What the CBC has done for you lately...

[Argus]

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.

Uh uh. I disagree. First, game shows were dreck, sure. They were meant to be dreck, to fill in the afternoon for housewives who were mostly busy doing the dishes, the laundry etc. They were meant to cost little but fill in the day. Reality shows, on the other hand, are prime time entertainment now. Further, game shows weren't designed to degrade and/or humiliate the contestants, to dig and claw into the belly of the worst of human emotions and behaviour and pull it out into the light for everyone's amusement and shock.

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.

But Star Search, WoF and Jeopardy were not prime time TV shows. They weren't even network shows. They were syndicated dreck.

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.

Really? Cause there doesn't appear to be a lot of quality drama out there these days either.

The sit-com is the lowest of low-brow programming, and it has become virtually extinct.

That's kind of an elitist stance. Sitcoms can be great entertainment. What more do you want? I'm sure I can give you a list of great sitcoms from the seventies and eighties that will more than match anything on TV now in terms of quality, as well as entertainment.

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.

Yeah, I know what you mean, and I know why you're saying it. You're forgetting an essential element in your assessment. The culture then was different than it is now. I don't want to sound maudlin, but society was much more innocent and much less sophisticated. Things which caused hilarity in the seventies no doubt just make you frown and shake your head. Drama which was cutting edge then is trite and hackneyed now.

I felt the same in the seventies when looking at what were the great shows of the early sixties and late fifties. Leave it to Beaver? Father Knows Best? My Three Sons? Blech. But they were products of their time.

But hey, I thought Adam 12 was a great show! And mine wasn't the the only family that would sit down together to watch Mannix, Cannon, Barnaby Jones, Beauty and the Beast, Quincy, McCloud, Ironside, Mission Impossible, Kojak, The Streets of San Fransico, Baretta, Lou Grant and the Rockford Files.

Mind you, after watching Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue, well, those old time cop shows don't seem that great any more. Times change. Cultures change. People change. We're not innocent enough now to find many of the storylines back then surprising, or to accept their cultural no-gos.

And I'll give this to those earlier shows. They were trying to be unique. They came up with novel ideas, and took risks. They might seem backward now, but they were cutting edge then. What's cutting edge now? Could All in the Family even get on TV today? And if it did, YOU KNOW that Archie would be a slick, handsome man, and Edith would be played by Michele Pfeifer or some other gorgeous doll, while Mike and Gloria would be plastic and perfect. Dick Van Dyke was the first show to show a man and a woman in bed together. Archie Bunker wasn't allowed to show a toilet, so the flush of a toilet off screen became a signature sound. Maude actually talked about abortion, while MASH was the ultimate show for questioning authority. All that now seems hackneyed.

TV rarely takes chances any more. Everything is just a rehash of something which played last year, or ten years ago.

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.

And which of today's shows compares well with All in the family for daring, risk-taking, novelty and terrific writing and acting? The Mary Tyler Moore show was hilarious, but it was also cutting edge, showing a young, unmarried, working woman on her own. Bob Newharts shows, MASH, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, and Barney Miller, they were all great, inventive comedies with terrific writing. For their time.

So what compares to them today? What's cutting edge? What has outstanding writing every week? What critiques society and pushes the envelope?

Drama? What drama today can match The Waltons or Little House on the Prairie for outstanding writing and acting week after week? Mind you, entertaining dramas really came into their own in the eighties, with Hill Street Blues, China Beach, Magnum PI, Moonlighting, Miami Vice, St Elsewhere, Remington Steele, Cagney and Lacey, etc.

But even they are products of their age and culture. Two decades later, much of them seem backward and unsophisticated. Still, they were great for their time.

What's great for this time? Which shows are routinely outstanding in terms of writing, acting and entertainment value, regularly tug at the heart strings, make the pulse beat faster, enlighten and inform, cause people to laugh out loud, push the envelope?

Because believe it or not, the good shows in the sixties, seventies and eighties did that. I don't see any shows doing that today. They've reinvented the serial - which I never liked, mind you. They've got a few soaps and a few kids shows. But really, where's the beef?

[B. Max]

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.

Well maybe we should get business to run the government. The fact remains it is governments job to run the roads. I would get a tax cut if government were to get out of business that is not their business.

An excellent example of that was a story on TV a few years ago about a town some where in eastern Ont.

The mayor cut off all the special interest groups they had been handing out taxpayer money to.

All these groups got together and took the mayor to court.

