overwhelmed by the American cultural machine (so to speak). With a much larger population and more money spent on cultural products, coupled with our population primarily gathered around the border, it's easy to see how this is a very real possibility.

First of all... if its a "Canadian broadcast" but ratings are low (nobody is watching/listening to it), is it really part of our culture?

Secondly, even if "Canadian culture" itself managed to disappear, I think the big question we should be asking is "so what"? A "culture" is not a living thing. Its a collection of interests and preferences held by members of a particular country or social group. If absolutely no Canadian watched anything Canadian produced (and instead focused on American things), there would be no deaths, no injuries. It wouldn't even cause any emotional distress (assuming that people were watching American culture of their own free will.)

I watch a lot of American TV. My PVR is set to tape The Daily Show, Chuck and Criminal Minds. Yet I also listen to Great Big Sea, and own the DVDs for Gunless and all 6 seasons of Corner Gas. I watch/listen to what interests me most.

[Michael Hardner]

Secondly, even if "Canadian culture" itself managed to disappear, I think the big question we should be asking is "so what"? A "culture" is not a living thing. Its a collection of interests and preferences held by members of a particular country or social group. If absolutely no Canadian watched anything Canadian produced (and instead focused on American things), there would be no deaths, no injuries. It wouldn't even cause any emotional distress (assuming that people were watching American culture of their own free will.)

I would agree with you if there were no such things as borders or nation states. Since we still have those things, then there's obviously a disadvantage to adopting the identity of a nation state that is not ours.

[RNG]

I would agree with you if there were no such things as borders or nation states. Since we still have those things, then there's obviously a disadvantage to adopting the identity of a nation state that is not ours.

Not obvious to me at all. Expound please.

[bush_cheney2004]

I would agree with you if there were no such things as borders or nation states. Since we still have those things, then there's obviously a disadvantage to adopting the identity of a nation state that is not ours.

Why would it be "adopting the identity" in any way? Consumers have a choice to select from a vast media market, and this does not mean they have adopted a different "identity". Logically, your way of thinking ultimately clashes with the very idea of "diversity", when in fact Canada touts diversity as part of its identity.

Pull the plug on American media and see if anything changes.

Edited June 20, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[eCitizen]

For your consideration, I propose this discussion : The Fool in King Lear

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17255

[RNG]

For your consideration, I propose this discussion : The Fool in King Lear

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17255

And this relates how?

[segnosaur]

For your consideration, I propose this discussion : The Fool in King Lear

And this relates how?

I agree... it is kind of a bizarre thing to bring up.

Is "the fool" supposed to be the CBC? Or are people pointing out the flaws in the report supposed to be "the fool"?

[Shwa]

Ummmm... perhaps you failed to read the rest of my post. You know, the part that dealt specifically with the validity of the report. You see, the report claimed an economic benefit, but if those claims were built on faulty assumptions then those claims must be discarded.

Two of the assumptions in particular jumped out at me:

- The claim that CBC money generates more economic benefit than if it were spent on other programs "according to government spending priorities". However, given the discretionary nature of CBC funding, it is a bad assumption that it would be used as other government revenue

- That money not spent by the CBC on local production would be 'lost'. However, without the CBC providing the "juggernaut" of Canadian culture, its likely other organizations would have the ability for production opportunities. (I'm sure CTV would have been quote happy to pick up Hockey Night in Canada or Kids in the Hall for example)

Again, you're assuming that the report was actually accurate in its assertion that the CBC generates economic benefits. A little skepticism might make someone question whether a report funded by an organization praising that same organization might have a little bias. (After all, we'd question a report on Global Warning that was released by the Oil Companies, wouldn't we?)

And if that same money were spent on, for example, road improvement it would still be circulated here in Canada (except with the added benefit that the infrastructure might provide long term secondary benefits). Or if it were returned to Canadians (in the form of tax cuts) and they spent it on (for example) a visit to a restaurant or even saved in the bank it would also be circulated here in Canada.

All good points segnosaur, but they ignore the real point - and you have to answer the question yourself: does the CBC provide economic benefit to the Canadian economy?

As for their claim that the CBC generates more economic benefit than some of the other government programs I am sure that if you did a detailed scan of some of the government's spending habits, you would agree. Start with PWGSC...

[Shwa]

Not obvious to me at all. Expound please.

Really RNG?

Here, I hope this helps:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Nationalism

[cybercoma]

Well CC, you started off with one belief but then veered right and qualified it.

You're right, there are some good Canadian productions. However, they seem to come from a private broadcaster, CTV!

What does CBC provide, other than Hockey Night in Canada, where they ineptly lost the theme song?

Please don't cite Little Mosque on the Prairie! I'd rather watch paint dry!

