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

[gerryhatrick]

Riots of all the ten people that listen to it.

Well, As It Happens is listened to on 84 American stations, although I doubt Americans will come up for the riots.

The Current is listened to by almost 1.4 million Canadians each week.

To use Edmonton as an example....a decidedly Western locale where someone with your mindset might think nobody listens to the CBC...they get a respectable 5 point share. The top stations average only about 11/12.

Your comment is based on nothing but your bias against all things CBC. You should listen to CBC radio sometime. Open your mind.

[geoffrey]

Riots of all the ten people that listen to it.

Well, As It Happens is listened to on 84 American stations, although I doubt Americans will come up for the riots.

The Current is listened to by almost 1.4 million Canadians each week.

To use Edmonton as an example....a decidedly Western locale where someone with your mindset might think nobody listens to the CBC...they get a respectable 5 point share. The top stations average only about 11/12.

Your comment is based on nothing but your bias against all things CBC. You should listen to CBC radio sometime. Open your mind.

I watch Newsworld on occasion, except when they got that Andrew Nichols guy hosting. Wow he's annoying. I also watch the National.

I don't get to listen to alot of radio, my commute to work or the university consists of just some classical music on CBC radio and david rutherford or charles addler on CHQR. There isn't much choice for radio, so I just stick to CD's.

A 5 point share though, is that worth $800million. Nope.

[fellowtraveller]

Riots of all the ten people that listen to it.

Well, As It Happens is listened to on 84 American stations, although I doubt Americans will come up for the riots.

The Current is listened to by almost 1.4 million Canadians each week.

To use Edmonton as an example....a decidedly Western locale where someone with your mindset might think nobody listens to the CBC...they get a respectable 5 point share. The top stations average only about 11/12.

Your comment is based on nothing but your bias against all things CBC. You should listen to CBC radio sometime. Open your mind.

What our boy Gerry conveniently leaves out is that In the Edmonton market he cites, CBC One finishes ELEVENTH OUT OF FIFTEEN STATIONS CBC Radio 2 finishes fourteenth our of fifteen.

[Canuck E Stan]

As it Happens and the Current? Forget those redundant radio programs.

CBC has gone big time with a 40-per-cent owner of the digital satellite-radio service Sirius Canada.

CBC will now offer some real intelligent programming like Howard Stern for Canadians to listen to.

Isn't it great,$800,000 of Canadian taxpayer money and be able to budget an investment into a digital satellite-radio service(costs money to subscribe) to further expand the voice of government subsidized media.

Will the CBC and the shock jock get along?

Sirius Canada cost its owners $40-million to get off the ground (although Tremblay wouldn't disclose how much of that was paid by the CBC) and is expected to break even within four or five years.

Many undoubtedly wonder what the CBC is doing investing in a private company, regardless of Stern, and how it can even afford to do so? The CBC's share in the investment is said to have come, according to an insider familiar with the details, not from the budget of its regular programming and traditional services, but from the sale of certain "non-core" assets. Also, some of the CBC's stake is effectively paid for through content and technical services the CBC provides Sirius Canada. The CBC has no plan to sell its stake in the company if it starts to make money, but is in it "for the long haul," Tremblay said.

Of course it doesn't matter about profit making it's all about giving Canadians a voice, more money can be gotten from the Government.....or can it?

[shoop]

Ahhh Gerry, you weak-minded fool. First it would be *censor* not *censure*. Do you understand there is a difference?

No lobbying for equal payments. No payments treats everybody fairly.

I have said before that I don't really listen to any radio, so no I don't listen to CBC radio.

Riots??? Kinda like the riots when CBC went on strike last year? Oh yeah, *nobody cared*!

Pay attention shoop. My quote was

"Are you suggesting the CBC censure Canadians becuase you don't like the content?"

Do not misrepresent what I've said Ok? Thanks.

Go ahead and lobby for giving equal payments to those other organizations. Try to touch the CBC though and there will be riots!

Have you ever listened to CBC radio? I mean, really made an attempt? It's slipped a bit since the lockout, but it's still heads and tails above everything else out there.

[gerryhatrick]

Riots??? Kinda like the riots when CBC went on strike last year? Oh yeah, *nobody cared*!

Why would people riot over a strike? That is a labor dispute. And many, many people cared, very much and were happy when it was resolved. Did I not

If Harper had a majority and tried to dismantle the CBC there would be demonstrations. Riots? I dunno, some vandalism or violence is always possible when a demonstration occurs.

And please refrain from personal attacks, thanks.

[geoffrey]

Riots??? Kinda like the riots when CBC went on strike last year? Oh yeah, *nobody cared*!

Why would people riot over a strike? That is a labor dispute. And many, many people cared, very much and were happy when it was resolved. Did I not

If Harper had a majority and tried to dismantle the CBC there would be demonstrations. Riots? I dunno, some vandalism or violence is always possible when a demonstration occurs.

And please refrain from personal attacks, thanks.

Personal attacks? He must work for the CBC!!

