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

[August1991]

This thread has taken a really, really dumb direction.

The CBC is a streetlight, not a potato.

If you like potatoes, you buy them. If you don't like potatoes, you don't buy them. Potatoes are a private matter.

But not all things in life are like potatoes.

For example? Streetlights. If I buy a streetlight, you get it whether you like it or not.

Because of this obvious fact, the world has just enough potatoes but not enough streetlights.

[/end of rant]

[shoop]

You grossly misrepresented that first stat.

Only 29% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement about the CBC providing value for taxpayers money. You conveniently lumped in the 48% who somewhat agreed? Nice, work. As the old saying goes about lies, damned lies and statistics.

Good working attacking the evil conservatives with your second point. If only we had gotten support from all 71% of the population who don't strongly feel we are getting value for taxpayer dollars from the CBC.

I don't see your point. When asked 77% of people felt they got value for their tax money from the CBC. In a more recent online poll on G&M, 65% said Canada needs the CBC.

CBC has a lot of public support - enough to justify its gov't funding. I realize that there is a segment of conservative thinkers in this country have convinced themselves that nobody cares about the CBC however I don't believe the facts support that conclusion.

[shoop]

Do explain your weak rant to me?

The CBC could be totally subscriber funded. (More akin to potatoes.) Yet the classic free riders are insisting the government pay for it to lower the burden to themselves.

See there aren't really anything you could buy privately to replace a street light. But there are a lot of options as far as tv goes...

This thread has taken a really, really dumb direction.

The CBC is a streetlight, not a potato.

If you like potatoes, you buy them. If you don't like potatoes, you don't buy them. Potatoes are a private matter.

But not all things in life are like potatoes.

For example? Streetlights. If I buy a streetlight, you get it whether you like it or not.

Because of this obvious fact, the world has just enough potatoes but not enough streetlights.

[/end of rant]

[Spike22]

Imagine the country without the CBC, not very hard is it! We would all survive nicely. Farewell Central Broadcasting Casteration and thanks for the forthcoming refund cheque.

[August1991]

The CBC could be totally subscriber funded. (More akin to potatoes.) Yet the classic free riders are insisting the government pay for it to lower the burden to themselves.

Totally subscriber funded? How?

Shoop, tell me. Would there be fewer potatoes in the world if I could come and eat yours?

Shoop, let me be more direct: Would you buy potatoes or rice if I could come and eat your potatoes but not your rice? As a result, would the world have more potatoes or rice?

OMG. Who is more clueless? The Left or the Right?

[Riverwind]

Only 29% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement about the CBC providing value for taxpayers money. You conveniently lumped in the 48% who somewhat agreed?

Grouping people who somewhat agree and people who strongly agree is a reasonable thing to do. I did not claim that 77% of Canadians strongly agree that CBC provides good value for tax dollars. Attack the stats if you like, but my point is still valid: only a minority of Canadians feel that the CBC doesn't deliver value for tax money.

The CBC could be totally subscriber funded. (More akin to potatoes.) Yet the classic free riders are insisting the government pay for it to lower the burden to themselves.

Water, sewer and road services could be totally subscriber funded - yet almost everyone agrees that these are things a government should provide.

[shoop]

Hmmm, water and sewer.

Everyone agrees that water and sewer should be provided for two reasons. Every body has the right to the necessities of life and public health concerns.

Not everyone agrees about roads. 407 in Ontario and the Coquihalia in BC come to mind.

Are you saying that the CBC is a *necessity* and/or public health would be endangered if it wasn't funded by the government.

Water, sewer and road services could be totally subscriber funded - yet almost everyone agrees that these are things a government should provide.

[shoop]

i]Totally subscriber funded?[/i] How?

OK, subscriber advertiser and sponsor. The CBC goes and gets the money or it goes out of business. That's how!

Shoop, tell me. Would there be fewer potatoes in the world if I could come and eat yours?

Shoop, let me be more direct: Would you buy potatoes or rice if I could come and eat your potatoes but not your rice? As a result, would the world have more potatoes or rice?

OMG. Who is more clueless? The Left or the Right?