As it turned out the judge sided with the mayor, saying there was nothing that said the mayor had to give these people dime one.

His job was to see that the side walks, roads, sewer and water, and fire department were in operation.

They went on to say, that as a result all taxes for two years were to be repaid to the taxpayers, and after that time the taxes would only be half of what they had been paying.

[jbg]

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

Because that's the way it works the best.

Private businesses do a good job of running roads that serve as additional capacity in congested areas, where people would pay a premium to drive at 100 Trudeau Units on a smooth, well-maintained road. California has some of those in Orange County. There's the 417 (I think) in Ontario.

Mexico uses private roads as superhighway alternatives to dysfunctional local roads. This is less defensible since there is not practical taxpayer-paid alternative route (notice I didn't say "free" since TANSTAAFL). However, Mexico is a poorer and less well-governed country than the US or Canada and building roads through private moneys may be the only way to get the job done effectively and efficiently.

[B. Max]

Business could run it better. And for a profit.

Actually business does make a profit. They build the roads and in Alberta also maintain them.

[jdobbin]

Well maybe we should get business to run the government. The fact remains it is governments job to run the roads. I would get a tax cut if government were to get out of business that is not their business.

An excellent example of that was a story on TV a few years ago about a town some where in eastern Ont.

The mayor cut off all the special interest groups they had been handing out taxpayer money to.

All these groups got together and took the mayor to court.

As it turned out the judge sided with the mayor, saying there was nothing that said the mayor had to give these people dime one.

His job was to see that the side walks, roads, sewer and water, and fire department were in operation.

They went on to say, that as a result all taxes for two years were to be repaid to the taxpayers, and after that time the taxes would only be half of what they had been paying.

Water and sewer have been privatized in Britain. Why not Canada? Many roads in the U.S. and Canada have been privatized. Why not all of the highways?

In some communities in the States, they have private police forces.

I thought you were conservative. What couldn't be privatized? Pretty much everything including armies can be privatized and have been throughout history.

[jdobbin]

Actually business does make a profit. They build the roads and in Alberta also maintain them.

Why not let business do them all?

[jdobbin]

Private businesses do a good job of running roads that serve as additional capacity in congested areas, where people would pay a premium to drive at 100 Trudeau Units on a smooth, well-maintained road. California has some of those in Orange County. There's the 417 (I think) in Ontario.

Mexico uses private roads as superhighway alternatives to dysfunctional local roads. This is less defensible since there is not practical taxpayer-paid alternative route (notice I didn't say "free" since TANSTAAFL). However, Mexico is a poorer and less well-governed country than the US or Canada and building roads through private moneys may be the only way to get the job done effectively and efficiently.

Then it makes sense to look at total privatization in Canada.

[gerryhatrick]

Everyday during the sponsorship scandel I heard all of the details on the CBC.

People who accuse it of being left wing are either lying or duped.

Or just ideologicly bent on privatization...although that would fall in the lying category I guess. Seems to be a lot of ideology permeating things these days.

[B. Max]

Water and sewer have been privatized in Britain. Why not Canada? Many roads in the U.S. and Canada have been privatized. Why not all of the highways?

Because it doen't work as well.

In some communities in the States, they have private police forces.

Apples and oranges.

I thought you were conservative. What couldn't be privatized? Pretty much everything including armies can be privatized and have been throughout history.

Everything could be. It's a question of what works the best.

[jbg]

Jdobin, let's start with an experiment; a privately built, operated and maintained, three lane each way, limited access highway between Winnipeg, The Pas, Norway House, ending in Churchill (or pushing to the Nunavut border).

[Ricki Bobbi]

Everyday during the sponsorship scandel I heard all of the details on the CBC.

People who accuse it of being left wing are either lying or duped.

You really can't abide by anybody having a different opinion than yours, can you Gerry.

The CBC is painfully left-wing. Of course they had to report the details of Adscam. The bias comes in the way they present the information, the time they spend on stories and their placement of stories in any given story.

The day of the eleciton George Stombopopadopolous said "Stephen Harper is leading. There is still time. make sure you get out there and vote."

That is a bias which shouldn't be funded by taxpayers on a supposed "news" show.

[gerryhatrick]

Everyday during the sponsorship scandel I heard all of the details on the CBC.

People who accuse it of being left wing are either lying or duped.

You really can't abide by anybody having a different opinion than yours, can you Gerry.

The CBC is painfully left-wing. Of course they had to report the details of Adscam. The bias comes in the way they present the information, the time they spend on stories and their placement of stories in any given story.

