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

[Spike22]

The CBC is the only station allowed to have a 24 hour news channel which is hostile to conservatives--hostile to me. That's why I resent being forced to pay for it.

So what? 'Conservatives like you' resent paying for anything that does not directly benefit you and would happily shut down the entire gov't.

If their views are in tune with the general public, then they should be cut off the govt tit and see if they can make it on their own--like Global and CTV.

The general public is perfectly happy paying for CBC with their tax dollars.

We are happy paying for it? I can see if the CBC had a plan to become less reliant of the Canadian taxpayer over a set period of time we could stomach a billion dollars subsidizing it.

I do like CBC radio, news and documentary shows and HNIC are generally well done however the entertainment shows are LAME-O. Perhaps if they focused more on what they do well they would suceed without our money

[wellandboy]

It is apparent that CP people do not like having some of their agenda made public. The same with the American Governments cut back on Public Television. Having a news source that tells us everything is not the way to control people

However I have to voice my opinion that the CBC is very aware of where their money comes from and as they saw that there might be a Conservative win the certainly backed off in honest reporting of the Conservative agenda.

Now we are beginning to see that Harper did have a hidden agenda, and that people are going to suffer for it. So being publicly funded is not the win all it should be.

Are you talking about the same news organization that has failed to break any major investigative news stories in the last 12 years, like HRDC, Gun Registry and the scandal of scandals, Adscam under the Liberals. Maybe if you watched something other than CBC and read a cross section of papers, you would actually see how flawed your arguments are. The CBC has a tradition of sucking up to the powers that be; which is why this discussion is taking place.

[Spike22]

The CBC sucking up to the party that is power how incredulous. Well of course they do after all who cuts their paychecks.

[wellandboy]

Canadian Steve Smith aka Red Green received an Order of Canada today from GG Jean in Ottawa. He's the guy that was too controversial for the CBC. After his huge success on PBS in the United States, CBC relented after generous applications of duct tape on their egos, signed the Red Green Show to a multi year deal. My source by the way is moi in a sincere and hilarious conversation with Red or I mean Steve several years ago.

The good old CBC nearly missed the boat again in promoting and recognizing Canadian talent.

[fellowtraveller]

Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Perhaps you should re-examine your position, and those inconsistencies will be explicable.

My point is if you are a person you does not particularly care about Canadian content in programming then you will never understand the value of an institution like the CBC.

I am sure you have encountered people who think that the Canadian military should just be disbanded because we face no real military threat. At one level they have a point, the only country that is likely to invade Canada is the US so why should we spend billions every year on a force? What such people forgot is there is a cultural value to maintaining a military that can participate in international events. You argument against the Canadian programming is no different than saying we should get rid of the military because we don't need it.

That said, the one useful proposal that has come out of this discussion is the suggestion that Canadian content could be ensured on TV by funding private networks directly. I think this would be a workable solution only if the private networks are required to carry a minimum number of hours of primetime canadian programming (excluding news and sports) per week. The last I heard was the private networks are absolutely opposed to such regulations. That means the direct funding of private networks would not work in the long run.

Your first sentence presupposes that a publicly funded CBC is somehow necessary to preserve CanCon. Why do you think that? CanCon is a CRTC program, not a CBC initiative. A privatised, or more accurately, a subscriber driven CBC could still produce CanCon, in fact would be required to do so just as other Canadian networks do.

Your second para is a strawman. I have made no such argument. What it boils down to is this: what is the role of our government? I would agree that a military presence is a vewry necessary thing, not for its 'cultural value' , but for the traditional defence of the nation role. The military also could have many other purposes: peacekeeping, natural disaster crisis intervention, fortiegn aid etc. I do not belive that the government has any role remaining in providing news and entertainment, which is all that CBC now does, and does poorly and at great expense.

I don't know what you mean in your third para. Aren't all Canadian TV networks and radio stations required NOW to have CanCon, required by the CRTC? Nothing would change in that regard with a change to privatization of CBC television and a switch to subscritption for CBC radio.