Hmmm, clueless for making you look bad with your stupid potato/streelight analogy? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Streelights are a public good because you cannot stop me from benefitting from it, even if I choose not to pay my share. A television channel isn't. You make it only available through cable. Boom no more free riders.

Or maybe your stupid joke was a tacit admission how weak your original argument was.

[August1991]

Streelights are a public good because you cannot stop me from benefitting from it, even if I choose not to pay my share. A television channel isn't. You make it only available through cable. Boom no more free riders.

Even if you could figure out a way to charge users for standing under a streetlight, not everyone benefits from a streetlight the same way - yet a single steetlight is just a streetlight.

Imagine your family had to order 20 pounds of potatoes every month, neither more nor less. How much would you pay? How much would your neighbour pay? What if you and your neighbour were forced to pay the same amount for your monthly potato consumption?

My argument is that under such an arrangement, we would probably never get potatoes - or overall, fewer potatoes than we want. Fortunately, we don't get potatoes that way and each family can choose to buy 50 pounds of potatoes, 5 pounds or none at all.

Unfortunately, the CBC (Cable TV) is not like potatoes. The CBC (Cable-TV, culture) is like a streetlight - a streetlight of fixed intensity, the same for all. We probably get too little of it, compared to potatoes.

----

Shoop, I repeat. I don't know who is more clueless, the Left or the Right.

[shoop]

I don't quite understand if you are trying to baffle me. How does your streetlight analogy apply to the CBC.

With modern technology it would be very easy to provide the CBC service only to those people willing to pay for it. Sure it would have to be trimmed down, but that wouldn't be the worst thing ever.

I think you are proving the Left is far more clueless with your ridiculous analogies that don't shed any light on the question at hand.

Even if you could figure out a way to charge users for standing under a streetlight, not everyone benefits from a streetlight the same way - yet a single steetlight is just a streetlight.

Imagine your family had to order 20 pounds of potatoes every month, or none at all. How much would you pay?

The CBC is not only a streetlight, it's a streetlight of fixed intensity.

----

Shoop, I repreat. I don't know who is more clueless, the Left or the Right.

[August1991]

With modern technology it would be very easy to provide the CBC service only to those people willing to pay for it. Sure it would have to be trimmed down, but that wouldn't be the worst thing ever.

Even with modern technology and user-pay, the CBC is the CBC. You get it or you don't.

With potatoes, you buy as many as you want. With the CBC, it's either/or.

To be more precise, regardless of technology, it costs nothing to the CBC to broadcast to one more subscriber. Hence, it should cost almost nothing for a new subscriber to sign up. Anything more costly will mean that the CBC loses potential profits and a potential subscriber loses the benefit of the CBC.

And the world has less resources devoted to "culture".

But we are still far from a modern technological fix, and user pay, in broadcasting - let alone many other goods of public concern. "Culture" is doubly penalized.

I think you are proving the Left is far more clueless with your ridiculous analogies that don't shed any light on the question at hand.

Sorry, Shoop. But someone has to speak Truth to Power and quite obviously, Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon are doing a bad job of it.

[speaker]

Ya, if everything is advertised then it is difficult not to buy advertised goods. therefore it is difficult not to support the commercial packed media. That industry makes so much money that the tendancy to monopoly is evidently overpowering. Now we don't just have to deal with a really obnoxious system of taxation, commercials to support them, but we have to contend with a media controlled by people who believe that they have the right to use their power to determine public policy with their capitalist bias.

This argument makes no sense. Obviously your fear of the media in the free market that has to compete for your viewership is greater than a government controlled media outlet that has everything to gain by skewing the news to their partisan view of the world. The former creates wealth, the latter as in the case of the CBC creates power.

The CBC creates power? like King Pierre, King Brian, King Jean, King Steven, Does this say anything to you at all? I think that most people recognize that nowadays wealth creates power, therefore if the free enterprise media creates wealth then it is them that we should be blaming for this long list of hard hard reigns.

[August1991]

The CBC creates power? like King Pierre, King Brian, King Jean, King Steven, Does this say anything to you at all? I think that most people recognize that nowadays wealth creates power, therefore if the free enterprise media creates wealth then it is them that we should be blaming for this long list of hard hard reigns.

