What the CBC has done for you lately...

[Canuck E Stan]

Should television programming exist if it isn't economically viable?

We've been subsidising the Ontario car manufacturers for decades, if we stop will there be no American cars in Canada?

On second thought maybe we should stop and maybe auto pollution will go down.

As for Canadian programming, the CBC has been buying the same kind of stuff for years....and still no one watches it.

Most of CBC's mockumentries do nothing but unrealistically glorify the political dead.

Maybe if get rid of the CBC the TV pollution will deminish.

[Higgly]

CTV and Global make their money by buying and showing American products at a fraction of the cost that it takes to produce Canadian content from scratch. This is why a program like Trailer Park Boys has to be subsidized. Canada does not have a large enough market to pay for quality programming on a scale to compete with what can be bought for jelly beans from the US.

We have to come to terms with the fact that it will cost us more to tell our own story because we are not operating on the same economy of scale. Maybe we should form some kind of pact with the Aussies, the Belgians, the Jamaicans, the Scandihoovians, what have you.

Can you imagine Jamaican programming up here? Wicked mon.

[jdobbin]

We've been subsidising the Ontario car manufacturers for decades, if we stop will there be no American cars in Canada?

On second thought maybe we should stop and maybe auto pollution will go down.

As for Canadian programming, the CBC has been buying the same kind of stuff for years....and still no one watches it.

Most of CBC's mockumentries do nothing but unrealistically glorify the political dead.

Maybe if get rid of the CBC the TV pollution will deminish.

Sadly, the car industry gets subsidized by every country in the world whether it is direct or indirect. Why should the state have to provide streets and highways for individual transportation units?

Everyone talks about the CBC and Canadian programming but CTV abd Global programming that is made in Canada doesn't make any money either nor does it hit the top 10 in programming conssistently if at all.

[Higgly]

This is hard to figure out. I would easily put Corner Gas up there with the 'best' American programming.

[Argus]

CTV and Global make their money by buying and showing American products at a fraction of the cost that it takes to produce Canadian content from scratch. This is why a program like Trailer Park Boys has to be subsidized. Canada does not have a large enough market to pay for quality programming on a scale to compete with what can be bought for jelly beans from the US.

Why not? I mean, that might once have been true, but most American tv programming now is crap. Reality TV is especially cheap to make, as you don't have to pay actors. Throw a bunch of people into the woods and watch them for a while. How expensive do you think that is?

What do the actors in "Corner Gas" make? I'm betting a fraction of what a lousy American sitcom pays. What does it cost per episode? Again, a fraction. How much does the show make in advertising? A fraction.

But the show has never had less than a million viewers. I bet it's making money.

[jdobbin]

Why not? I mean, that might once have been true, but most American tv programming now is crap. Reality TV is especially cheap to make, as you don't have to pay actors. Throw a bunch of people into the woods and watch them for a while. How expensive do you think that is?

What do the actors in "Corner Gas" make? I'm betting a fraction of what a lousy American sitcom pays. What does it cost per episode? Again, a fraction. How much does the show make in advertising? A fraction.

But the show has never had less than a million viewers. I bet it's making money.

Corner Gas doesn't make money. It costs $500,000 to produce a half hour of TV in Canada. It doesn't make that much money back in advertising.

It costs around $50,000 to buy a U.S. program. There isn't a single program in Canada that comes that cheap. Not one.

If you went strictly by business, there wouldn't be any Canadian content at all, not even reality programming. News, drama, comedy and reality TV and documentaries do not make money. Only sports in Canada makes money.

[jdobbin]

This is hard to figure out. I would easily put Corner Gas up there with the 'best' American programming.

It might be up there in quality but it loses money.

[fellowtraveller]

Canadian TV and radio is not economically viable. It is subsidized. The question is whether Canadians wish to have Canadian TV and radio or not.

I listen to excellent AND viable Canadian radio every day, on CKUA.

Non-commercial for the most part, wonderful programming, supported mainly by listener subscription, dollars going directly from my pocket to their bank account.

This is a perfect formula for the future CBC. If you love it - you pay for it. Directly, no need to involve your fellow taxpayers, and no need to ever have this discussion again.

[Higgly]

Canadian TV and radio is not economically viable. It is subsidized. The question is whether Canadians wish to have Canadian TV and radio or not.

I listen to excellent AND viable Canadian radio every day, on CKUA.

Non-commercial for the most part, wonderful programming, supported mainly by listener subscription, dollars going directly from my pocket to their bank account.

