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

[fellowtraveller]

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.

Untrue that private networks deliver the news the public wants to hear.

I don't want to hear about suicide bombers or terrorist attacks from any source really, but there it is - the same story on every network, private and public.

Perhaps you are referring to opinion pieces....?

I'd welcome any kind of balanced or diverging opinion pieces on CBC, but have long ago given up..... Instead , we continue to get hateful loons like Micheal Enright spewing opinions disguised as facts, shows filled only with guests with leftist agendas. Really, it s embarassing.

[speaker]

I think that if we had had a CBC style national newspaper it would have made the concentration of that media into the hands of a capitalist elite and all of the right wing agenda mongers less likely. I listen to the CBC and I watch the CBC for the balanced views of Canadians whether in the news sports or arts. The pawns of the corporamerica "think tanks" would have us all go blind.

[Canuck E Stan]

I listen to the CBC and I watch the CBC for the balanced views of Canadians whether in the news sports or arts

You listen to CBC to hear views that are "balanced"?

How would you know if they were "balanced"?

More likely they are views that are the same as yours.

Presenting the news should be with "facts" not views.

Presenting sports, with views? Sports is scores,not views.

I suspect you listen to CBC for the arts more than anything, because it makes you feel like you're part of Canadian "culture".

[speaker]

I know that views are balanced when I don't agree with more than I do agree with. The news should be a presentation of the facts, unfortunately the view that history is written by the winners has subverted reporters and media owners to the point where it has devolved to the point of history being written by those who are willing to do anything to keep their jobs. There is enough of that at the CBC let alone the right wing private press.

sports is scores not views? since when?

One of the arts I really enjoy and don't get nearly enough of on private networks is comedy. That touch of humour that makes it possible to laugh at the woes some of us feel when we lose sight of how lucky we are.

[shoop]

That is an interesting point. However, if truly balanced those views you disagree with should be more conservative than your personal views sometimes and more liberal than your personal views sometimes.

CBC very rarely comes across as too conservative on *anything*.

I know that views are balanced when I don't agree with more than I do agree with.

[fellowtraveller]

Speaker , I challenge you to listen to CBC Radio for a week and come up with actual examples of right wing commentary. Identify a host or program that consistently presents equal time to the center and right of center.

Take your time.

[shoop]

I concur about CBC Television and CBC.ca.

Speaker , I challenge you to listen to CBC Radio for a week and come up with actual examples of right wing commentary. Identify a host or program that consistently presents equal time to the center and right of center.

Take your time.

[Riverwind]

Speaker , I challenge you to listen to CBC Radio for a week and come up with actual examples of right wing commentary. Identify a host or program that consistently presents equal time to the center and right of center.

The morning and afternoon shows in Vancouver do a fairly good job of fairly representing left and right wing views. They had some over the top flattering coverage of Harper during the election. As it happens, the house and cross country check up are also fairly balanced. However, the national morning show 'the current' has a definite left wing bias. Enright on the Sunday edition is quite opinionated in the same way Don Cherry is opinionated.

[shoop]

This may be the fact on radio. I still can't think of anything on the TV that would be even remotely close to centre-right, nevermind actually right wing.

The morning and afternoon shows in Vancouver do a fairly good job of fairly representing left and right wing views. They had some over the top flattering coverage of Harper during the election. As it happens, the house and cross country check up are also fairly balanced. However, the national morning show 'the current' has a definite left wing bias. Enright on the Sunday edition is quite opinionated in the same way Don Cherry is opinionated.

[wellandboy]

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.

It's funny how when we talk about Canadian entities like the CBC, it's defenders immediately juxtapose George Bush and American realities on a uniquely Canadian situation. From the PBS website, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $300,000.000.00 from the American government, which translates into about 15% of it's total funding. The balance comes from corporate donations, huge endowments and from viewers like me.

The CBC receives upwards to $1 billion from the Canadian government plus money received as advertising revenue. Big difference in the way funding works and bigger difference in the delivery of programming. PBS offers documentaries and news programs that provide alternatives to the mainstream outlets. On the other hand many programs have a flavour that cater to the viewership because if they didn't they wouldn't receive their donations from the public.

I've said here before, that the CBC receives it's government stipend regardless of the product it delivers. The CBC operates with no accountability to it's viewership and listenership. How about this. Using the accepted scale that the Canadian market is 10% of the US, we cut CBC's government contribution to $30,000,000.00, solicit contributions from corporations, endowments and give me the choice to make a financial contribution to support programming. As Peter Mansbridge and Julie Van deusen are asking for my after tax dollars, they can convince me why they are deserving and why they are the paragons of Canadian unity, so many are willing to claim.