I don't think anyone would actually care that much if Harper privatized the CBC. However, it won't happen. He probably would have Bloc support on it if he tried though.

[gerryhatrick]

What our boy Gerry conveniently leaves out is that In the Edmonton market he cites, CBC One finishes ELEVENTH OUT OF FIFTEEN STATIONS CBC Radio 2 finishes fourteenth our of fifteen.

I didn't leave it out for convenience, I left it out because it doesn't give the full picture, as evidenced by your attempt.

You looked at only one matrix on that website, and got even that one wrong.

The summer 2005 matrix you cite actually has an "other" category that lists "including" (implying there may be more) 8 stations.

Therefore, for the summer and fall of 2005 CBC one is ELEVENTH OUT OF TWENTY THREE STATIONS listed on the matrix. CBC 2 is 14th out of 23.

Let's look at the rest of the time period matrixes:

For the spring of 2005 CBC one is NINTH OUT OF TWENTY-TWO STATIONS. CBC two was 13th.

For the fall of 2004 CBC one is NINTH OUT OF TWENTY-ONE STATIONS. CBC two was 12th.

Here's a good one:

For the summer of 2004 CBC one and two are NINTH AND TENTH OUT OF TWENTY-ONE STATIONS.

I could go on, but I've corrected you and that's enough.

Given that the lockout was in the late summer/early fall of 2005, I'd say they are doing pretty good in a Western city there.

[gerryhatrick]

Personal attacks? He must work for the CBC!!

I don't think anyone would actually care that much if Harper privatized the CBC. However, it won't happen. He probably would have Bloc support on it if he tried though.

Well, I think you underestimate how many Canadians watch and listen (especially listen) to the CBC.

And I think you missed the boat on the personal attacks I mentioned, but don't worry yourself about it.

[geoffrey]

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.

[Concerned]

While I am absolutely not in favour of government broadcasters, I also wonder if your anger about the CBC grows not out of its "public status," but rather out of the content of its broadcasts.

If it was a social conservative network, would you still be calling for its privatization? I'm not so sure.

Privatized networks naturally favour right wing views because they are answerable to their sponsors and are primarily profit based.

A publicly funded network balances this bias by allowing for views that are not effected by privatized sponsorship.

In Canada we enjoy both and therefore enjoy a rounded set of opinions on any particular issue.

To point out the "crap" on public networks without also pointing out the "crap" on private networks is to promote an irrelevant argument.

What of the social cost that the public pays always having to be bombarded by advertisements through any form of media? As far as I am concerned private media means that I have to watch and listen to content that I do not want to see or hear, as it is embedded in the programming and cannot easily be switched off.

[gerryhatrick]

Definitive information about CBC radio ratings:

Lockout hurt CBC Radio ratings by Guy Dixon

Source : Globe & Mail

December 7, 2005

Toronto -- CBC Radio One reached 2.4 million listeners, or 25 per cent fewer, over the course of September and October compared with the same time last year, the broadcaster said, citing new ratings numbers from BBM Canada. The main blow to Radio One was the lockout, although listeners quickly began returning as regular programming aired again, the CBC said. Radio Two, meanwhile, remained largely stable, reaching 1.1 million during the fall ratings period.

http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/ar...les12070507.asp

So...if 2.4 million listeners was 25% fewer than the previous September/October period.....well, you do the math.

That's a hellofa lot more than "nobody", as some disingenuous types here have claimed.

[Spike22]

There was strike at the CBC?

[Canuck E Stan]

The people running CBC are really carefree with our money.

If it's about informing the public(duplication of news that we can get from other sources) then they would not be getting involved in stuff like Sirius Canada.

This of which costs its owners $40-million to get off the ground although CBC wouldn't disclose how much of that was paid by the CBC.

The news is the news is the news.

This isn't the 30's or 40's or 50's where there was limited media in Canada.

Today we have a great variety of radio and TV to choice from,we don't need Mother Corp., giving us duplication from every city in Canada.

What is it that CBC gives us that isn't offered by the everyone else?

Hockey and non-commercial radio, that it.

Hardly worth $800+ million a year and keeping 7000 people on the government payrolls.

Like it was stated,if you want it so much and you feel others do too,then YOU support it.

Time to pull the plug on this excess.

[tml12]

Easy big fellow. Nobody is talking about censoring the CBC.

Just give it the same amount of money that CTV, The Globe and Mail, Global, etc. get from the government.

All the bullsh#t about CBC being a leftist partisan organization is pure invention by people who want to utilize the network for thier rightwing partisan goals. Look at how much media is pure rightwing....talk radio and Sun Media....obviously they want more.

Excellent strategy Shoop. I agree.

[Montgomery Burns]

Watch at your own risk (lots of guy-on-guy kissing).

Risk of what? Catching the gay?

No. It's just that while Yankabroad brings Kleenex to watch Bareback Mountain, some other guys--like me--don't care to watch one guy stick his tongue in another guy's mouth.

It's a guy thing.

