CBC to air comedy "Little Mosque On The Prairie"

[Black Dog]

Why is it appropriate for taxpayers to cover the majority of the CBCs costs?

Answer my questions and maybe I'll answer yours.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Answer my questions and maybe I'll answer yours.

Please repeat the questions you want answered. This thread is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to long to dig through.

[Black Dog]

Right here a whopping 11 posts and 2 hours ago.

[Catchme]

Now what did that initial meeting cost? 50 bucks or less? Wow, heavy burden on individual taxpayers in Canada And most likely that initial meeting costs would have been billed to the sponsors to.

Cost to taxpayers = 0

Hmmm, very *unique* analysis.

There is the rub with the leftists. Ignore basic rules of accounting and economics when convenient to make the case.

No its no so unique, it is how media stations work.

Well there you are red baiting instead of discussing. But I will ignore it.

The marginal costs vaguely alluded to here don't include a share of the huge overhead that needs to be accounted for somewhere.

The huge over head has nothing to do with independantly funded productions, the sponsors pay the overhead NOT the taxpayers.

What is overhead you ask? Well that's the cost of the CBC production facilities, salaries paid to various producers, on air *talent*, technical folks. etc, etc, etc.

With independantly funding shows that the CBC picks up, which I may add is a large portion of their programing, they do not pay "on air talent". Nor do they pay for producers for independant programing. The technical cost would only be that of slapping the episode tapes in and running and again that would only be fore CBC shows not sponsored programming. Sponsored programing means just that, the sponsor pays costs affliated. Did you not read the break down I gave re producers and payers of costs?

These are costs that Global and CTV manage to cover without taxpayer money.

That is not true, both Global annd CTV have shows they produce and air that came about as a result of them accessing provincial and federal production money. If they did not get this funding they would not have Canadian content shows.

For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006 the CBC received $1.006 Billion from the Federal Government. $946 million in 'permanent funding' and $60 million in 'suplemental funding. This represents about 2/3rds of the CBCs total revenue.

Please provide a link to where you get your figures from, thank you.

Without seeing the disbursement figures, common sense tells me that the permanent funding covers CBC original programming and associated costs for CBC personalities. Which is what I have been stating, CBC funded programs, as opposed to airing independant shows, is something completely different.

Independant programming they air, like LMoTP, or Fraser, or Corantion Street, is where they get their revenues from. Why is this so hard to grasp?

What is a fair and appropriate share of this overhead to assign to a P.O.S. show like LMotP?

If you say zero than you really don't get it...

0, or money into general revenues, and I do get it.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Right here a whopping 11 posts and 2 hours ago.

OK, I'll answer these two questions together.

What makes one form of public subsidy unacceptable and another form acceptable? why is using public funds to fund a network bad?

Government subsidies in fields that do not satisfy the basic needs of society (health care, education, defence, roads, etc...) should only be provided when the market will not do so. The market will not provide for a viable Canadian television produciton industry. So that industry needs to be subsidized.

The market will provide for private television networks in Canada. The $1.06 Billion dollar subsidy given to the CBC is unnecessary and a significant expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

So this question is based on a false premise.

why would you oppose public funding of a network, which is merely a logical extension of something you already endorse?

Now that I have answered your questions, I'll remind you that you said.

Answer my questions and maybe I'll answer yours.

The questions again, why should the taxpayer's subsidize the CBC by more than $1 billion a year.

I answered your questions, so how about it. If maybe was just a ruse ... power to you.

[Ricki Bobbi]

No its no so unique, it is how media stations work.

Well there you are red baiting instead of discussing. But I will ignore it.

It is how the CBC works? Both of the other networks in Canada get more than 95% of their revenue from non-governmental sources....

The huge over head has nothing to do with independantly funded productions, the sponsors pay the overhead NOT the taxpayers. With independantly funding shows that the CBC picks up, which I may add is a large portion of their programing, they do not pay "on air talent". Nor do they pay for producers for independant programing. The technical cost would only be that of slapping the episode tapes in and running and again that would only be fore CBC shows not sponsored programming. Sponsored programing means just that, the sponsor pays costs affliated. Did you not read the break down I gave re producers and payers of costs?

No one else here is claiming LMoTP is an independently funded show. Any proof they get no funds from the CMC to make the show.

As to the last part of the quote, the part in bold.

Please provide a link to where you get your figures from, thank you.

If you provide a link then I will too...

Independant programming they air, like LMoTP, or Fraser, or Corantion Street, is where they get their revenues from. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Fraiser and Coronation Street are shows that were produced for different networks and are airing on the CBC in syndication.

LMoTP was commissioned by the CBC. Again prove where it's funds come from.

[bk59]

This topic certainly has shifted. First there were hypocritical posts where people complained that a show (that no one has even seen yet) was stereotyping people while at the same time those people were stereotyping others. A defence seemed to be that CBC was publicly funded. Of course, that is no defence at all. The poster was still being hypocritical by complaining about something that the poster was actively doing themself.

So now we're onto how the CBC is being funded by taxpayers to promote a political agenda. I have yet to see proof in this thread of a political agenda. Using Little Mosque on the Prairie as an example is ludicrous. It hasn't even aired yet. So who knows what it will be like.

Perhaps my favourite example so far is this one:

If the CBC were truly Canada's public broadcaster then they shouldn't be pushing a given poliitical agenda. One egeregious example, there are a lot of Canadian taxpayers out there who objected to paying to have George Stromobolopolous campaign against the Conservative Party of Canada on his publicly-funded television program. (The Hour episode Air Date January 20th, 2006.)

I (foolishly?) spent some time trying to find any reference to this particular episode. And what did I find? That January 20, 2006 was a Friday. And to my knowledge The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos has never aired on a Friday. Which may explain why my short search for information was so unsuccessful.