[shoop]

Completely agreed, but I think you miss the point.

Supporters of the CBC would claim you are misguided. It isn't *your* tax dollars once you have paid your income taxes. It has magically become *government money*. Money you no longer have any control over. Only the government has control at that point.

Besides, if they actually went to the people the CBC would shut down very quickly after it sold off its sports programming...

How about this. Using the accepted scale that the Canadian market is 10% of the US, we cut CBC's government contribution to $30,000,000.00, solicit contributions from corporations, endowments and give me the choice to make a financial contribution to support programming. As Peter Mansbridge and Julie Van deusen are asking for my after tax dollars, they can convince me why they are deserving and why they are the paragons of Canadian unity, so many are willing to claim.

[wellandboy]

Completely agreed, but I think you miss the point.

Supporters of the CBC would claim you are misguided. It isn't *your* tax dollars once you have paid your income taxes. It has magically become *government money*. Money you no longer have any control over. Only the government has control at that point.

I know, I keep missing that one. This concept of Responsible Government keeps eluding me.

[speaker]

Someones missing the point of the word balanced here. There should not be any program that is right or left wing. It should be balanced: There should be views, commentary, bias even, going all directions. While the private systems are radically biased toward the consumerism, corporate profit making perspective, in comparison I find the CBC to be a very refreshing challenge of all ideals and social behaviours. Occasionally it is way too conservative for me, and other times it is too left wing for my liking. TV or radio.

People should also remember that the mothercorp provides services overseas on Radio Canada International, no mean feat for a relatively small country with limited budget.

[shoop]

What CBC TV programs are way too conservative???

Radio Canada International? Hmmm, don't know how long that one will exist given that Newsworld International was sold off (in 2004 wasn't it?)

I find the CBC to be a very refreshing challenge of all ideals and social behaviours. Occasionally it is way too conservative for me, and other times it is too left wing for my liking. TV or radio.

People should also remember that the mothercorp provides services overseas on Radio Canada International, no mean feat for a relatively small country with limited budget.

[tml12]

What CBC TV programs are way too conservative???

Radio Canada International? Hmmm, don't know how long that one will exist given that Newsworld International was sold off (in 2004 wasn't it?)

I find the CBC to be a very refreshing challenge of all ideals and social behaviours. Occasionally it is way too conservative for me, and other times it is too left wing for my liking. TV or radio.

People should also remember that the mothercorp provides services overseas on Radio Canada International, no mean feat for a relatively small country with limited budget.

Agreed. If CBC gets way too conservative for you, you must be at the leftist fringe of the NDP...

[Hollus]

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.

It's funny how when we talk about Canadian entities like the CBC, it's defenders immediately juxtapose George Bush and American realities on a uniquely Canadian situation. From the PBS website, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $300,000.000.00 from the American government, which translates into about 15% of it's total funding. The balance comes from corporate donations, huge endowments and from viewers like me.

The CBC receives upwards to $1 billion from the Canadian government plus money received as advertising revenue. Big difference in the way funding works and bigger difference in the delivery of programming. PBS offers documentaries and news programs that provide alternatives to the mainstream outlets. On the other hand many programs have a flavour that cater to the viewership because if they didn't they wouldn't receive their donations from the public.

I've said here before, that the CBC receives it's government stipend regardless of the product it delivers. The CBC operates with no accountability to it's viewership and listenership. How about this. Using the accepted scale that the Canadian market is 10% of the US, we cut CBC's government contribution to $30,000,000.00, solicit contributions from corporations, endowments and give me the choice to make a financial contribution to support programming. As Peter Mansbridge and Julie Van deusen are asking for my after tax dollars, they can convince me why they are deserving and why they are the paragons of Canadian unity, so many are willing to claim.

This piont has already been covered earlier. That the CBC should operate on public donations is impractical as in Canada we have only a meer fraction of the population that American broadcasters like PBS have to draw donations from.

In regards to your problem with the programing, Im curious as to what you would like to see. Are you not interested the following:Life & Times, PassionateEye, Correspondent,Fifth Estate

[tml12]

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.

It's funny how when we talk about Canadian entities like the CBC, it's defenders immediately juxtapose George Bush and American realities on a uniquely Canadian situation. From the PBS website, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $300,000.000.00 from the American government, which translates into about 15% of it's total funding. The balance comes from corporate donations, huge endowments and from viewers like me.

