Why am I forced to pay for this social liberalism agenda?

[fellowtraveller]

But the one big thing about the CBC is simply this, no matter where you are in Canada, you can pick up a signal, unlike any other station or network, and this was the CBC's original purpose.

Sorry but this is not true. If you live far in the boonies, out in the bush - you do not routinely receive any TV or local radio signals. Due to atmospheric skip in Central Yukon, I could often pick up Gulf Coast stations from 300 miles away better than I got local CBC AM. CBC does have better coverage than any other station/network but it is far from comprehensive.

Many remote or northern communities have local stations, nearly all piped in/rebroadcast and/or selected some FM stations via satellite. Many places have Internet connections, often broadband. Nearly all have satellite TV, either direct link or rebroadcast.

In 1935 it was not myth that people were huddled around the stove in their sod huts listening to CBC. But not any more. Nearly everybody that wants it, nearly everywhere - has multiple options for news and entertainment other than CBC.

The CBC was once an effective vehicle for binding us together.

Today it tends to drive us apart. Do we really need even more wedges?

[shoop]

Very well said.

No reason to go for the politically damaging direct kill of the CBC. Better to just let it wither away slowly.

The CBC was once an effective vehicle for binding us together.

Today it tends to drive us apart. Do we really need even more wedges?

[tml12]

Very well said.

No reason to go for the politically damaging direct kill of the CBC. Better to just let it wither away slowly.

The CBC was once an effective vehicle for binding us together.

Today it tends to drive us apart. Do we really need even more wedges?

This guy is avoiding (or trying to avoid) extradition to Germany where he will be tried of tax fraud, etc.

See the Libs like letting people live on the system.

Harper should say "stop bitching" and allow CIC to deport this bastard.

[BubberMiley]

Oddly enough this (the Mulroney stuff) was only an issue on the CBC. No other networks are carrying the story to the same degree. I think this speaks volumes as to the "shock-value" of Mr. Schreiber's allegations.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

[wellandboy]

But the one big thing about the CBC is simply this, no matter where you are in Canada, you can pick up a signal, unlike any other station or network, and this was the CBC's original purpose.

Actually, that's not true in South Western Ontario with the highest population concentrations in the country. When CBC radio broadcast on AM 740, there was very good coverage. Since converting to FM for Radio 1, reception is sporadic in most of Kitchener-Waterloo; half of Niagara Region, Wellington County, Haldimand, Brant, Oxford and Norfolk counties. North west of Toronto in parts of Peel, Dufferin and beyond suffer a similar lack of reception (perhaps literally and figuratively).

The other problem is Radio 1 has become so Toronto-centric, it is largely irrelevent in these communities. CBC television and radio have become servants to the major cities simply because their staff and management are big city urbanites.

The days of CBC being "an effective vehicle for binding us together" are long gone. When you combine this with it's poor performance in ratings, it raises serious questions as to it's validity as a national broadcaster funded with a $800,000,000 plus government stipend.

I am frankly surprised at the stalwart defence of CBC by so many individuals on this board. It is our right and to question and demand more of CBC.

[Riverwind]

It is our right and to question and demand more of CBC.

Constructive criticism of the CBC is necessary and helpful. However, most of the CBC opponents on this board are not interested in providing constructive criticism: they simply what to see the broadcaster terminated immediately.

[wellandboy]

It is our right and to question and demand more of CBC.

Constructive criticism of the CBC is necessary and helpful. However, most of the CBC opponents on this board are not interested in providing constructive criticism: they simply what to see the broadcaster terminated immediately.

Actually, I believe that would be the final outcome no matter what steps were taken to improve the quality of programming. The mindless acceptance of the status quo boggles my mind. I would like to think the most ardent CBC-ite could acknowledge the Corp. either needs an extreme makeover or if all else fails quietly euthanized.

[YankAbroad]

Privatized networks naturally favour right wing views

Nope, private networks favour whatever views are popular amongst profitable demographics (or demographics willing to provide direct support in the form of donations). Every viewpoint under the sun is targeted in private networks -- which offer a far more diverse range of views than public networks in Canada, the USA, or the UK.

[Michael Hardner]

Nope, private networks favour whatever views are popular amongst profitable demographics (or demographics willing to provide direct support in the form of donations). Every viewpoint under the sun is targeted in private networks -- which offer a far more diverse range of views than public networks in Canada, the USA, or the UK.

But private networks do have the onus of delivering the news that the customer wants to hear. This comes out of the profit motive. A public network should have the onus of delivering information for the public good.

Of course, you can and should argue what that means, and whether the CBC is doing that.

I think having a public broadcaster provides a good balance, but the CBC needs more divergent views. Any large organization has a challenge to remain dynamic as time goes on, and the CBC - like so many other similar organizations - isn't really doing this.

