The CBC's Mark Critch is a D-bag and should be fired.

[overthere]

You've never heard of "This Hour has 22 Minutes"?

Are your feelings hurt? Should he be fired for hurting your feelings?

That was a really inept dodge of the issue I raised, actually the issue you introduced: the popularity of CBC TV vs the cost. You must learn to be more subtle when you try to move the goalposts.

Market data indicates that CBC TV network overall, and CBC shows in particular, are at or close to the bottom in every major Canadian network.

So I will ask again: what is your justification for insisting that your fellow citizens continue to pay big time for something that almost nobody watches, on a national scale?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Wolf Hall, Top Gear - public television succeeds in producing hit shows in other countries. Why not here?

[SpankyMcFarland]

And on minority viewpoints...the PBS documentary series Frontline has been highlighting the issue of false accusations in cases of child abuse for two decades now.

[segnosaur]

It's like the guy who was fined by a HRC recently for insulting a disabled person. The idea of sanctions for such a thing is ridiculous.

No, its not like that at all.

People have the right to free speech. A private citizen should absolutely have the right to make jokes that are offensive. So in that situation the HRC ruling was ridiculous.

The situation with Chritch is different because he is a government employee. I have no problem with the joke he made. Heck, if he were a private citizen I'd encourage him to go nuts... be as offensive as he wants to be. But, he is getting payed (at least in part) by our tax dollars.

There is a difference between "You have no right to free speech as a private citizen and we will fine you because we don't like what you say", and "Don't insult the one who pays your salary".

[Boges]

BBC is funded through a license fee, not a direct subsidy from the government.

The license fee is similar to a cable bill.

[segnosaur]

Wolf Hall, Top Gear - public television succeeds in producing hit shows in other countries. Why not here?

Perhaps because we give the CBC too much money and as such our producers don't feel the need to actually work hard to produce hit shows.

Or maybe you're just cherry-picking a few examples of success, ignoring the fact that while there may be a few "hits" in the BBC schedule, a lot of stuff is still sub-standard.

[poochy]

That was a really inept dodge of the issue I raised, actually the issue you introduced: the popularity of CBC TV vs the cost. You must learn to be more subtle when you try to move the goalposts.

Market data indicates that CBC TV network overall, and CBC shows in particular, are at or close to the bottom in every major Canadian network.

So I will ask again: what is your justification for insisting that your fellow citizens continue to pay big time for something that almost nobody watches, on a national scale?

He is trolling, he rarely seriously debates anything.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Perhaps because we give the CBC too much money and as such our producers don't feel the need to actually work hard to produce hit shows.

Or maybe you're just cherry-picking a few examples of success, ignoring the fact that while there may be a few "hits" in the BBC schedule, a lot of stuff is still sub-standard.

Has any Canadian show produced by the private sector ever been as successful as Top Gear was?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv4opsn88iA

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31832534

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1228422/How-Top-Gear-conquered-world-humour-dedication-determination.html

I am sure there are people who can come up with massive lists right back to Pete and Dud. Two that were adapted in the US spring to mind - The Office and House of Cards. And then there is David Attenborough to consider...

The only Canadian show that I can recall from long ago in the British Isles was Beachcombers.

Edited August 30, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[Smallc]

No, its not like that at all.

People have the right to free speech. A private citizen should absolutely have the right to make jokes that are offensive. So in that situation the HRC ruling was ridiculous.

The situation with Chritch is different because he is a government employee. I have no problem with the joke he made. Heck, if he were a private citizen I'd encourage him to go nuts... be as offensive as he wants to be. But, he is getting payed (at least in part) by our tax dollars.

There is a difference between "You have no right to free speech as a private citizen and we will fine you because we don't like what you say", and "Don't insult the one who pays your salary".

I don't think you understand the difference between state broadcaster and public broadcaster. What you're saying implies that the CBC can never question government doctrine. If that were the case, the sponsorship scandal may never have broke.

[Smoke]

I don't think you understand the difference between state broadcaster and public broadcaster. What you're saying implies that the CBC can never question government doctrine. If that were the case, the sponsorship scandal may never have broke.