[justcrowing]

Margrace - just what is that secret agenda you are talking about - I would sure like to know what it is???

The CBC is the only station allowed to have a 24 hour news channel which is hostile to conservatives--hostile to me. That's why I resent being forced to pay for it.

So what? 'Conservatives like you' resent paying for anything that does not directly benefit you and would happily shut down the entire gov't.

If their views are in tune with the general public, then they should be cut off the govt tit and see if they can make it on their own--like Global and CTV.

The general public is perfectly happy paying for CBC with their tax dollars.

It is apparent that CP people do not like having some of their agenda made public. The same with the American Governments cut back on Public Television. Having a news source that tells us everything is not the way to control people

However I have to voice my opinion that the CBC is very aware of where their money comes from and as they saw that there might be a Conservative win the certainly backed off in honest reporting of the Conservative agenda.

Now we are beginning to see that Harper did have a hidden agenda, and that people are going to suffer for it. So being publicly funded is not the win all it should be.

[arif]

The CBC has no commercials on radio, I love that.

Is the CBC tv funded by the govt.? If so, why the same number of commercials as other stations?

What's wrong with having a public broadcaster, when there is plenty of room for private ones too?

What's the amount of funding they get per year?

Despite the orginal post's criticism of the content, there is some real crap on the private stations, and CBC has some amazing content that you wouldn't find elsewhere, Ideas, massey lectures etc.

Arif

[geoffrey]

The CBC has no commercials on radio, I love that.

Which takes listeners from private institutions, but whatever, thats minor.

Is the CBC tv funded by the govt.? If so, why the same number of commercials as other stations?

About $860 million a year. Because they can put as many commericals as they want, stealing business by charging significantly below market prices.

What's wrong with having a public broadcaster, when there is plenty of room for private ones too?

Because the public broadcaster can charge much less for advertising and hurts the market for the private companies. It's a completely unfair advantage, giving one company extra money from the taxpayer and destroying all free competition.

What's the amount of funding they get per year?

$860 million, enough to pay for what... 3000 or 4000 doctors? Or maybe 8000 police officers?

Despite the orginal post's criticism of the content, there is some real crap on the private stations, and CBC has some amazing content that you wouldn't find elsewhere, Ideas, massey lectures etc.

What's a priority for you, TV/radio content or doctors/police/military/teachers?? If you don't like whats on the other channels, stop watching, they lose money... until they show stuff people in general like.

Too bad that CBC has very poor viewership/listenership... so not many people care for what they offer, yet we are paying for it. Per viewer/listener, the CBC racks up an unbelievable cost. No one likes whats on it, why do we have it when we have 2 national news stations and numerous independants that provider better programming at no cost to the general taxpayer.

[Montgomery Burns]

Geoffrey:

Because they [CBC] can put as many commericals as they want, stealing business by charging significantly below market prices.

Bingo!

The state has an advantage and is competing against private business--Canadian businesses. Unfair!

And how can you expect fair news coverage from a channel that is the window to the Governor Generalship of Canada? How can you expect fair coverage from a channel where the Liberal Party appoint the former chairman of the CBC to be their Minister of Finance?

It's absolutely astounding that some still stick up for the status quo. Too many Canadians are brainwashed by the leftwing agenda pushed by the CBC.

Stephen Harper, please move this country to the centre--or preferably, centre-right....

Some of the people in Canada sound as brainwashed as the Europeans--who are subjected to relentless indoctrination by their state-run media.

[August1991]

No one is forcing you to buy products from the companies that advertise on Global TV. But someone is forcing you to fund the CBC.

In practice, your distinction is meaningless. I am not saying that all advertising is valueless but I think much of it is. IOW, I would prefer to have cheaper products and spend some of my savings on higher taxes to finance commercial-free (or commercial- reduced) broadcasting. Consumers and sellers would be better off.