[YankAbroad]

By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.

Whereas, by neocons calling for traditional marriage while divorcing their fourth wife, bashing gays while cruising undercover cops of the same gender in public parks, calling for others to serve in the military when they all dodged the draft themselves in the Vietnam era, demanding "sacrifice" (but never providing it themselves), proclaiming a "strong faith in God" while ignoring the precepts of their deity, and attacking war veterans who have lost limbs as "cowards" (while ignoring the fact they dodged the draft themselves) are accomplishing. . . what, exactly?

Oh yes, their "moral superiority."

[YankAbroad]

private networks do have the onus of delivering the news that the customer wants to hear.

Perhaps.

This comes out of the profit motive.

Not necessarily. A private network is certainly capable of operating as a non-profit.

A public network should have the onus of delivering information for the public good.

"Public" networks are all about delivering the information which the government and employees want delivered, whilst describing it as "for the public good." A quick gander at PBS, the CBC or BBC will easily confirm this.

[Michael Hardner]

Yank... as long as we're arguing caricatures, I would add "demanding that people stand up and fend for themselves, while they have been handed a easy life, a supportive upbringing, a network of propserous friends and family members, and maybe even a trust fund.

[YankAbroad]

Yes, if George W. Bush had been born in my family, he'd have become a truck driver after flunking out of community college. My family tends not to "rescue" the indolent.

[shoop]

Wow, you really gotta put some thought into your posts.

The CBC is far from a government mouthpiece, depending on the government.

Look at the 1984-1993 period. Nobody would claim the CBC acted as a mouthpiece for the PC government of the day.

The CBC hates Conservative gobernments, and always will.

On the week Harper is sworn in as the first Cosnervative PM in over 12 years it prominently runs a *new* story airing old Karlheinz Schreiber accusations with no new evidence to support them.

"Public" networks are all about delivering the information which the government and employees want delivered, whilst describing it as "for the public good." A quick gander at PBS, the CBC or BBC will easily confirm this.

[YankAbroad]

The CBC is far from a government mouthpiece, depending on the government

It's not a government "mouthpiece" per se. It is a government organ, which distributes news, opinion and content which is determined by employees of the state.

The CBC is an arrogant venture, at its core -- it's a group of people who are convinced that you don't know what you need, that they know better than you, and that you should have to pay for their unusually discerning wisdom to be broadcast to the ignorant sheep who need their amazing power.

On the week Harper is sworn in as the first Cosnervative PM in over 12 years it prominently runs a *new* story airing old Karlheinz Schreiber accusations with no new evidence to support them.

Well, that's what you "conservatives" get when you're all about supporting socialist ventures like a state-run broadcaster.

[geoffrey]

Yank... as long as we're arguing caricatures, I would add "demanding that people stand up and fend for themselves, while they have been handed a easy life, a supportive upbringing, a network of propserous friends and family members, and maybe even a trust fund.

It's general snobby kids that have never worked that support the socialist point of view, not the conservative point of view. They feel somewhat guilty for being spoiled brats.

[YankAbroad]

The irony, of course, is that Coulter and her ilk are socialists themselves. They just disagree with so-called "liberals" over what big government's tax-and-spend program should do and who should "benefit" -- not that big government shouldn't exist.

[shoop]

Terms like *big government* are very tough to define, thus easy to throw out without having to defend them.

Do conservatives face smaller government than liberals? Absolutely. Both in Canada and the U.S.

How small is small enough for the likes of YankAbroad? They never define it so they can rail against the government no matter what it does.

The irony, of course, is that Coulter and her ilk are socialists themselves. They just disagree with so-called "liberals" over what big government's tax-and-spend program should do and who should "benefit" -- not that big government shouldn't exist.

[YankAbroad]

Do conservatives face smaller government than liberals? Absolutely. Both in Canada and the U.S.

Then perhaps you could explain to us why the Republican "conservatives" in the USA increased federal employment by over 50% and government spending by over 30% since taking over.

Also, please explain why Stephen Harper's government will spend more in its budget than the prior "Liberal big government" did.

I cannot think of a single recent "conservative" federal government in either country which actually significantly reduced the size and scope of government -- or even the growth of government spending.

Terms like *big government* are very tough to define

Actually, it's quite easy to understand big government. Big government is a government which provides virtually all the job growth in Canada. Big government is a government which created 2/3 of the new jobs in the United States. Big government is a government whose marginal tax rates makes it so average Americans are working just to pay the federal government's taxes from January 1 until April 17th, and in Canada, from January 1 to June 29th.

I suppose that you'd say that handing over 30% to 50% of every dollar you earn to a bloated bureacuracy which grows without end under both parties isn't big government -- but that's because you support big government. . . so long as it's big government which achieves your own political goals.