The CBC receives upwards to $1 billion from the Canadian government plus money received as advertising revenue. Big difference in the way funding works and bigger difference in the delivery of programming. PBS offers documentaries and news programs that provide alternatives to the mainstream outlets. On the other hand many programs have a flavour that cater to the viewership because if they didn't they wouldn't receive their donations from the public.

I've said here before, that the CBC receives it's government stipend regardless of the product it delivers. The CBC operates with no accountability to it's viewership and listenership. How about this. Using the accepted scale that the Canadian market is 10% of the US, we cut CBC's government contribution to $30,000,000.00, solicit contributions from corporations, endowments and give me the choice to make a financial contribution to support programming. As Peter Mansbridge and Julie Van deusen are asking for my after tax dollars, they can convince me why they are deserving and why they are the paragons of Canadian unity, so many are willing to claim.

This piont has already been covered earlier. That the CBC should operate on public donations is impractical as in Canada we have only a meer fraction of the population that American broadcasters like PBS have to draw donations from.

In regards to your problem with the programing, Im curious as to what you would like to see. Are you not interested the following:Life & Times, PassionateEye, Correspondent,Fifth Estate

Funding for CBC should be cut, it should not be privatized completely.

Funding from the government should be higher than in the U.S. for the reasons you mentioned Hollus.

However, having CBC as a government tool endorsing government views is not apprpriate, IMHO.

[shoop]

Is it really impractical or just a sense of entitlement on the part of CBC employees that they couldn't be expected to find their own funding?

It isn't easy for PBS to get funding from private sources, but they do it. The CBC would have to make some serious decisions, but if it were get funding or shut down, MotherCorp would exist in some form.

This piont has already been covered earlier. That the CBC should operate on public donations is impractical as in Canada we have only a meer fraction of the population that American broadcasters like PBS have to draw donations from.

In regards to your problem with the programing, Im curious as to what you would like to see.

[Riverwind]

it delivers. The CBC operates with no accountability to it's viewership and listenership. How about this. Using the accepted scale that the Canadian market is 10% of the US, we cut CBC's government contribution to $30,000,000.00, solicit contributions from corporations, endowments and give me the choice to make a financial contribution to support programming.

Self serving logic that avoids a few critical facts:

1) It takes the same amount of money to develop a quality show for 30 million people as it does for 300 million. Therefore, the government contribution to public programming in Canada must be high enough to compensate for the smaller market size

2) The endowments that PBS has built up over generations could never be replaced over night by donations from Canadian sources. It might be workable it the Canadian govt made a suitably large one time contribution to a public broadcasting endowment fund. But i suspect such funding would be bitterly opposed by the anti-CBC zealots.

Canadian broadcasting needs to have government support. Many Canadians feel that way so it is a perfectly legitimate use of tax dollars. If every use of tax dollars require unanimous support then the government would not be able to spend money on anything. So frankly, I am tired of the whining about paying for the CBC with *my* tax dollars that comes from the right. There are many other programs that I don't want yet I have to pay for with *my* tax dollars because enough other Canadians seem to want it.

That does not mean CBC should be free of criticism - it is just means that, in principle the govt should be spending that 800 million to 1 billion a year on Canadian content and maybe that means developing a competitive bid process that would award funding to private networks that produce Canadian shows like Corner Gas. However, I suspect the private networks are not interested in having more than a few token Canadian shows because they make just as much money re-broadcasting US shows. That means there will always be a need for the CBC.

[Hollus]

Funding for CBC should be cut, it should not be privatized completely.

Funding from the government should be higher than in the U.S. for the reasons you mentioned Hollus.

However, having CBC as a government tool endorsing government views is not apprpriate, IMHO.

I certianly agree that the CBC should not be used as government tool. Could somone provide me with some examples of this allegedly blatent bias?

[wellandboy]

This piont has already been covered earlier. That the CBC should operate on public donations is impractical as in Canada we have only a meer fraction of the population that American broadcasters like PBS have to draw donations from.

In regards to your problem with the programing, Im curious as to what you would like to see. Are you not interested the following:Life & Times, PassionateEye, Correspondent,Fifth Estate

We have statistically 10 % the population of the US. It isn't that alternative funding is impractical but just inconvenient and/or frightening for an organization that doesn't feel the need to be accountable.