For an organization to succeed, it must satisfy the needs of its customers. A look at the ratings for CTV and Global indicates that they are more in tune with the general public. They have more viewers for their regular programming and for their national news programs (Lloyd Robertson-957,000 average viewers, Kevin Newman 771,000, and lastly Peter Mansbridge with 648,000).

The CBC is the only station allowed to have a 24 hour news channel which is hostile to conservatives--hostile to me. That's why I resent being forced to pay for it. If their views are in tune with the general public, then they should be cut off the govt tit and see if they can make it on their own--like Global and CTV.

MB, you are confusing the issue of how to finance broadcasting and the content of broadcasting.

I agree with you that the CBC does not respond to what Canadians want, its programming is too left wing (or to be more accurate, its programming seems designed by a high school teacher).

Here's an idea. Let's subsidize all radio and TV according to audited audience share. IOW, I just think advertising is a dumb way to finance broadcasting. I'd drop entirely the Canadian Content requirements and abolish the CRTC. (BTW, Radio-Canada is very popular in Quebec. My own explanation for this would require another thread... )

The annual $1 billion saved could go towards lower taxation, more cops, and strenghtening our depleted military. Better priorities in my book.

I happen to think the $1 billion we spend for the CBC gives good value, when compared to the cost of an equivalent service financed through advertising. Cutting this subsidy would not be a "saving" for Canada. (BTW, that's about $2.50 per month from each Canadian - much cheaper than Sirius.)

The principle of public financing of broadcasting is good but its execution in Canada leaves much to be desired.

[shoop]

Brilliant!!!

I agree with you that the CBC does not respond to what Canadians want, its programming is too left wing (or to be more accurate, its programming seems designed by a high school teacher).

[Montgomery Burns]

No one is forcing you to buy products from the companies that advertise on Global TV. But someone is forcing you to fund the CBC.

In practice, your distinction is meaningless. I am not saying that all advertising is valueless but I think much of it is. IOW, I would prefer to have cheaper products and spend some of my savings on higher taxes to finance commercial-free (or commercial- reduced) broadcasting. Consumers and sellers would be better off.

For an organization to succeed, it must satisfy the needs of its customers. A look at the ratings for CTV and Global indicates that they are more in tune with the general public. They have more viewers for their regular programming and for their national news programs (Lloyd Robertson-957,000 average viewers, Kevin Newman 771,000, and lastly Peter Mansbridge with 648,000).

The CBC is the only station allowed to have a 24 hour news channel which is hostile to conservatives--hostile to me. That's why I resent being forced to pay for it. If their views are in tune with the general public, then they should be cut off the govt tit and see if they can make it on their own--like Global and CTV.

MB, you are confusing the issue of how to finance broadcasting and the content of broadcasting.

I agree with you that the CBC does not respond to what Canadians want, its programming is too left wing (or to be more accurate, its programming seems designed by a high school teacher).

Here's an idea. Let's subsidize all radio and TV according to audited audience share. IOW, I just think advertising is a dumb way to finance broadcasting. I'd drop entirely the Canadian Content requirements and abolish the CRTC. (BTW, Radio-Canada is very popular in Quebec. My own explanation for this would require another thread... )

The annual $1 billion saved could go towards lower taxation, more cops, and strenghtening our depleted military. Better priorities in my book.

I happen to think the $1 billion we spend for the CBC gives good value, when compared to the cost of an equivalent service financed through advertising. Cutting this subsidy would not be a "saving" for Canada. (BTW, that's about $2.50 per month from each Canadian - much cheaper than Sirius.)

The principle of public financing of broadcasting is good but its execution in Canada leaves much to be desired.