[shoop]

Don't believe the first one yank. Got any proof for that?

The last Conservative government significantly slowed the growth of government spending from the previous Liberal government. They were the first government in 15 years to run an operating surplus.

The last Conservative government significantly cut the size of our public service. Don't confuse the CPC with U.S. Conservatives.

Kinda sad when facts get in the way of your rhetoric. Yet another example why the Libertarian party can't get any traction. pesky pesky facts...

Also, please explain why Stephen Harper's government will spend more in its budget than the prior "Liberal big government" did.

I cannot think of a single recent "conservative" federal government in either country which actually significantly reduced the size and scope of government -- or even the growth of government spending.

[Michael Hardner]

It's general snobby kids that have never worked that support the socialist point of view, not the conservative point of view. They feel somewhat guilty for being spoiled brats.

Yes, exactly ! It's the caricatures here we're talking about after all !

It's good to know the cartoon version of your opponents view of you.

Got that ?

[margrace]

So if everyone's listening, why do we need them publically funded? Let them support themselves like the 14 or whatever amount of stations below them on the list.

Bingo.

So who says no one listens to them. A lot of my family do I know. But I will speak for myself. I never listen to the A channels except to hear the 6 o'clock news because it is the only local one we can get. Star choice ya know. The violent shows on this station are unbelievable.

I never listen to Global or CTV because they have nothing but crap on them. I cannot believe the awful stuff that comes out of the US.

The only American stations I like are sometimes CNN, especially when they showed America for what she is when the poor people of New Orleans were left to die, the other one is PBS although Bush is trying his best to destroy that.

SCN and TVO are excellent stations

Yes I know there are a lot of money hungry people out there who would like to shut CBC up the same as Mr Bush. But poor misguided me will work to keep the last bastion of Canadian unity we have.

[scribblet]

So if everyone's listening, why do we need them publically funded? Let them support themselves like the 14 or whatever amount of stations below them on the list.

Bingo.

SCN and TVO are excellent stations

Yes I know there are a lot of money hungry people out there who would like to shut CBC up the same as Mr Bush. But poor misguided me will work to keep the last bastion of Canadian unity we have.

Money hungry people and shut up the same as Mr. Bush ? whats that supposed to mean and what does Bush have to do with the CBC, please explain? Why should my tax dollars go to support the CBC? It should run on its own merits without my money. Oh I get it, money hungry people are those who feel others should take responsibility for their own actions and not feed off the public teat. yeah....I get it now.

[geoffrey]

So who says no one listens to them. A lot of my family do I know. But I will speak for myself. I never listen to the A channels except to hear the 6 o'clock news because it is the only local one we can get. Star choice ya know. The violent shows on this station are unbelievable.

I never listen to Global or CTV because they have nothing but crap on them. I cannot believe the awful stuff that comes out of the US.

The only American stations I like are sometimes CNN, especially when they showed America for what she is when the poor people of New Orleans were left to die, the other one is PBS although Bush is trying his best to destroy that.

SCN and TVO are excellent stations

Yes I know there are a lot of money hungry people out there who would like to shut CBC up the same as Mr Bush. But poor misguided me will work to keep the last bastion of Canadian unity we have.

Um actually the ratings say no one listens to them. The 14 stations after them on the list (or whatever the number) can survive without government handouts, why can't the CBC?

It's too bad that you think Global and CTV are crap, and I think its too bad that you think it's all American. Last time I checked, Global National is the most watched national news program, because its applicable and focused. Unlike the CBC.

You complain so much about the American media influence, but you might as well write off any entertainment form on TV then. If you only watch Canadian shows, your missing out on some far superiour programming.

If the CBC is the last bastion of Canadian unity, we are in some serious trouble.

[fellowtraveller]

So if everyone's listening, why do we need them publically funded? Let them support themselves like the 14 or whatever amount of stations below them on the list.

Bingo.

So who says no one listens to them. A lot of my family do I know. But I will speak for myself. I never listen to the A channels except to hear the 6 o'clock news because it is the only local one we can get. Star choice ya know. The violent shows on this station are unbelievable.

I never listen to Global or CTV because they have nothing but crap on them. I cannot believe the awful stuff that comes out of the US.

The only American stations I like are sometimes CNN, especially when they showed America for what she is when the poor people of New Orleans were left to die, the other one is PBS although Bush is trying his best to destroy that.

SCN and TVO are excellent stations

Yes I know there are a lot of money hungry people out there who would like to shut CBC up the same as Mr Bush. But poor misguided me will work to keep the last bastion of Canadian unity we have.

Read this thread, then tell me about the 'national unity' fostered by CBC.

The opposite is true.

Like Mr. Bush? Please tell us your theory on how Mr. Bush wants to shut down the CBC.