Time to defund the CBC

[segnosaur]

I never said they did not. They have to, after all, because of CanCon regulations.

So, in addition to all your amazing magical abilities to determine what is respectable entertainment, you have the ability to mind read, to look into the brains of those running CTV/Global/etc. and determine "Oh, these people will never produce Canadian content otherwise". With this magical mind-reading ability, why aren't you rich?

The TV show Corner Gas (about as Canadian as they come) managed to pull in almost 3 million viewers for its finale (See: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/618324). This matches (and in some case beats) typical ratings for such American shows as American Idol and House. Hmmm (See: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=61462)... gotta wonder why all those TV executives would bother with a show that, you know, has plenty of viewers.

The other issue is that there are limits to what the Canadian entertainment industry can do as a whole... CBC has done well with shows like Mercer Report, but CBC's tighter content rules may be distorting the ability of other networks to obtain what Canadian talent there is.

[Smallc]

The name

It's rather a play on the term. I'm just a little bit conservative.

and the position you're taking suggested as much.

No, actually, it doesn't.

[segnosaur]

I prefer that the CBC be funded than privately owned.

Private Media will always neglect to tell stories that private corporations don't like.

Ummm.... In this day and age, we have competing television broadcast and cable networks networks (CTV/Global), Daily newspapers with biases towards various parts of the political spectrum (e.g. the 'Right Wing' Sun media chain, and the 'Left Wing' Toronto star, dozens of specialty newspapers and news magazines (e.g. the free X-Press newspaper which is very left-wing in its opinions), Radio stations (we have 2 "all news" stations in my city), not to mention the vast capabilities of the Internet, where pretty much anyone can start a website/blog preaching almost any political opinions they like. All these are supported very well by the "private corporations".

Simply put, if there is a political viewpoint out there, you can likely find a media source which caters to it.

You appear to be assuming corporations will "surpress" things they don't like. But the fact is, companies are in the business of making money. That means catering to your audience so you can sell ad revenue, even if its pushing stories that the owners aren't happy with.

[Black Dog]

So, in addition to all your amazing magical abilities to determine what is respectable entertainment, you have the ability to mind read, to look into the brains of those running CTV/Global/etc. and determine "Oh, these people will never produce Canadian content otherwise". With this magical mind-reading ability, why aren't you rich?

The TV show Corner Gas (about as Canadian as they come) managed to pull in almost 3 million viewers for its finale (See: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/618324). This matches (and in some case beats) typical ratings for such American shows as American Idol and House. Hmmm (See: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=61462)... gotta wonder why all those TV executives would bother with a show that, you know, has plenty of viewers.

Thanks for providing me with such a great example to support my point. Corner Gas was rolled out with little fan fare and bounced around the schedule. Only after CTV realized it had a real hit on its hands did it bother throwing any real marketing muscle behind it.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (you know, the benevolent patriots you think would be throwing their profits at Canadian programs) consistently lobby the CRTC to loosen CanCon restrictions. But yeah, I'm just making shit up.

[fellowtraveller]

The CBC was meant to stem the tide of American media influencing Canadian culture. It's purpose was to have an outlet for Canadian cultural products and media.

Times have changed. Instead of being an instrument of unity, the CBC has become an instrument of division in Canada and an increasingly expensive instrument.

Nobody is watching. Few are listening. Entertainment and information are increasingly available from a host of sources.

If the supporters of CBC are willing to put their money with their mouths are instead of insisting that others pay for the entertainment of a few- as unlikely as that may be- they need look no further than CKUA, the oldest public broadcaster in Canada. The financial model is quite simple: if you like it, pay for it. And many people do just that.

It is supported by listeners directly, and "is considered a cultural icon by many musicians throughout Canada".

In redneck land.

Imagine.

[Smallc]

Few are listening.

That isn't really true. CBC Radio is always near of at the top in terms of listener numbers in most markets across the country.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Smallc

[MiddleClassCentrist]

You appear to be assuming corporations will "supress" things they don't like. But the fact is, companies are in the business of making money. That means catering to your audience so you can sell ad revenue, even if its pushing stories that the owners aren't happy with.

They do and will continue to do so.

You have to be turning a blind eye to programming out there that shows otherwise.

With cases like Monsanto, when journalists tried to do an expose on their milk hormones they were sued until they kept it off the air. Fox News bowed to corporate demands.

Ron Paul is being largely ignored in the MSM because he would take away the corporate tit that their affiliates drink from.

Again, you have to purposefully turn a blind eye to not see it happening. Corporations are immortal and they are only getting bigger as weaker ones are acquired. This is only going to get worse.

Edited August 24, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[bush_cheney2004]

...Ron Paul is being largely ignored in the MSM because he would take away the corporate tit that their affiliates drink from.