1) I'm sorry but I can't let you get away with your reply without a response. My practice is not meaningless. I do use my purchasing power. I have not bought a Bruce Springsteen CD since Springsteen's embarrassing political antics. I rarely watch CNN since I got the FNC. I haven't even bought a Dixies Chicks CD since Natalie Maines' outburst in London (insulting the President while halfway across the world)--and I loved the Dixie Chicks! I refused to pay to see Farenheit 9/11 when I read that Michael Moore was offering Hamas to distribute his film thru the Mid East. I rarely go to the movies, because I don't want to give liberal Hollywood any of MY hardworking money. Yeah I'm stubborn, but the ratings/box office dollars prove I am not the only one--Hollywood is struggling. If you enjoy being forced to pay for a hard-left news channel, that is your perogative.

2) $1 billion annually divided by approximately 17.5 million workers is about $57/year. I'd rather that money go towards decreased taxes, more cops, and strengthening our military. What kind of a democracy has a state-run TV channel that the govt picks Governor Generals and appoints former chairmen of the state-run media to be the Minister of Finance?

Dictatorships (and the hopelessly brainwashed EUnuchs) are the only ones who have a state-run News service.

You also neglected to mention the CBC's 3rd place rating versus the Global and the CTV.

Peter Mansbridge is last in the news ratings and the CBC has virtually nothing to offer Canadians--with the exception of Hockey Night in Canada.

3) Like I said earlier--no one is forcing you to buy product from Global's advertisers. However the state is forcing you to pay for the state-run CBC.

[August1991]

Like I said earlier--no one is forcing you to buy product from Global's advertisers. However the state is forcing you to pay for the state-run CBC.

True. And the result is that our cultural life is pathetic but we have sophisticated SUVs.

MB, you don't get it - in the same way that Leftist Westerners don't get Steyn's demographic arguments.

[geoffrey]

Like I said earlier--no one is forcing you to buy product from Global's advertisers. However the state is forcing you to pay for the state-run CBC.

True. And the result is that our cultural life is pathetic but we have sophisticated SUVs.

MB, you don't get it - in the same way that Leftist Westerners don't get Steyn's demographic arguments.

I'm with ya there August, our cultural life in Canada is definitely lacking (mostly because Canada doesn't have a culture). Do you really think the CBC can uplift us to new heights in terms of culture? Especially when no one is watching it?

This is also coming from the same person that thinks nationalistic competition at the olympics is stupid? I can tell you our investment in our athletes per dollar gives us way more national pride and culture than the CBC ever has.

[stignasty]

Just to offer a different perspective, there are people in this country that can /only/ receive CBC. Without it they're cut off from the rest of the world. Not everyone can afford a satellite dish; our public broadcaster provides a vital service to them.

[margrace]

Just to offer a different perspective, there are people in this country that can /only/ receive CBC. Without it they're cut off from the rest of the world. Not everyone can afford a satellite dish; our public broadcaster provides a vital service to them.

Well isn't this the agenda, cut taxes and stop services to those who already can't afford items such as a dish. Northern Ontario people do not need health care, CBC, and other things that Snow birds take for granted when they are here.

[shoop]

How small and remote must a population be that it can only receive CBC? No CTV or Global?

Hmmm, still not making a convincing case for subsidizing the CBC. Wouldn't that money be better spent getting remote communities online?

Just to offer a different perspective, there are people in this country that can /only/ receive CBC. Without it they're cut off from the rest of the world. Not everyone can afford a satellite dish; our public broadcaster provides a vital service to them.

[margrace]

How small and remote must a population be that it can only receive CBC? No CTV or Global?

Hmmm, still not making a convincing case for subsidizing the CBC. Wouldn't that money be better spent getting remote communities online?

Just to offer a different perspective, there are people in this country that can /only/ receive CBC. Without it they're cut off from the rest of the world. Not everyone can afford a satellite dish; our public broadcaster provides a vital service to them.

So now you are proposing that I, in Mid Ontario, get better computer service. Most of us are on dial up even here.

[shoop]

Are you saying that you, in Mid Ontario, only get CBC and no other TV channels?