Oh ferchrissakes.

The sky is not red and I cannot make it red if I spend $600 gazillion dollars telling you it's red.

Advertising is all about symbolism but there is something called reality. For example, the sky is blue and that's not a culturally relative idea. The sky is really blue. It is. Look.

----

The Left misunderstands the power of advertising, and misunderstands symbols and reality.

Advertising doesn't change ordinary people's minds; advertising simply shows ordinary people that someone has a lot of money to advertise.

OMG. Who is more clueless? The Left or the Right?

[Montgomery Burns]

Here's the latest ratings from Feb 13-19 of the top 30 shows in Canada. It appears that the public is not as enamored of Canadian content as you are. Indeed, throw out the Olympics and not one CBC show is listed--although to be fair, Hockey Night in Canada is usually in the top 30.

Ratings are only part of the story. Polls I have seen say a majority of Canadians support the CBC and feel it makes a important contribution to the country.

A poll is different than ratings. Why aren't these "majority of Canadians" watching the CBC?

Private broadcasters answer to their advertisers, who in turn answer to their customers. Who does the CBC answer to?

Why did the CBC - arrogantly - refuse to divulge how much it was costing taxpayers for them to go down to Louisiana for a Katrina fundraiser--which could have been done in Canada, and the money sent to the Katrina victims? When asked how much money they expected to raise, the CBC flippantly replied that no one takes these things into account. Er yes they do, you know-nothing-about-running-a-business leeches.

$1 billion annually for a 5.8% audience share. WTF?

When the NHL was on strike, I don't recall seeing any CBC shows in the top 30, and certainly not in the top 20. For news, Lloyd Robertson averages 957,000 viewers per night, Kevin Newman 771,000, and Peter Mansbridge is at 648,000. Lloyd Robertson is still King, the young Global is 2nd, and the well-established far-left CBC is dead last. Global and the CTV whips them in regular programming and news. If the CBC had to make it on their own, they would likely be forced to have some balance in their news--or risk losing advertising dollars because of their low ratings.

Why is David Suzuki the only one consulted on global warming on the CBC? How often do you see a conservative on the CBC? Global's panels are usually 2 liberals and 2 conservatives. Even liberal CTV has a few conservatives on and attempts to have some sense of balance.

I’d like to see a comparison of the operating expenses of the CBC, CTV and Global, then compare those numbers to the amount of money spent per viewer for each broadcaster. I’m betting CBC would be double or triple the cost to operate than the other 2 private stations. That would be a good start to justify getting rid of our state-run taxpayer-funded Canadian Pravda.

[Montgomery Burns]

Edmonton Sun

It's official: The CBC can't even defend its continued tax-driven existence within the relatively safe confines of its own current affairs shows. Thank the Mother Corp.'s weekly Inside Media show for the insight. It was remarkable to watch CBC chair Carol Taylor so adroitly trap herself in a corner with her perspective on why direct tax support should continue. Surveys have shown, she said, that 95% of Canadians are satisfied with the CBC and believe it's essential.

"Well then, why not let that 95% of Canadians pay for it and not force it on the other 5%?" ventured National Post columnist Andrew Coyne.

Taylor ducked, instead going into a jig about CBC responsiveness, forcing Coyne to restate the question ... and to be cut off by host Susan Ormiston stating it had been answered, which it hadn't. Quick! Bail out the boss! So much for fair and unbiased. The heart of the thorny CBC issue is choice. We live in a world of choice, with respect both to the technology and broadcasting rules. The CBC, which gets your money whether you like it or not, is at odds with that. I can choose to not get cable TV and to save $30 and a few thousand brain cells per month. But I like stupid television. I enjoy it. So I pay for it. I don't have to, I choose to.

And I got a laugh out of this quip from a March 17, 2004 article in the National Post:

Recent headlines read, "Paul Martin stands behind CBC." Enviable terrain, especially if one were armed with a bayonet. The CBC's future in the thousand-channel universe is part of the endless debate over Canada's concocted '70s-era "identity" (read: Liberal ideology). How about this for a role: none whatsoever.