Nonsense...Ron Paul has received plenty of pub for many years. That's why he continues to lose in presidential elections.

[segnosaur]

Few are listening.

That isn't really true. CBC Radio is always near of at the top in terms of listener numbers in most markets across the country.

It may be true that CBC Radio is near the top of listening numbers, but its a deceptive statistic.

There are a large number of radio stations in most cities, which divides the market. This makes it possible to be #1 (or near #1) even if "few are listening". (The fact is, usually few are listening to any single station, private or public.)

According to the CBC bloc, CBC Radio one/two reach roughly 4.3 million listeners. (http://www.insidethecbc.com/cbc-radio-achieves-record-ratingsratingsrecord/). That's less than 13% of our population. The remaining 87% of the population sees their tax money go to something they never use. (And that 13% isn't even their "ratings", since it may include people who listen to multiple stations but only tuned in once to the CBC in that period.)

[Smallc]

CBC Radio though, has more of a purpose, as there are places where CBC Radio is literally the only radio. That's why it deserves to stay.

[segnosaur]

CBC Radio though, has more of a purpose, as there are places where CBC Radio is literally the only radio.

Well, its a questionable statement (after all, there are now options such as satellite radio, shortwave, etc).

But even if CBC is the "only radio" in some places, why do they also need to broadcast it in places like Toronto or Montreal (where multiple private options already exist)? And if the goal is to provide service to remote areas, why bother building an entire broadcast network? The government could (in theory) ask to relay content of the nearest private broadcaster. (Heck, they could offer multiple broadcasters to get a wide range of content.)

[segnosaur]

They do and will continue to do so.

You have to be turning a blind eye to programming out there that shows otherwise.

With cases like Monsanto, when journalists tried to do an expose on their milk hormones they were sued until they kept it off the air. Fox News bowed to corporate demands.

Ah yes, cherry-picking examples that fit your view. Sorry, I don't really find such hand-picked examples very convincing.

Note that I never claimed that all media sources will publish each and every story, but that the story will be available from private sources.

If you want to 'cherry pick' examples, I can also point to claims from documentary film makers that claim the CBC was uninterested in airing their films on the Afghanistan war.

Oh, and since you seem to be so convince that "Fox bowed to corporate demands", maybe you should do some research:

- When the Monsanto/Fox/milk hormone controversy began, Fox didn't even own the station (http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-strange-case-of-steve-wils)

- The hormone has been declared safe by the FDA, AMA, WHO and others. (See: https://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/FN-250_6.pdf)

- The journalists in question have a reputation for "ambush" film making and other such practices

Given those facts, its possible that any "story" that the journalists generated was of poor quality.

But then, I guess that doesn't sound as good as "OMG! Mega-corp squashes the truth".

Ron Paul is being largely ignored in the MSM because he would take away the corporate tit that their affiliates drink from.

Ron Paul is being ignored because he's batsh*t crazy. (Although that description seems to apply to most of the republican contenders.)

[Boges]

If CBC Radio is so popular then whey the heck can't they sell ads and fund themselves in markets like Toronto?

As I said there are two talk radio stations in Toronto that do just fine.

[fellowtraveller]

CBC Radio though, has more of a purpose, as there are places where CBC Radio is literally the only radio. That's why it deserves to stay.

Name one.

I was just in a remote town in the Yukon, and they have nearly as many radio and TV and internet choices as anybody else in Canada. On-the-air radio choices include a Whitehorse FM station , CBC and local radio plus hundreds of satellite radio channels and thousands more available via broadband.

As I said earlier, times have changed. Information and entertainment is readily available in copious quantities from many sources. This is not 1936.

The funding model of the CBC is enjoyed primarily by the selfish. Can't say I blame them, who wouldn't like something for nothing, paid for by others?

[Black Dog]

The funding model of the CBC is enjoyed primarily by the selfish. Can't say I blame them, who wouldn't like something for nothing, paid for by others?

So CBC listeners don't pay taxes?

Edited August 24, 2011 by Black Dog

[segnosaur]

And once again... CBC ratings are usually low. If few people are watching/listening to something, then it isn't really indicative of "Canadian Culture".

Nonsense. You're confusing mass culture with culture.

Nope, not confusing it at all.

Once again, the CBC mandate specifically talks about how it is to "reflect Canada". Reflecting the population IS dealing with mass culture. If its something that appeals only to a tiny segment of the population, its no longer "reflecting Canada", regardless of how "cultural" it is.

I do not see anywhere in the CBC mandate where they are to "convince the knuckle-dragging mass population how they're wrong for liking pop culture".

Basically your argument comes down to "I think what I like is best so the government should support my entertainment preferences".

And what's wrong with snobbishness?

Because your preferences are based on something that is completely subjective.