So now you are proposing that I, in Mid Ontario, get better computer service. Most of us are on dial up even here.

[stignasty]

Just to offer a different perspective, there are people in this country that can /only/ receive CBC. Without it they're cut off from the rest of the world. Not everyone can afford a satellite dish; our public broadcaster provides a vital service to them.

So now you are proposing that I, in Mid Ontario, get better computer service. Most of us are on dial up even here.

Well, I have to honestly say that I can not comprehend how you would leap to that conclusion on the basis of what I wrote.

Just to be clear, no, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I think it's a good idea to provide an electronic media source that contains Canadian content for those among us that have no other access.

[shoop]

I didn't really get that leap either. I was just wondering if the subsidies going to the CBC can be justified on the basis of lack of access to other sources of Canadian content.

Well, I have to honestly say that I can not comprehend how you would leap to that conclusion on the basis of what I wrote.

Just to be clear, no, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I think it's a good idea to provide an electronic media source that contains Canadian content for those among us that have no other access.

[Spike22]

Just to be clear, no, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I think it's a good idea to provide an electronic media source that contains Canadian content for those among us that have no other access.

Barf - Canadian content laws. CRTC/gov't always protecting us from the big bad boogeyman. Living in fear that beacuse we don't have shows like the Beachcomers, or other crappy show we will be totally consumed by americanism and we'll start flying the stars and stripes on all of our homes.

What protectionism, what a good parenting the government is to us. Treating us like dweebs and forcing us to pay for this drivel.

Lets be free - get rid of the CRTC and it's antiquated content laws and privitize the CBC. Fredom means choice to the people not entertainment enforcement.

[fellowtraveller]

Just to offer a different perspective, there are people in this country that can /only/ receive CBC. Without it they're cut off from the rest of the world. Not everyone can afford a satellite dish; our public broadcaster provides a vital service to them.

This applies to very, very very few people. This argument may have been slightly valid as recently as the 80s, but not any more. People without cable in both urban and rural areas have the same TV and radio reception as always on the airwaves, and would typically receive 3-4 network channels, inclduing English CBC and probably French CBC.

For the North, virtually all communities now have individual acess to satellite, or frequently communities have a system that rebroadcasts to the whole community with the same channels enjoyed everyhwere - scores of channels. Nobody is watching or listening to CBC there either, even though CBC radio/TV used to be the only show in town. Just like their southern cousins, Northerners left the MotherCorp in droves when given the opportunity. Some Northern communities also have community radio broadcasting in the local language.

[Spike22]

Just to offer a different perspective, there are people in this country that can /only/ receive CBC. Without it they're cut off from the rest of the world. Not everyone can afford a satellite dish; our public broadcaster provides a vital service to them.

This applies to very, very very few people. This argument may have been slightly valid as recently as the 80s, but not any more. People without cable in both urban and rural areas have the same TV and radio reception as always on the airwaves, and would typically receive 3-4 network channels, inclduing English CBC and probably French CBC.

For the North, virtually all communities now have individual acess to satellite, or frequently communities have a system that rebroadcasts to the whole community with the same channels enjoyed everyhwere - scores of channels. Nobody is watching or listening to CBC there either, even though CBC radio/TV used to be the only show in town. Just like their southern cousins, Northerners left the MotherCorp in droves when given the opportunity. Some Northern communities also have community radio broadcasting in the local language.

FT I could not agree more who the hell is listening to the CBC anymore. CBC radio in the afternoon is even low grade entertainment ie Sad Goat, A book reading - yawn etc.

[ritamd]

I'm with ya there August, our cultural life in Canada is definitely lacking (mostly because Canada doesn't have a culture).

Perhaps you may think so but the rest of the world does not. Nor is it true.

I can tell you our investment in our athletes per dollar gives us way more national pride and culture than the CBC ever has.

Could not disagree more. Plus who actually has brought us the Olympic coverage for decades now? The CBC. Right field must be short of oxygen these days.