Once other news outlets broke the story, the CBC had no choice but to get on board or their silence would have been too obvious.

[The_Squid]

That was a really inept dodge of the issue I raised, actually the issue you introduced: the popularity of CBC TV vs the cost. You must learn to be more subtle when you try to move the goalposts.

Market data indicates that CBC TV network overall, and CBC shows in particular, are at or close to the bottom in every major Canadian network.

So I will ask again: what is your justification for insisting that your fellow citizens continue to pay big time for something that almost nobody watches, on a national scale?

The OP is about a D-bag comedian who should be fired for offending Conservatives.

Start a thread about it with all the relevant information included... viewership stats, budgets, etc. then we can have a discussion about that.

[The_Squid]

Once other news outlets broke the story, the CBC had no choice but to get on board or their silence would have been too obvious.

Revisionist history....

[overthere]

BBC is funded through a license fee, not a direct subsidy from the government.

The license fee is similar to a cable bill.

It is not much different though- because every TV owner must pay to own the TV.

It doesn't matter if you are not connected to broadcast,internet, cable or satellite TV sources.

Edited August 30, 2016 by overthere

[overthere]

The OP is about a D-bag comedian who should be fired for offending Conservatives.

Start a thread about it with all the relevant information included... viewership stats, budgets, etc. then we can have a discussion about that.

It was you that claimed-in this thread- that the CBC was 'extremely popular'. It is not.

You started the discussion, now you are running for cover when challenged.

Are you going to pretend you didn't?

Go ahead, scurry back and edit that fabrication out of existence.

[The_Squid]

OK, I was mistaken. CBC is terribly unpopular.

Now, should a comedian from CBC be fired for offending Conservatives?

[Guest]

No, its not like that at all.

People have the right to free speech. A private citizen should absolutely have the right to make jokes that are offensive. So in that situation the HRC ruling was ridiculous.

The situation with Chritch is different because he is a government employee. I have no problem with the joke he made. Heck, if he were a private citizen I'd encourage him to go nuts... be as offensive as he wants to be. But, he is getting payed (at least in part) by our tax dollars.

There is a difference between "You have no right to free speech as a private citizen and we will fine you because we don't like what you say", and "Don't insult the one who pays your salary".

Yeah, it is like that. Insult the one who pays your salary if you want. They can fire you if they want, of course.

[cybercoma]

OK, I was mistaken. CBC is terribly unpopular.

Now, should a comedian from CBC be fired for offending Conservatives?

But....CENSORSHIP! Isn't that what conservatives say when someone criticizes them?

[msj]

The situation with Chritch is different because he is a government employee. I have no problem with the joke he made. Heck, if he were a private citizen I'd encourage him to go nuts... be as offensive as he wants to be. But, he is getting payed (at least in part) by our tax dollars.

There is a difference between "You have no right to free speech as a private citizen and we will fine you because we don't like what you say", and "Don't insult the one who pays your salary".

He is a contractor who works on a show that is produced by a company and then purchased by CBC.

I have no problem with him, for example, being shirtless in a photobomb of Trudeau, but then I have a sense of humour:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.3721594/shirtless-mark-critch-explains-his-trudeau-photo-bomb-1.3721598

Edited August 31, 2016 by msj

[Smallc]

Don't you understand - if he keeps his job, the terrorists win.

[msj]

If he keeps his job Trudeau might put a shirt on!

[Bryan]

OK, I was mistaken. CBC is terribly unpopular.

Now, should a comedian from CBC be fired for offending Conservatives?

No. The blast he got on twitter was well deserved, but that's probably enough

[SpankyMcFarland]

I prefer CBC Radio to TV and news to the rest. Comedy and drama on the CBC need to be radically improved. The same goes for the private sector by the way. As a country, we are not punching our weight and should be doing a lot better. The last comedy programs I really enjoyed on CBC were CODCO and The Kids in the Hall which is a LONG time ago.

Edited August 31, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[PIK]

This will get him a raise.

[dialamah]

This will get him a raise.

Agreed. He should get a raise, I've enjoyed three days of additional entertainment on this thread alone!