I personally think American Idol and Jersey Shore are junk. But there is no objective way to measure what is actually "better" and what is "worse".

I have never watched American Idol. I think "So you can Dance" is an idiotic concept. I hope the cast of Jersey Shore gets struck by Flesh Eating Disease. But it is not my place to decide (with other people's money) whether any of those shows should be watched.

By your logic, these shows are the only true barometers of our culture.

Sadly yes they are.

[fellowtraveller]

So CBC listeners don't pay taxes?

Sure they do, but there is no need to be deliberately stupid.

Or maybe there is, I dunno.

As a CBC listener and supporter, how would you feel about sending $20 per month every month directly to the CBC to pay for the entertainment you now enjoy?

[Black Dog]

Nope, not confusing it at all.

Once again, the CBC mandate specifically talks about how it is to "reflect Canada". Reflecting the population IS dealing with mass culture. If its something that appeals only to a tiny segment of the population, its no longer "reflecting Canada", regardless of how "cultural" it is.

So what's the threshold? How many people need to "like" something Facebook-style before you deem it worthy of inclusion in the cultural canon?

What a ridiculous line of thinking.

I do not see anywhere in the CBC mandate where they are to "convince the knuckle-dragging mass population how they're wrong for liking pop culture".

As you said, there are plenty of avenues for people to slake their hunger for pap. Giving exposure to the people and stories that would otherwise remain unknown is something worthwhile.

Basically your argument comes down to "I think what I like is best so the government should support my entertainment preferences".

Nope. But nice try.

Because your preferences are based on something that is completely subjective.

I personally think American Idol and Jersey Shore are junk. But there is no objective way to measure what is actually "better" and what is "worse".

According to you there is: popularity.

Sadly yes they are.

So rather than even attempt to elevate things, you'd have us all down in the muck.

[segnosaur]

The funding model of the CBC is enjoyed primarily by the selfish. Can't say I blame them, who wouldn't like something for nothing, paid for by others?

So CBC listeners don't pay taxes?

For CBC listeners/viewers, the amount of enjoyment they get out of the CBC exceeds the costs (i.e. the amount of tax from an individual dedicated to the CBC.) For the remainder of the population, there is little or no benefit, and the costs exceed the benefits.

While it may be simplistic to claim CBC fans are getting "something for nothing", the overall concept is valid.

They are in fact getting MOST of something for nothing.

An analogy would be me spending $2 to buy a movie ticket with the government paying the rest of the $10 cost. Yes, I'm not getting it totally for "free" because of the $2 I'm putting in, but I am getting the remaining $8 "for free".

[segnosaur]

Once again, the CBC mandate specifically talks about how it is to "reflect Canada". Reflecting the population IS dealing with mass culture. If its something that appeals only to a tiny segment of the population, its no longer "reflecting Canada", regardless of how "cultural" it is.

So what's the threshold? How many people need to "like" something Facebook-style before you deem it worthy of inclusion in the cultural canon?

The "threshold" is whatever people are willing to actually pay for themselves (either directly through sales or indirectly through ad revenue.)

If you yourself are not willing to pay for your own "quality entertainment" and cannot convince enough like-minded people that it is worth supporting with your own money, then it is not a significant part of the culture.

I do not see anywhere in the CBC mandate where they are to "convince the knuckle-dragging mass population how they're wrong for liking pop culture".

As you said, there are plenty of avenues for people to slake their hunger for pap.

Yup... and guess what? Those "other avenues" are ones that people are actually willing to pay for themselves. They are not telling other people "Hey, subsidize my concert ticket to see Justin Bieber" or "pay my cable bill so I can watch Jersey Shore"...

Basically your argument comes down to "I think what I like is best so the government should support my entertainment preferences".

Nope. But nice try.

Its such a nice try that I actually it the nail on the head. That is pretty much what you're saying.

Over and over again you've condemned shows like American Idol, and you've talked about common culture "Pap". You appear to feel that CBC can do "better" and that those who actually watch American Idol and other garbage shows should be willing to pay for it.

So, yeah. you did basically say you want the government to pay for your entertainment choices.

So rather than even attempt to elevate things, you'd have us all down in the muck.

Nope, instead, I will take my own hard earned dollars and use it towards supporting entertainment that I feel is worth my time. Believe it or not, there is a huge array of entertainment and information content out there, even for those who dislike the junk of reality shows. Hopefully more people will follow my lead. If not, there are still enough like-minded individuals that I'm never without at least some decent shows to watch.

Once again, why should I pay for your entertainment choices?

[Black Dog]

The "threshold" is whatever people are willing to actually pay for themselves (either directly through sales or indirectly through ad revenue.)

If you yourself are not willing to pay for your own "quality entertainment" and cannot convince enough like-minded people that it is worth supporting with your own money, then it is not a significant part of the culture.