I can abide such things just fine Ricki. I assure you the information imparted on adscam by the CBC was completely unbiased. They dutifully reported every little snippit and attack from the opposition, each and every day.

You are the person who accuses this forum of being biased, and complains that it's funded with public money. That is as ridiculous as your accusations against the CBC.

Are you ideologicly opposed to the CBC? Do you want it privatized?

[Canuck E Stan]

I assure you the information imparted on adscam by the CBC was completely unbiased.

Are you saying that with a straight face? How can you assure anything? Inside information?

[Ricki Bobbi]

I can abide such things just fine Ricki. I assure you the information imparted on adscam by the CBC was completely unbiased. They dutifully reported every little snippit and attack from the opposition, each and every day.

Are you ideologicly opposed to the CBC? Do you want it privatized?

Assurances are fine and dandy, provide a little proof for CBCs reports on adscam being "completely unbiased".

I am opposed to the CBC being funded by taxpayer money while clearly promoting a political agenda. Become neutral or quit taking government money....

You are the person who accuses this forum of being biased, and complains that it's funded with public money. That is as ridiculous as your accusations against the CBC.

What are you talking about? I have no issues with this forum. Seems like you are trying to divert the issue Gerry. Your attacks and misinformation are tiring....

[Ricki Bobbi]

Are you saying that with a straight face? How can you assure anything? Inside information?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!

[geoffrey]

The day of the eleciton George Stombopopadopolous said "Stephen Harper is leading. There is still time. make sure you get out there and vote."

Anyone that finds Strombopolous worth watching likely doesn't have the intellectual ability to cast a ballot, I wouldn't be too concerned.

[jdobbin]

Everything could be. It's a question of what works the best.

And given the condition of the roads, you think the government does a good job? There isn't a province in Canada where the roads are not falling apart.

[jdobbin]

Jdobin, let's start with an experiment; a privately built, operated and maintained, three lane each way, limited access highway between Winnipeg, The Pas, Norway House, ending in Churchill (or pushing to the Nunavut border).

There is no road to Churchill although there is a private rail and a private port.

I'd be up for a private road if it made economic sense.

[B. Max]

Everything could be. It's a question of what works the best.

And given the condition of the roads, you think the government does a good job? There isn't a province in Canada where the roads are not falling apart.

The roads aren't a complete disaster. However governments have to get down to the business that is theirs.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Anyone that finds Strombopolous worth watching likely doesn't have the intellectual ability to cast a ballot, I wouldn't be too concerned.

Unfortunately his viewers do vote.

What baffles me is they moved that p.o.s. The Hour to the 11 PM timeslot on the main network. That is a prime spot.

[Canuck E Stan]

What baffles me is they moved that p.o.s. The Hour to the 11 PM timeslot on the main network. That is a prime spot.

Prime for those who don't have to get up in the morning to go work...........Ah,I just figured out why it's prime viewing time on CBC.

[jdobbin]

The roads aren't a complete disaster. However governments have to get down to the business that is theirs.

Nearly 10% of Alberta highways are listed as in poor condition according to Alberta's own government. They need $3 billion dollars worth of work. Another $4 billion is needed for other infrastucture.

The bad news is that Alberta is ahead of the pack for good roads. The rest of Canada is in worse shape.

And as fast as Alberta spends money, there are more highways that need upgrading because of the increase in population and usage.

[B. Max]

Nearly 10% of Alberta highways are listed as in poor condition according to Alberta's own government. They need $3 billion dollars worth of work. Another $4 billion is needed for other infrastucture.

The bad news is that Alberta is ahead of the pack for good roads. The rest of Canada is in worse shape.

And as fast as Alberta spends money, there are more highways that need upgrading because of the increase in population and usage.

It doesn't change anything, it's still the best way to do it. The government has to stop spending money on the feel goods and start doing their job.

[gerryhatrick]

I am opposed to the CBC being funded by taxpayer money while clearly promoting a political agenda. Become neutral or quit taking government money....

Just like this forum is promoting a political agenda, huh Ricki.

[gerryhatrick]

I assure you the information imparted on adscam by the CBC was completely unbiased.

Are you saying that with a straight face? How can you assure anything? Inside information?

How can I assure anything? er....

In spite of your three rapid fire smilies, I am being absolutely serious. The CBC I listen to every morning reported the adscam thing in all it's glory.

The accusations of bias are nothing but ideological nonsense.