[Montgomery Burns]

YankAbroad:

Oh, it's one thing to not like the content.

Of course I have a problem with their far-left content.

It's another thing to call for privatization.

Taxpayers should not be forced to fund such a powerful propaganda tool. Only the wackiest lefties deny CBC's obvious bias.

Places like Saddam's Iraq had a state-run TV channel.

Btw, the CBC is rabidly anti-American. Do you think that is appropriate?

But it's my experience that most social conservatives who want something privatized only want it privatized when they disagree with the content. Once they get in power, they're all about government funding for their own content -- whether or not certain taxpayers agree with it or not.

First, I am socially moderate.

Second, can you give me some examples from 'your experience', where social conservatives have 'gotten in power' and provided govt funding for their content. Iran? Saudi Arabia?

Third, what would you think if US taxpayers were forced to fund a state-run TV news channel that was akin to the Fox News Channel?

I suspect the calls for Canada needing a state-run channel to promote "Canadian values" would die immediately on the left if the CBC was like the FNC--whose news is fair and balanced (although I admit their commentary leans to the right.

[Montgomery Burns]

I don't think it's possible to report on something and not have a some sort of slant come through. There is no such thing as an unbiased reporter. If you think there is one, they're probably just so in line with your own views, you can't spot the bias.

But the point is that the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for something so powerful that has an obvious agenda. If they were private, I still wouldn't like them, but I wouldn't give a damn what they do. The amount they can charge advertisers will show how well the public relates to them, i.e., let the market decide.

The CBC is a waste of money. Use that ANNUAL $1 billion towards lower taxes, more cops, and our depleted military.

[Montgomery Burns]

Gerryhatrick:

Or is that hypocrisy?

"Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites." -- Ann Coulter

[Montgomery Burns]

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.

[na85]

Fox News is a breath of fresh air.

HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

sorry, I thought you were joking. Fox News? Credible?

[geoffrey]

Fox News is a breath of fresh air.

HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

sorry, I thought you were joking. Fox News? Credible?

Fox News can be ridiculously biased at times.

As can CBC, I hold both in similiarly disrespectful regard.

[newbie]

YankAbroad:

Oh, it's one thing to not like the content.

Of course I have a problem with their far-left content.

It's another thing to call for privatization.

Taxpayers should not be forced to fund such a powerful propaganda tool. Only the wackiest lefties deny CBC's obvious bias.

Places like Saddam's Iraq had a state-run TV channel.

Btw, the CBC is rabidly anti-American. Do you think that is appropriate?

But it's my experience that most social conservatives who want something privatized only want it privatized when they disagree with the content. Once they get in power, they're all about government funding for their own content -- whether or not certain taxpayers agree with it or not.

First, I am socially moderate.

Second, can you give me some examples from 'your experience', where social conservatives have 'gotten in power' and provided govt funding for their content. Iran? Saudi Arabia?

Third, what would you think if US taxpayers were forced to fund a state-run TV news channel that was akin to the Fox News Channel?

I suspect the calls for Canada needing a state-run channel to promote "Canadian values" would die immediately on the left if the CBC was like the FNC--whose news is fair and balanced (although I admit their commentary leans to the right.

Poor Monty. Well, get your petition going and maybe one day you can have a government free news program like your dear Fox. For me I love CBC, but also watch as many news programs as I can.

[shoop]

True enough geoffrey. They both still have the right to exist ... *without* government funding.

Fox News can be ridiculously biased at times.

As can CBC, I hold both in similiarly disrespectful regard.

[geoffrey]

Wow. Just watching this documentary on CBC, showing their bastardization of Alberta as usual.

They get the most extremist traditional marriage supporter (from Calgary of course, apparently we are the only backwater Canadians that support this), and have him switcheroo with a completely moderate gay from Vancouver.

It makes our side look irrational and viciously anti-gay. And makes the gay side look completely reasonable and calm.

If we looked at some threads on these forums I could tell you its not always that way.

I have never seen a 'crediable' documentary created with such apparent bias.

This issue is one that is at the heart of Canadian identity. Despite official government or court decisions, same sex marriage continually calls our country's harmony into question and pulls at our social conscience. God Only Knows: Same Sex Marriage provides an unprecedented journey inside the lion's den as each tries to understand the other person's point-of-view while holding on to their values and ideals as they face the other's world of family, friends and community. The result is an extraordinary, never-before-seen view of one of the most heated debates tearing at the social fabric of Canada.

Thats from the website.

Apparently Candian indentity is based around gay marriage. And our opposition to court decisions is calling the nation's harmony into question? The most heated debates tearing at social fabric?

Then they have Bishop Fred Henry (my Bishop, great guy, incrediable free speech supporter) giving a speech. And then they have the gay guy saying Henry's comments on free speech are invalid.

Henry was the Bishop that was challenged by the gay community for speaking out against gay marriage at the human rights tribunal.

Persecuted for speaking his religious beliefs in Canada.

God bless Canada, we're going to need it. Especially when my tax dollars are going to this cause.