You have a fucked up notion of what constitutes culture.

Yup... and guess what? Those "other avenues" are ones that people are actually willing to pay for themselves. They are not telling other people "Hey, subsidize my concert ticket to see Justin Bieber" or "pay my cable bill so I can watch Jersey Shore"...

Completely beside the point.

Its such a nice try that I actually it the nail on the head. That is pretty much what you're saying.

Over and over again you've condemned shows like American Idol, and you've talked about common culture "Pap". You appear to feel that CBC can do "better" and that those who actually watch American Idol and other garbage shows should be willing to pay for it.

So, yeah. you did basically say you want the government to pay for your entertainment choices.

Nope. There's lots of arts programming, for example, that I'd like to see on the CBC in which I would have no personal interest. See, unlike you, my first and last thought isn't "what's in it for me?"

Nope, instead, I will take my own hard earned dollars and use it towards supporting entertainment that I feel is worth my time. Believe it or not, there is a huge array of entertainment and information content out there, even for those who dislike the junk of reality shows. Hopefully more people will follow my lead. If not, there are still enough like-minded individuals that I'm never without at least some decent shows to watch.

Once again, why should I pay for your entertainment choices?

So I take it you are also opposed to publicly funded art galleries, museums, libraries, sports and recreational facilities...indeed, anything at all that could be construed as "paying for someone else's choices?"

Edited August 24, 2011 by Black Dog

[segnosaur]

Yeah because the CBC doesn't have a bias when it comes to serving it's own interests. CTV, Global, CityTV all do fine jobs reporting the news every night.

So it's always better to have less information?

Why are you assuming there would be less information?

If the CBC has an audience that differs from those who CTV, Global, etc., then its quite possible that those fans would support a commercial version of a network with the same editorial policy/slant, with the sole difference that their network would be supported through ad revenue.

[segnosaur]

The "threshold" is whatever people are willing to actually pay for themselves (either directly through sales or indirectly through ad revenue.)

If you yourself are not willing to pay for your own "quality entertainment" and cannot convince enough like-minded people that it is worth supporting with your own money, then it is not a significant part of the culture.

You have a fucked up notion of what constitutes culture.

Not anywhere near as messed up as yours.

Yup... and guess what? Those "other avenues" are ones that people are actually willing to pay for themselves. They are not telling other people "Hey, subsidize my concert ticket to see Justin Bieber" or "pay my cable bill so I can watch Jersey Shore"...

Completely beside the point.

Nope, that's not beside the point at all.

Once again, you are considering the content you deem superior as being worthy of government (and ultimately taxpayer) support, yet you fail to give the same consideration to other material. Yet there is no objective way to make such a measurement.

Over and over again you've condemned shows like American Idol, and you've talked about common culture "Pap". You appear to feel that CBC can do "better" and that those who actually watch American Idol and other garbage shows should be willing to pay for it.

So, yeah. you did basically say you want the government to pay for your entertainment choices.

Nope. There's lots of arts programming, for example, that I'd like to see on the CBC in which I would have no personal interest. See, unlike you, my first and last thought isn't "what's in it for me?"

Irrelevant argument.

Even though you yourself may not watch every program on a "fully funded CBC", you are still benefiting more than someone who has absolutely NO interest in watching content provided by the CBC.

So I take it you are also opposed to publicly funded art galleries, museums, libraries, sports and recreational facilities...indeed, anything at all that could be construed as "paying for someone else's choices?"

Museums provide services that provide social/scientific benefit to society as a whole. (Same goes to certain areas of pure scientific research, for whatever that is worth.) Edited to add: I could also point out that in the case of Museums, they provide services which are unique in society for which there is often no private alternative.

I'm not necessarily a fan of using public money for (for example) sports stadiums. (Unless of course it can be shown that the improved infrastructure provides side benefits outweighing the costs, and even then I'd be hesitant.)

Edited August 24, 2011 by segnosaur

[Smallc]

I was just in a remote town in the Yukon, and they have nearly as many radio and TV and internet choices as anybody else in Canada.

That isn't true everywhere, although it's more and more true. CBC Radio shouldn't necessarily stay the way it is, and maybe it should go away, but I can see far more of a case for it than for CBC TV.

[fellowtraveller]

That isn't true everywhere, although it's more and more true. CBC Radio shouldn't necessarily stay the way it is, and maybe it should go away, but I can see far more of a case for it than for CBC TV.

Name one.

Then put a revised price on your 'case'. The subsidy now is around $800 million, most of which is TV.

Does $20 million in 2012 sound fair?

$0 million in 2013?

I kick $20 per month to the real public broadcaster, CKUA. Money well spent. Why can't CBC supporters drop their offensive, selfish sense of entitlement and privilege and do the same?