Disciples of doom

[fellowtraveller]

And I love the CBC. The hour with strombo, Rick Mercers Monday Report, Passionate Eye. Those are quality programs

Good, then you won't mind paying for them directly, by subscription and relieve all those who do not share your joy of that burden. Or, you could pay for my entetainment out of your pocket as I pay for yours. Either way works for me.

Has somebody here tried to somehow link the CBC (taxpayer) investment in Sirius with Canadian content requirements? Crazy talk! XM radio, their competitor, has the same CanCon requirements, and apparently has no need at all of my money- other than by subscription.

CBC has zero business investing in business other than their own.

Fellowtraveler: If you dont like the canadian made programing on the CBC thats fine, but dont try and take it away from the people that do.

Wheres your contribution to canadian culture? Write us a script and send it in to the CBC so they can give you a voice. Unless of course, your not an artist and have nothing inteligent to say.

Wheteher I like it or not, or you like it or not , is not the issue. What is the issue is that all taxpayers are obliged to pay for it. I have no intention of taking anything from you, simply giving you the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. You like it, you pay for it. It is a very simple and easy way to retain all that stuff you love. That is what I'm obliged to do for my entertainment, yet you insist that I pay for yours. What an insufferable arrogance.

My contribution to Canadian Culture is paid every month through income tax contributions. So by your reckoning, I'm obliged to write a script or sing a song to have a voice in how tax money is wasted so that a few Canadians like yourself may be entertained? Only artists are allowed to have a voice? What pathetic and self serving arrogance.

[shoop]

Why should FT subsidize your viewing choices? If you want to watch it, then pay for it. Problem solved...

Fellowtraveler: If you dont like the canadian made programing on the CBC thats fine, but dont try and take it away from the people that do.

[Hollus]

Wheteher I like it or not, or you like it or not , is not the issue. What is the issue is that all taxpayers are obliged to pay for it.

Good then, we're agreed.

The piont Im trying to make to you(which has already been made to you by sparhawk, in my opinion) is that the CBC cannot exist as a competently run source of information distinct from the bias' of a market-based info source, without our tax-dollars. So I am trying to defend against your idea of tampering with the balance of media and further consolidating information through the filter of corporate influence.

My contribution to Canadian Culture is paid every month through income tax contributions. So by your reckoning, I'm obliged to write a script or sing a song to have a voice in how tax money is wasted so that a few Canadians like yourself may be entertained? Only artists are allowed to have a voice? What pathetic and self serving arrogance.

Well Canadian artist have contributed a hell-of-alot more than the $2.50per month it costs each of us for the CBC. You must be pinching your pennies pretty hard.

"Canada's artists and arts organizations are an economic force at the creative heart of the $39 billion cultural sector -- bigger than the agriculture, forestry, mining and oil and gas sectors combined."

Im done with your selfish attitude of how to spend tax dollars.

[Spike22]

Wheteher I like it or not, or you like it or not , is not the issue. What is the issue is that all taxpayers are obliged to pay for it.

Good then, we're agreed.

The piont Im trying to make to you(which has already been made to you by sparhawk, in my opinion) is that the CBC cannot exist as a competently run source of information distinct from the bias' of a market-based info source, without our tax-dollars. So I am trying to defend against your idea of tampering with the balance of media and further consolidating information through the filter of corporate influence.

My contribution to Canadian Culture is paid every month through income tax contributions. So by your reckoning, I'm obliged to write a script or sing a song to have a voice in how tax money is wasted so that a few Canadians like yourself may be entertained? Only artists are allowed to have a voice? What pathetic and self serving arrogance.

Well Canadian artist have contributed a hell-of-alot more than the $2.50per month it costs each of us for the CBC. You must be pinching your pennies pretty hard.

"Canada's artists and arts organizations are an economic force at the creative heart of the $39 billion cultural sector -- bigger than the agriculture, forestry, mining and oil and gas sectors combined."

Im done with your selfish attitude of how to spend tax dollars.

@2.50 a month for how many months/decade/years? This adds up...$ 30 a year for 50 years is $1500. That same money invested would be worth a lot more. Also the products they produce is terrible unless it is a news, documentary or sports. Their drama, comedy and the rest is gawd aweful. Why don't they do fund raising like PBS? I really don't watch CBC that much anymore. I can say HNIC is what most folks watch on CBC and would prefer my $2.50 a month spent elsewhere. If they can't be self sufficient like CTV then farewell CBC.

[Leafless]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " In fact, the CRTC provides Canadians with more choices than what a strictly free market system would offer."