More realistically -- assuming we can hope not merely for a new government, but one with the spine to tackle this -- we agree with Andrew Coyne that the goal must be maximum viewer choice and minimum state funding. Serious downsizing and, even more important, an upended funding structure. What type of CBC could meet these criteria?

The American PBS/NPR model seems compelling. The humiliating pledge drives alone would be worth watching. Pete Mansbridge would have to rush home from portentous Afghani anchoring sessions to flog the latest "Classic CBC" CD, featuring Juliette, the Rhythm Pals and Patsy Gallant, yours for a $100 pledge. A serious $300 (a whole day's cost of a CBC soundman) would get you the collector's edition of Take 30, Season One, featuring working-girl Adrienne Clarkson and Paul Soles. Canadians could enrich their cultural life with Front Page Challenge fridge magnets -- tune in every week to collect them all! Really big donors might be personally serenaded by Rita MacNeil on their front porch.

I'd pay to watch that pledge drive!

[shoop]

People don't pay to subscribe to the CBC now.

Quit broadcasting it over the open air. Provide it over cable only.

Then people have to pay to subscribe. No free-riders. It would be amazing how many fewer people would *support* the CBC with their chequebooks.

To be more precise, regardless of technology, it costs nothing to the CBC to broadcast to one more subscriber. Hence, it should cost almost nothing for a new subscriber to sign up. Anything more costly will mean that the CBC loses potential profits and a potential subscriber loses the benefit of the CBC.

[Riverwind]

A poll is different than ratings. Why aren't these "majority of Canadians" watching the CBC?

Different people watch/listen to different shows at different times. The total number of people who watch some CBC programming some of the time is much larger than the number of people who watch a single show at a single time.

Then people have to pay to subscribe. No free-riders. It would be amazing how many fewer people would *support* the CBC with their chequebooks.

Your argument means nothing. If a majority of people want CBC supported with tax dollars then CBC should be supported with tax dollars and there is nothing wrong with that.

If you are truely committed to eliminating so called 'free riders' then lets cut all government support for cultural activities: no more subsidises to churches, olympic atheletes, libraries and museums. While we are at it why don't we eliminate all foreign aid and any money we spend on the military that is not directly related to the defense of Canadian terrority. By your logic people who value these services should just pay for it themselves.

[speaker]

Logic is not necessarily a strong point for some of the people here, nor critical thinking ability. Take this one the sky is blue. It is. Look. That's great stuff. Except of course for the fact that the sky really is red sometime and if you've missed it August 1991 you really should get out more.

Where ever did you get the notion that advertisers aren't trying to get people to buy their product and that all they are trying to do is tell people that they have a lot of money to advertise? But that's not the point here, what is at issue is that all that money that these advertisers have to pay for their advertisement agencies to put advertisements on the TV, the Radio, and the Print, like the National Post and the Edmonton Sun etc, comes out of our pockets everytime we buy anything. The AST if you like, the advertisers slush tax.

As someone who isn't from the left, let me assure you that I have some feel for the power of advertising. It is the advertising that has given us king Pierre, king Brian, king Jean, and might yet if we aren't careful give us a king Steven. It is the advertising that has made it possible for someone who is hooked to the tube to spend so much time in their living room that they have forgotten that the sky can be red. more's the pity.

Remember the medium is the message.

[shoop]

How about we only cut it in those instance when the free market can provide a viable alternative.

None of your examples fall into that category. Only the CBC does.

So instead of the histrionics and whining. Why not make a case for keeping the CBC around?

At least agree to some changes..

The former Chariman of the Board of the CBC had a very good article in today's Citizen. (Sorry I don't subscribe so no link.)

He made some very interesting points.

*The CBCs funding has been cut more by Liberals than Conservatives. (First two terms of Chretien compared to Mulroney.)

*He argues that the board of directors of the CBC should appoint the President.

*He argues for two positions on the board of the CBC to come from CBC staff (English and French).

All good steps in the strategice re-focusing of the CBC. Either be a pure public broadcaster and quit picking political sides or go private and be free to pick whatever side they want...