This is a perfect formula for the future CBC. If you love it - you pay for it. Directly, no need to involve your fellow taxpayers, and no need to ever have this discussion again.

What is CKUA?

[Ricki Bobbi]

What is CKUA?

It's a community radio station in Edmonton.

[jbg]

Well, I shut down the CBC Bulletin Board, with some help from the National Post and Roy Wilson. See below. I will e-mail anyone a copy of the article, in PDF format.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Good for you jbg. The CBC costs us a billion a year and I have long wanted to see it sold off to private interests.

Well, I shut down the CBC Bulletin Board,

Good Job JAY-BEE-GEE,

Your next assignment should you choice it.....is to shut down the mother corporation completely.

This assignment may be Mission Impossible, but no one in Canada has the gonads to do it.

Thanks. That assignment is a bit beyond the scope of what could peacefully be done from outside the country.

Good for you jbg. The CBC costs us a billion a year and I have long wanted to see it sold off to private interests.

Why stop there? End Canadian content and ownership restrictions and bring in straight U.S. programming.

Language barriers would prevent that since most Canadians would not understand a word of the programming.

[Higgly]

Language barriers would prevent that since most Canadians would not understand a word of the programming.

You must be referring to Rush Limburger.

[B. Max]

Sadly, the car industry gets subsidized by every country in the world whether it is direct or indirect. Why should the state have to provide streets and highways for individual transportation units?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds.

[kimmy]

There are no Canadian shows worth watching according to ratings,

Small quibble with this point-- Corner Gas averages 1.4 million viewers, which is a big hit by Canadian standards. Hockey Night In Canada is lucky to get 1.4 million viewers on a typical weekend. Even the most watched shows-- CSI, Grey's Anatomy-- don't reach 2 million viewers. If one judges what's worth watching by how many viewers it draws, then the ratings say Corner Gas is worth watching.

But I understand your argument about Canadian-made programming not being cost-effective compared to the cost of buying an episode of an American show.

If we accept the goal of promoting Canadian-made programming, and accept that government money is necessary to accomplish it... here's a question: is running a national network a cost-effective way to promote Canadian content?

It seems to me that for the annual cost of operating the CBC, the Canadian government could subsidize an awful lot of Canadian-made programming. What if CBC stations were sold off to local operations or smaller networks (Chum City, Craig Media...) and Canadian content requirements were increased, while larger subsidies were made available for people wanting to produce Canadian shows?

-k

[kimmy]

Why not? I mean, that might once have been true, but most American tv programming now is crap. Reality TV is especially cheap to make, as you don't have to pay actors. Throw a bunch of people into the woods and watch them for a while. How expensive do you think that is?

I had this argument with someone here on MLW once before, a couple of years ago, perhaps.

People say "American TV is garbage," and point to the continued existence of reality shows to prove the point.

But "reality shows" have been on TV for a very long time. People gripe about "American Idol" and so-on, but forget that "Star Search" or "The Gong Show" were doing the same thing decades earlier. "Reality TV" is generally used to refer to non-actors in unscripted situations competing for prizes... isn't that the definition of "game show"? Those have been around since the 1950s, if not earlier, were they not?

I find it odd when people from the era when Star Search and Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy were on in prime time now point at American Idol and Survivor as proof of how TV has gone to hell since the good old days.

And, it's largely beside the point, anyway. The popularity and prevalence of "reality shows" has declined sharply in the past couple of years.

And, to further rebutt critics who point to reality TV as evidence that the quality of TV has declined, I point out that the rise of reality TV shows came at the expense of "sit-coms", not of quality drama. The sit-com is the lowest of low-brow programming, and it has become virtually extinct.

I can listen to people who claim that movies used to be better, or that music used to be better... I don't generally agree, but I'll at least consider the idea. But when people tell me that TV used to be better, I generally knock over their table and pour my drink on their carpet. I'm sorry, but that's just ludicrous.

I might be younger than most of you, but I am not such an infant that I don't know what kind of garbage you guys used to watch on TV. I am old enough to remember some of the 1980s for myself, and I've seen even more of this crap on channels that re-run older programs. And frankly, this stuff sucked. It was crap. Aside from a small number of exceptions like The Hill Street Blues or Archie Bunker, very little programming from older eras compares well to today's shows.