You've cited 4 one hour shows, which I have no particular difficulty with. By my calculation that accounts for less that 3 % of CBC's TV's total weekly broadcast on one CBC venue. When you combine CBC and Newsworld, that's hardly a justification.

[shoop]

George Stombolopolous "The Hour".

During the leadup to Gulf War 2 Stephen Harper said that while he thought Canada should participate it probably couldn't due to troop commitments in Afghanistan and a "stretched-to-the-limit" military.

During the election Harper repeated that Canada would not go to Iraq. The main reason he gave was because our military does not have the capacity to participate.

Stombolopolous called it a *flip-flop*. Hmmm, definitely an attack on Harper as indecisveness is always attacked. But where was the flip-flop?

I certianly agree that the CBC should not be used as government tool. Could somone provide me with some examples of this allegedly blatent bias?

[Hollus]

George Stombolopolous "The Hour".

During the leadup to Gulf War 2 Stephen Harper said that while he thought Canada should participate it probably couldn't due to troop commitments in Afghanistan and a "stretched-to-the-limit" military.

During the election Harper repeated that Canada would not go to Iraq. The main reason he gave was because our military does not have the capacity to participate.

Stombolopolous called it a *flip-flop*. Hmmm, definitely an attack on Harper as indecisveness is always attacked. But where was the flip-flop?

I certianly agree that the CBC should not be used as government tool. Could somone provide me with some examples of this allegedly blatent bias?

Really? I don't think that's a completely unfair statment to make:

"Nay."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper voting against a motion urging the Canadian government not to participate in the US military intervention in Iraq, March 20, 2003.

And then theres this stuff:

"In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."

- Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans."

- Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, March 25th 2002. As it turned out, Harper wasn't the only one who didn't know all the facts.

"This government's only explanation for not standing behind our allies is that they couldn't get the approval of the Security Council at the United Nations - a body [on] which Canada doesn't even have a seat."

- Stephen Harper supporting the American invasion of Iraq, CTV's Question Period, March 30, 2003.

"Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory."

- Stephen Harper, supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, April 1, 2003.

So what should we call it?

[Hollus]

We have statistically 10 % the population of the US. It isn't that alternative funding is impractical but just inconvenient and/or frightening for an organization that doesn't feel the need to be accountable.

Please refer to sparhawks post on the previous page. He does a better job of illustrating this piont than I.

You've cited 4 one hour shows, which I have no particular difficulty with. By my calculation that accounts for less that 3 % of CBC's TV's total weekly broadcast on one CBC venue. When you combine CBC and Newsworld, that's hardly a justification.

Was'nt meant as justification, Im trying to understand what part of the programing you have the problem with. How much of the weekly broadcast do you expect to captivate you? Can you provide some examples of other stations that have a high% of programing that apeals to you?

[fellowtraveller]

Speaker , I challenge you to listen to CBC Radio for a week and come up with actual examples of right wing commentary. Identify a host or program that consistently presents equal time to the center and right of center.

The morning and afternoon shows in Vancouver do a fairly good job of fairly representing left and right wing views. They had some over the top flattering coverage of Harper during the election. As it happens, the house and cross country check up are also fairly balanced. However, the national morning show 'the current' has a definite left wing bias. Enright on the Sunday edition is quite opinionated in the same way Don Cherry is opinionated.

I cannot comment on the Vancouver local offerings, but the Edmonton local shows are wholly left. On rare occasions they bring on a guest like a Tory provincial or federal politician, but these shows are generally confrontational rather than informational. On phone in shows, the guests are almost always left and nearly all the callers support the guest. It is no acccident.

Corss Country checkup is also left of center, on the few occasions when Rex Murphy is able to bumble his way through a 3 minute sentence and arrive at something coherent. He also throws complete softball questions at whichever guest he has on. The callers are also inevitably overwhelmingly lefties. The House has been openly antagonistic to the right, though Anthony Germain is better than the embarassment that was Jason Moscovitz. Michael Enright is close to being a hatemonger, his rants on the USA are Parrish-like in their gross stupidity. Is that it for examples? Really, not very good.

Really though, the obvious bias is not the issue. It is pretty much impossible to not have political bias unless non-stop music is the only thing broadcast. It can't be fixed by adding right wing material, the regular loyalist listeners would start their own howl and the circle would begin again.

Nope, the only way out is to cut the pursestrings, and let the many dedicated listeners and lovers simply pay for it themselves. They can easily direct the political bias, the programming and everything else to their hearts content.

Problem solved.