Prove it, as this has never been allowed.

What the CRTC does is makes sure whatever your subscribed to forces you to watch Canadian content (ugh) something that seems to ruin the channel up where ever you go. Why should I be forced to pay for third rate entertaiment something I don't want initially in an area that is no concern of government.

You also wrote- " It is absurd to suggest that all government programs must have the support of 100% of the people. If 37% of popular vote is enough to make Harper PM- then 50% support for something like the CRTC is more than enough."

You are comparing our politcal system on the same basis for support of a draconian broadcasting legislator.

The CRTC is just as Liberal as the Liberals in their way of controlling the peoples entertainment agenda as the Liberals are with every aspect of dictating your private life.

I often wonder with the low ratio of Blacks to Whites in Canada why are their so many Black sitcoms in Canada when you do not see this on many U.S. networks and this is not a racist remark just an observation.

See what the CRTC does: http://www.wednesday-night.com/crtc.asp

[fellowtraveller]

Wheteher I like it or not, or you like it or not , is not the issue. What is the issue is that all taxpayers are obliged to pay for it.

Good then, we're agreed.

The piont Im trying to make to you(which has already been made to you by sparhawk, in my opinion) is that the CBC cannot exist as a competently run source of information distinct from the bias' of a market-based info source, without our tax-dollars. So I am trying to defend against your idea of tampering with the balance of media and further consolidating information through the filter of corporate influence.

My contribution to Canadian Culture is paid every month through income tax contributions. So by your reckoning, I'm obliged to write a script or sing a song to have a voice in how tax money is wasted so that a few Canadians like yourself may be entertained? Only artists are allowed to have a voice? What pathetic and self serving arrogance.

Well Canadian artist have contributed a hell-of-alot more than the $2.50per month it costs each of us for the CBC. You must be pinching your pennies pretty hard.

"Canada's artists and arts organizations are an economic force at the creative heart of the $39 billion cultural sector -- bigger than the agriculture, forestry, mining and oil and gas sectors combined."

Im done with your selfish attitude of how to spend tax dollars.

My idea that 'tampering with the balance of media'? Have we regressed to Stalinist times, where the government is somehow responsible for maintaining 'balance in the media'. Crap, complete crap. The government is repsonsible for ensuring freedom of speech, not providing a 'balance'. You and I will establish the balance, not government. Or would you prefer that the commissars vet every broadcast? Edit every newspaper editorial. See any limits to this, or will you be satisfied in just the CBC? Don't answer that, you already have. I think we have very different ideas of the role of government in a society.

As for money, you may pay what you wish for your entertainment, but your lack of respect for your fellow citizens somehow forces you to insist that I also must pay what you wish. And I'm the 'selfish' one?

[Hollus]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " In fact, the CRTC provides Canadians with more choices than what a strictly free market system would offer."

Prove it, as this has never been allowed.

What the CRTC does is makes sure whatever your subscribed to forces you to watch Canadian content (ugh) something that seems to ruin the channel up where ever you go. Why should I be forced to pay for third rate entertaiment something I don't want initially in an area that is no concern of government.

Are you still on bunny ears? I just have basic cable and I still get CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC, CNN...

Without the CRTC regulations watching CTV would be no differnt that watching CBS. It would be more cost effective for the CTV to just pipe shows from US markets than to payfor shows produced here. Canadian Content and US Content or just US content. Which gives you more selection?

Just 2 of the many things the CRTC does:

1. Ensure that there is room for Canadian shows on Canadian TV and radio. I think this is a good thing. Maybe we disagree. I don't have any stats to back it up, but it seems that this policy is getting results with the success of Canadians on the international stage. But , you can't argue the option isn't there to switch over and catch Surviorir XXIV (or nancy gracy).

2. Regulate the channels broadcast in Canada. Not exaclty a mind blowing idea here folks. The Brits have Ofcom. In the US it's the FCC. Someone has to decide who's on channel 2 and who's on channel 6... I've only got so many channels on my dial.

I know, I know you probably want to argue it's sensorship. And to a point it is. But wouldn't you rather have an independant body making these decisions than a political one. Someone has to.

I often wonder with the low ratio of Blacks to Whites in Canada why are their so many Black sitcoms in Canada when you do not see this on many U.S. networks and this is not a racist remark just an observation.

I can't even think of one? Can you name some for us?

See what the CRTC does: http://www.wednesday-night.com/crtc.asp

Did you even read any of the articles on the site? The CRTC is going to be used to...

...impose fines on telemarketers not following regulations.

...adding asian content.

