How to eliminate the redundancies in public media funding?

[Machjo]

Given how little difference there actually is between public and private media in Canada today, how would you reduce the redundancies between the two?

I could see a few possible solutions:

1. Cut public media funding altogether.

2. Shift funding from English and French to sign languages, indigenous languages, and the languages of other more disadvantaged linguistic communities.

3. Shift funding towards radio broadcasting in more remote areas of the country where private radio broadcasting is nonexistent.

4. A combination of the above.

5. Another option.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Machjo

[TimG]

5. Another option.

Accept the fact that a common language is important for a functioning society and funding to promote the common language is reasonable and any other language needs to be supported privately (funding for the deaf would be an exception because they can't use the common language even if they wanted to). Edited August 20, 2015 by TimG

[Machjo]

The redundancies are not limited to language. Even within the same language, it might make sense to fund CBC Radio in English in isolated communities without radio broadcasting, but not in large cities already spoilt for choice.

Also, a profoundly Deaf person will never learn to understand spoken English or French no matter how much you fund them. Physiological reality must kick in in this case, plus it could create employment opportunities for a community that generally can't easily access employment in the private sector.

[-1=e^ipi]

Also, a profoundly Deaf person will never learn to understand spoken English or French no matter how much you fund them.

Cochlear implants?

[Machjo]

Cochlear implants?

They don't work in all cases.

[Machjo]

One thing I have a hard time understanding is why some Conservatives oppose the free market when it comes to language and culture?

[Michael Hardner]

One thing I have a hard time understanding is why some Conservatives oppose the free market when it comes to language and culture?

Perhaps because they are more loyal to Canada, and perceive that our culture would be inundated if it were not protected ?

[Machjo]

Perhaps because they are more loyal to Canada, and perceive that our culture would be inundated if it were not protected ?

I take it that by "our culture" you mean English or French to the exclusion of Deaf, indigenous, and other cultures. Given that these other cultures would not threaten English and French in a comparatively free market, are you sure you mean "protect" and not "impose?" Is this not a case of a tyranny of the majority wielding democracy to ensure the laws give it the advantage against the minority in a less than fee market?

[Michael Hardner]

I take it that by "our culture" you mean English or French to the exclusion of Deaf, indigenous, and other cultures. Given that these other cultures would not threaten English and French in a comparatively free market, are you sure you mean "protect" and not "impose?" Is this not a case of a tyranny of the majority wielding democracy to ensure the laws give it the advantage against the minority in a less than fee market?

'These cultures' meaning, French or deaf ? No, I don't think they're threatened now, nor would they be if CanCon was scaled down, as far as I can tell.

[Machjo]

As far as I Can tell, English isn't threatened either.

I tend to lean more towards a free market economy, but language policy is what makes me a swing voter, figuring that if the government is intent on subsidizing English and French, then it should do the same for other languages too.

Unfortunately, none of the big four parties supports defunding English and French. The Liberals want to increase funding for indigenous languages, but nothing for sign languages or other languages while increasing subsidies to English and French. The Libertarian Party would not eliminate the statuses of English and French, but at least reduce them significantly.

At present, I prefer the Libertarian approach followed by the Liberal one. The NDP would only further expand subsidies to English and French by subjecting its national day care programme and other government expansion to the Official Languages Act. The Conservatives would do the same by expanding the army reserve.

With no Libertarian in my riding, I might swing Liberal.

[cybercoma]

'These cultures' meaning, French or deaf ? No, I don't think they're threatened now, nor would they be if CanCon was scaled down, as far as I can tell.

It's way off topic, but if you don't think Deaf culture is threatened, you don't know much about Deaf culture.

[Michael Hardner]

It's way off topic, but if you don't think Deaf culture is threatened, you don't know much about Deaf culture.

Yes, it's off topic so let me close it off by saying I concur, and stand corrected. I should have stated obliviousness rather than using the phrase "as far as I can tell".

[Machjo]

Firstly, just as there are different oral cultures (English, French, etc.), so there are different Deaf cultures (American Sign Language, Quebec Sign Language, etc.).

Secondly, though a Deaf culture can threaten another Deaf culture, an oral culture can't easily threaten a a Deaf culture. For exanple, excepting those for whom a cochlear implant works, you can't teach a profoundly deaf person to understand spoken English or French no matter how hard you try, and can't prevent him from learning or developing a sign language short of isolating him from other deaf people so as to limit his communication to the written language.

That being said, you might be able to marginalize Deaf culture by not investing in sign-language education and refusing to liberalize the linguistic free market to give consumers more free choice of language.

[Machjo]

There is a distinct difference between threatening a culture and marginalizing it.

[PIK]

Dont tell the ONT liberals or they will make it law ,that all business employees will need to know sign language.

[kraychik]

There should be zero funding for any media in Canada. The only exceptions I am willing to contemplate are those pertaining to national security issues for peripheral populations/communities (i.e. natural disaster warnings, outreach to explain emergency preparedness, etc).

Other than that, governmental manipulation of the media landscape (particularly the CBC, but also funding for "the arts") has been hugely damaging to Canada's political and popular culture through its taxpayer-funded dissemination of left-wing propaganda wrapped up as honest-to-goodness information.

Edited August 22, 2015 by kraychik

[Machjo]

Dont tell the ONT liberals or they will make it law ,that all business employees will need to know sign language.

That would obviously be going too far. That said, if a company wanted to operate in a sign language rather than English or French, it should be allowed to do so. English and French should not be obligatory. As far as I know, this is in fact allowed in Ontario except for official government documents, but not in Quebec because of Bill 101. Bill 101 excludes neither sign languages nor indigenous languages. Believe it or not, in Quebec, if your sign includes the local indigenous language at the same size as French, that is illegal. If your company chooses a sign language as its working language instead of French, that is illegal.

Again, though I can be wrong, I'm not aware of anything like this in Ontario. It might not be a common occurrence and might not necessarily be a good business decision, but unlike in Quebec, it's legal if a company chooses to do so.