I'm saying that I don't really see the purpose of CBC anymore, other than to provide a sheltered broadcaster for uncompetitive Canadian products. However, I'm on the fence because I also see the necessity of being able to document and produce our own culture, which arguably should not be subject to a popularity contest on the free-market. The question I struggle to answer is whether or not it is valuable to shelter the Canadian cultural economy. I lean towards yes, but concede that it may be ignored by those looking for their entertainment nowadays through the internet. Edited June 21, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, that's a sad and pathetic argument. American cultural machine?

Without the CBC or a State broadcaster, Bulgarians survived under Islamic/Ottoman rule for 500 years.

If Canada is to survive, you are foolish to believe that a State broadcaster is critical to its survival.

Says you.

When the vast majority of our population is concentrated on the borders and we get most of our media from the United States (it's changing now with people foregoing television for internet streaming, but it's getting worse not better), is it any wonder that children know more about American history, holidays, traditions and customs than our Canadian ones?

Canada will survive regardless, but with little or no understanding of ourselves. What implications does that have for our sovereignty? Will we just roll over to American demdands because "we're all the same anyway."

It may not seem that there is a threat to understanding our culture and history, to you in Quebec because your province spends so much time protecting its culture and history. Meanwhile, the ROC has an easier time identifying with the United States and ignoring our vastly different history. This forum is a poor example because most people here are educated and interested in history and politics. More generally, however, people are losing their understanding of who we are and where we have been.

This does not bode well for Quebec. As the Rest of Canada loses our sense of history and place, the notion that we were a French settlement long before the English arrived will be lost and it will become increasingly more difficult for Quebec to argue special status. When the Rest of Canada can't even wrap their mind around why Quebecois would argue the province has special status, you're never going to convince the government or public to acknowledge it.

No, our national culture, history and traditions needs to be preserved. And this means funding a national public broadcaster is of the utmost importance.

[bush_cheney2004]

...No, our national culture, history and traditions needs to be preserved. And this means funding a national public broadcaster is of the utmost importance.

Oh the irony...you mean the national culture of sniping at Quebec while embracing American media? You guys crack me up....

[Shwa]

Oh the irony...you mean the national culture of sniping at Quebec while embracing American media? You guys crack me up....

That is our "national culture?" Thank God we have an astute American telling us about it. BTW, how is all the racism coming along in the US? Any more million man marches lately?

Edited November 7, 2011 by Shwa

[bush_cheney2004]

That is our "national culture?" Thank God we have an astute American telling us about it. BTW, how is all the racism coming along in the US? Any more million man marches lately?

Ooooo....did that one leave a mark? The racism is going just about as well as the racism in Canada. But it's hard to find a million to march there. So you mostly just watch our media as reported above and parrot back same.

[Shwa]

Ooooo....did that one leave a mark? The racism is going just about as well as the racism in Canada. But it's hard to find a million to march there. So you mostly just watch our media as reported above and parrot back same.

"leave a mark" LOFL! Trust an American to wildly exaggerate at their own expense. Kind of like mortgage affordability eh? How's that working out for you?

But seeing your national culture - as stated on all your media - seems to be reporting that racism is a far more insidious issue with you guys - what with all that slavery and stuff - I am just being neighbourly for asking. No need to get testy.

[bush_cheney2004]

"leave a mark" LOFL! Trust an American to wildly exaggerate at their own expense. Kind of like mortgage affordability eh? How's that working out for you?

Right...Americans are not confused about who/what they are, and certainly don't define themselves as !Canadian. Mortgage is fine...was paid off years ago.

But seeing your national culture - as stated on all your media - seems to be reporting that racism is a far more insidious issue with you guys - what with all that slavery and stuff - I am just being neighbourly for asking. No need to get testy.

Slavery is part of "American culture"....instead of denying slavery (and many other "racist" policies) the way you do for Canada, we embrace it as a formative experience. In an effort to differentiate and define Canada apart from America, you have dismissively ignored racism right at home.

Getting back on topic, Quebec looks to be the last bastion of Canadian culture that stands on its own. Hope the CBC continues to fund it so I can watch the circus from afar.

Edited November 7, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Shwa]

Right...Americans are not confused about who/what they are, and certainly don't define themselves as !Canadian. Mortgage is fine...was paid off years ago.

Well, it is pretty hard to define oneself by something one is completely unaware of right? Americans don't generally define themselves as global citizens either.

"A nation of spectators." - some American describing his nation.

Slavery is part of "American culture"....instead of denying slavery (and many other "racist" policies) the way you do for Canada, we embrace it as a formative experience. In an effort to differentiate and define Canada apart from America, you have dismissively ignored racism right at home.

Indeed slavery is still very much a part of American culture, Like Mom and Apple Pie. No denying that.

Getting back on topic, Quebec looks to be the last bastion of Canadian culture that stands on its own. Hope the CBC continues to fund it so I can watch the circus from afar.

Another Canadian wanna-be who defines himself in terms of Canada. tsk, tsk, tsk