I mean, the evidence is out there. Anybody who chooses to do so can torture themselves by watching a few hours of the television of "the good old days" and find out first hand what dog-shit you guys used to watch. Very little of it deserves to be remembered, and very little stands up well against today's shows.

-k

[Canuck E Stan]

I mean, the evidence is out there. Anybody who chooses to do so can torture themselves by watching a few hours of the television of "the good old days" and find out first hand what dog-shit you guys used to watch. Very little of it deserves to be remembered, and very little stands up well against today's shows.

-k

Ah,the good old days of real TV .....Hee-Haw,Love Boat and Wayne and Schuster.

[jdobbin]

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds.

Unfortunately, it's true. Gas costs don't even come close to paying for streets and highways.

[jdobbin]

Language barriers would prevent that since most Canadians would not understand a word of the programming.

True. It is hard to understand a New York accent. Maybe if they had subtitles.

[B. Max]

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds.

Unfortunately, it's true. Gas costs don't even come close to paying for streets and highways.

Well i guess not when you consider they only spend a fraction of what is collected on the roads, and the feds collect the most and it's not even their responsibility. Then there's all those fees for license plates.

[jdobbin]

Well i guess not when you consider they only spend a fraction of what is collected on the roads, and the feds collect the most and it's not even their responsibility. Then there's all those fees for license plates.

The cost of gas, licenses and other tax don't cover all of the costs of the huge infrastructure.

They were talking about it in the United States this year about how the Interstate highway system was essentially a development program in the United States because even with the tax, the Feds had to kick in far more than they collected. The important thing is that the economy was built around the highways and that there was other positive outcomes as a result.

That is, until the cost of fossil fuels started to go up. It becomes more and more expensive to maintain the infrastructure as the fuel goes up.

[jdobbin]

There are no Canadian shows worth watching according to ratings,

Small quibble with this point-- Corner Gas averages 1.4 million viewers, which is a big hit by Canadian standards. Hockey Night In Canada is lucky to get 1.4 million viewers on a typical weekend. Even the most watched shows-- CSI, Grey's Anatomy-- don't reach 2 million viewers. If one judges what's worth watching by how many viewers it draws, then the ratings say Corner Gas is worth watching.

But I understand your argument about Canadian-made programming not being cost-effective compared to the cost of buying an episode of an American show.

If we accept the goal of promoting Canadian-made programming, and accept that government money is necessary to accomplish it... here's a question: is running a national network a cost-effective way to promote Canadian content?

It seems to me that for the annual cost of operating the CBC, the Canadian government could subsidize an awful lot of Canadian-made programming. What if CBC stations were sold off to local operations or smaller networks (Chum City, Craig Media...) and Canadian content requirements were increased, while larger subsidies were made available for people wanting to produce Canadian shows?

Corner Gas and Hockey Night are among the only shows to get those numbers. Hockey Night makes money though whereas Corner Gas does not. And for the profit seeking producer that generally would mean cancellation of Corner Gas.

The government could do as you say but then the conservative argument is that Canada was still wasting money on something that doesn't make a profit.

[B. Max]

Well i guess not when you consider they only spend a fraction of what is collected on the roads, and the feds collect the most and it's not even their responsibility. Then there's all those fees for license plates.

The cost of gas, licenses and other tax don't cover all of the costs of the huge infrastructure.

They were talking about it in the United States this year about how the Interstate highway system was essentially a development program in the United States because even with the tax, the Feds had to kick in far more than they collected. The important thing is that the economy was built around the highways and that there was other positive outcomes as a result.

That is, until the cost of fossil fuels started to go up. It becomes more and more expensive to maintain the infrastructure as the fuel goes up.

The cost of everything goes up when fuel goes up. That's just an economic fact. The system works when government spends money on what they are suppose to spend it on. If they had spent the money they collect for plates and gas on the roads as they went there would be enough. For years they spent it on feel goods and neglected the roads and now they are in a game of catch up.

[jdobbin]

The cost of everything goes up when fuel goes up. That's just an economic fact. The system works when government spends money on what they are suppose to spend it on. If they had spent the money they collect for plates and gas on the roads as they went there would be enough. For years they spent it on feel goods and neglected the roads and now they are in a game of catch up.

Why should the government be responsible for the roads? Why not private business?

[B. Max]

Why should the government be responsible for the roads? Why not private business?

Because that's the way it works the best.

[jdobbin]

Because that's the way it works the best.

Business could run it better. And for a profit. Then you could get a tax cut and they would only build bridges and roads where it made sense.