...regulating the cell phone industry (and maybe not doing such a hot job... but that's a different arguement).

...Ensuring that these new internet phone companies tell their clients whether or not they have 911 service.

Which one of these are we supposed to fear?

[Hollus]

My idea that 'tampering with the balance of media'? Have we regressed to Stalinist times, where the government is somehow responsible for maintaining 'balance in the media'. Crap, complete crap. The government is repsonsible for ensuring freedom of speech, not providing a 'balance'. You and I will establish the balance, not government. Or would you prefer that the commissars vet every broadcast? Edit every newspaper editorial. See any limits to this, or will you be satisfied in just the CBC? Don't answer that, you already have. I think we have very different ideas of the role of government in a society.

As for money, you may pay what you wish for your entertainment, but your lack of respect for your fellow citizens somehow forces you to insist that I also must pay what you wish. And I'm the 'selfish' one?

Seriously. There's no need to be putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about censorship and I don't argue that the CBC doesn't have it's biases. What I'm saying is it's important to have information from more than one source. There's value in a media source that doesn't rely on corporate interests and I know this may be a suprise to you kids, but there is such a thing as coporate sensorship as well. Enjoy privided link.

Monsanto & Fox: Partners In Censorship

[fellowtraveller]

My idea that 'tampering with the balance of media'? Have we regressed to Stalinist times, where the government is somehow responsible for maintaining 'balance in the media'. Crap, complete crap. The government is repsonsible for ensuring freedom of speech, not providing a 'balance'. You and I will establish the balance, not government. Or would you prefer that the commissars vet every broadcast? Edit every newspaper editorial. See any limits to this, or will you be satisfied in just the CBC? Don't answer that, you already have. I think we have very different ideas of the role of government in a society.

As for money, you may pay what you wish for your entertainment, but your lack of respect for your fellow citizens somehow forces you to insist that I also must pay what you wish. And I'm the 'selfish' one?

Seriously. There's no need to be putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about censorship and I don't argue that the CBC doesn't have it's biases. What I'm saying is it's important to have information from more than one source. There's value in a media source that doesn't rely on corporate interests and I know this may be a suprise to you kids, but there is such a thing as coporate sensorship as well. Enjoy privided link.

Monsanto & Fox: Partners In Censorship

I do not mention censhorship either. Why are you introducing this strawman? I don't care if CBC has bias, in fact it is impossible for any broadcaster not to have bias. Knowing and acknowledging that is even more reason to have it utterly disconnected from government, and that very much and most definitely includes financially. You speak of 'balancing the media' , yet ignore the question: why does that require a govt funded, public broadcaster? As the public pendulum swings from right to left to right, do you expect and require the CBC to do the opposite, to maintain 'balance'. What manner of ideological idiocy is this?

There may well be value in having media that is not corpoarate, but why does it have to be publcily funded? Again and yet again, here is an excellent example of what is possible: excellent public radio funded by subscription. All it takes is a little work, and a little imagination. On this type of station/network, you may read Marx or Ayn Rand aloud to your hearts content.

And you can pay for it too. I already do, every year.

[Hollus]

I do not mention censhorship either. Why are you introducing this strawman?

My idea that 'tampering with the balance of media'? Have we regressed to Stalinist times, where the government is somehow responsible for maintaining 'balance in the media'. Crap, complete crap. The government is repsonsible for ensuring freedom of speech, not providing a 'balance'. You and I will establish the balance, not government. Or would you prefer that the commissars vet every broadcast? Edit every newspaper editorial. See any limits to this, or will you be satisfied in just the CBC? Don't answer that, you already have. I think we have very different ideas of the role of government in a society.

Whatever.

I don't care if CBC has bias, in fact it is impossible for any broadcaster not to have bias. Knowing and acknowledging that is even more reason to have it utterly disconnected from government, and that very much and most definitely includes financially.

"As a Crown corporation, the CBC operates at arm's length (autonomously) from the government in its day-to-day business."

Wikipedia - CBC

I agree, the more automony we can give the CBC the better. But I think you prove the point yourself with this statement:

Again and yet again, here is an excellent example of what is possible: excellent public radio funded by subscription.

This radio station is really nice. But are you seriously comparing it to this?

ckua is a nice little radio station. I enjoyed the blues program this evening... but do they have news correspondents in Israel? Will they be able to report on what's happening in Afghanistan, or even the East Coast?

You keep going on about not wanting to pay for 'my' entertainment. The CBC is a service provided to Canadians. If you don't like it fine... but many do. As Sparhawk has already mentioned there aren't many services in this country that apply to 100% of the people.