If you are truely committed to eliminating so called 'free riders' then lets cut all government support for cultural activities: no more subsidises to churches, olympic atheletes, libraries and museums. While we are at it why don't we eliminate all foreign aid and any money we spend on the military that is not directly related to the defense of Canadian terrority. By your logic people who value these services should just pay for it themselves.

[Riverwind]

How about we only cut it in those instance when the free market can provide a viable alternative.

The free market can provide a viable alternative in all of the examples that I listed. Why should we fund public libraries out of tax dollars when only a small percentage of people actually use them? If we follow your logic that we should eliminate 'free-riders' by charging people to access public libraries.

So instead of the histrionics and whining. Why not make a case for keeping the CBC around?

I have made a case: the CBC gives people the choice of getting programming that is not completely dependent on advertising dollars. This increases the variety and quality of information and programming available to all Canadians.

At least agree to some changes..

I have never said that the CBC should never be changed or reformed. I am only making the that case that the CBC should receive gov't funding and the PBS model is not workable in the small Canadian media market.

[shoop]

The free market can provide a viable alternative in all of the examples that I listed. Why should we fund public libraries out of tax dollars when only a small percentage of people actually use them? If we follow your logic that we should eliminate 'free-riders' by charging people to access public libraries.

Do you have any actual examples of private-sector libraries that have flourished in the absence of a public-sector alternative?

I have made a case: the CBC gives people the choice of getting programming that is not completely dependent on advertising dollars. This increases the variety and quality of information and programming available to all Canadians. I have never said that the CBC should never be changed or reformed. I am only making the that case that the CBC should receive gov't funding and the PBS model is not workable in the small Canadian media market.

The question then is how much funding? Re-focusing the CBC on a much smaller scale, including less government funding is workable. But the status quo is definitely not working...

[Riverwind]

The question then is how much funding? Re-focusing the CBC on a much smaller scale, including less government funding is workable. But the status quo is definitely not working...

There can be no meaningful review of the CBC mandate if the primary objective is to cut funding. I see value in looking at the CBC and introducing reforms. For example, I think it would be a good idea to stop the CBC from competing with the private sector for advertising or sports broadcasts. However, doing that would likely require an increase in funding in the short term.

[shoop]

What about a review aimed at creating a much more targetted apporach for what the CBC provides?

A short-term increase in funding, with the clear understanding that it was short-term only, would be welcomed if that came as a part of returning the CBC to its role as a true public broadcaster. Vastly reducing the scope of MotherCorps operations would be welcomed all around.

Get rid of sports? Hmmm, possible but that would have to go hand in hand with necesary cuts to News and programming.

There can be no meaningful review of the CBC mandate if the primary objective is to cut funding. I see value in looking at the CBC and introducing reforms. For example, I think it would be a good idea to stop the CBC from competing with the private sector for advertising or sports broadcasts. However, doing that would likely require an increase in funding in the short term.

[Spike22]

How about we only cut it in those instance when the free market can provide a viable alternative.

The free market can provide a viable alternative in all of the examples that I listed. Why should we fund public libraries out of tax dollars when only a small percentage of people actually use them? If we follow your logic that we should eliminate 'free-riders' by charging people to access public libraries.

Sure why not - pay as you go...

So instead of the histrionics and whining. Why not make a case for keeping the CBC around?

I have made a case: the CBC gives people the choice of getting programming that is not completely dependent on advertising dollars. This increases the variety and quality of information and programming available to all Canadians.

Too bad the quality and variety are so poor...

At least agree to some changes..

I have never said that the CBC should never be changed or reformed. I am only making the that case that the CBC should receive gov't funding and the PBS model is not workable in the small Canadian media market.

You getting a cut from the Central Brainless Club for supportin' them?

[ritamd]

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.

So what? The CBC dedicates huge amounts of it's broadcasting time for two weeks on it's two networks to the Olympics. They can make that decision because they have so little to offer in the way of alternative programming the other 50 weeks of the year. Considering that amounts to 2 weeks each for the summer and winter Olympics every four years is hardly stellar programming.

The CBC has some extremely good programing, but perhaps those who bash it out of hand never watch it to see?