I'll extend the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was a typo in the original post. Even if there wasn't & I just couldn't find any info, then I'm going to have to see some link or any other info before taking that example at face value.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I (foolishly?) spent some time trying to find any reference to this particular episode. And what did I find? That January 20, 2006 was a Friday. And to my knowledge The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos has never aired on a Friday. Which may explain why my short search for information was so unsuccessful.

I'll extend the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was a typo in the original post. Even if there wasn't & I just couldn't find any info, then I'm going to have to see some link or any other info before taking that example at face value.

I may have gotten the date wrong. It was the the week of the election. Somewhere between January 17th and 23rd...

[bk59]

I may have gotten the date wrong. It was the the week of the election. Somewhere between January 17th and 23rd...

Fair enough. Typos (& mistakes) happen.

But could you please provide more information? Any link to a discussion of the show, or a video clip or transcript, etc.?

[Ricki Bobbi]

But could you please provide more information? Any link to a discussion of the show, or a video clip or transcript, etc.?

Find it if you want. I've given you more than enough information to find it if you really want to see it. If you expect somebody else to do the work for you, sorry...

It aired in the lead-up to the election. I had the misfortune of watching the show that eveing and have never wasted my time since. That's why I didn't know it aired on Fridays.

[bk59]

But could you please provide more information? Any link to a discussion of the show, or a video clip or transcript, etc.?

Find it if you want. I've given you more than enough information to find it if you really want to see it. If you expect somebody else to do the work for you, sorry...

It aired in the lead-up to the election. I had the misfortune of watching the show that eveing and have never wasted my time since. That's why I didn't know it aired on Fridays.

Actually, you haven't given enough information. You've stated that there was an episode of a show that aired sometime in the last week (more or less) of the last election that was an outrageous example of how the CBC was pushing a political agenda. Yet doing a general search online turned up nothing for me.

I'm not asking you to do my work for me. I'm asking you to do your own work.

I could sit here and say "Well I saw a number of episodes of The Hour during the last election that slammed the Liberals and praised the Conservatives." Or I could say that I saw an episode that showed conclusive proof of aliens landing in Ottawa and manipulating the results of the last election. Just saying this does not make it true, nor does it help the discussion in any way. If you can't provide any information other than "I watched this one show once and I thought it was pushing an agenda" then you aren't providing any meaningful proof of your point. All you are saying is that the CBC aired something that you didn't like. (Which by the way is a valid opinion, but not proof of any political agenda.)

If this episode was as outrageous as you say, surely there must be some blog or article somewhere that mentions it. Surely you must be able to provide a quote from the show as an example of their bias. Not every statement made in a post needs to be referenced. But if you are going to expect people to look at a specific example in order to try and prove your point, then you have to do better than saying that you watched a show that proves your point. You have to show how it proves your point. Don't expect other people to do all the leg work to disprove it. Especially when you haven't given them anything to disprove. Or even talk about.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I could sit here and say "Well I saw a number of episodes of The Hour during the last election that slammed the Liberals and praised the Conservatives." Or I could say that I saw an episode that showed conclusive proof of aliens landing in Ottawa and manipulating the results of the last election. Just saying this does not make it true, nor does it help the discussion in any way. If you can't provide any information other than "I watched this one show once and I thought it was pushing an agenda" then you aren't providing any meaningful proof of your point. All you are saying is that the CBC aired something that you didn't like. (Which by the way is a valid opinion, but not proof of any political agenda.)

The episode aired on January 16th.

Here is the link to a short interview with Andrew Coyne from that episode. link

Your search online must have been pretty general. Took me about two minutes to find it.

The entire show isn't in the link. But this is the episode I was referring to. If seeing a transcript is that important go ahead and order one.

[Fortunata]

I didn't see any anti-Conservative in that piece; George was asking the same questions that many people asked.

I always thought George was a Conservative supporter the way he went after the Liberals all the time. Or maybe NDP ... nah, can't be. I LIKE George.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I didn't see any anti-Conservative in that piece; George was asking the same questions that many people asked.

I always thought George was a Conservative supporter the way he went after the Liberals all the time. Or maybe NDP ... nah, can't be. I LIKE George.

The anti-Conservative piece is from that episode, not in the clip. Never said it was. To repeat, the entire episode isn't in the clip....

Just wanted to show bk59 what date the episode aired on. If he wasn't just pulling my chain...

[bk59]

The anti-Conservative piece is from that episode, not in the clip. Never said it was. To repeat, the entire episode isn't in the clip....

Just wanted to show bk59 what date the episode aired on. If he wasn't just pulling my chain...

Given some of the replies that posters put on here I can see why you would suspect someone of pulling your chain when they are just trying to have a real discussion.

But here's the problem. No one can engage with this particular example. Thank you for identifying which episode you saw. But that doesn't really help if you can't show anyone what material you think is pushing a political agenda.

Again, you can't just say "I saw something that proves my point, but I'm not going to show you what it was". All that does is turn any discussion into a game of who can get in the last word of "But I saw X therefore my point is right".

[Figleaf]

...All the Ontario and Quebec people ...

Speaking of stereotyping!

[Ricki Bobbi]

Given some of the replies that posters put on here I can see why you would suspect someone of pulling your chain when they are just trying to have a real discussion.

But here's the problem. No one can engage with this particular example. Thank you for identifying which episode you saw. But that doesn't really help if you can't show anyone what material you think is pushing a political agenda.

Again, you can't just say "I saw something that proves my point, but I'm not going to show you what it was". All that does is turn any discussion into a game of who can get in the last word of "But I saw X therefore my point is right".

If seeing it is soooo important to you pay for the transcript.

How's this for an example if you aren't just trying to pull my chain.

Here is a quickie five minute content analysis of the CBC and CTV Web sites. Both have links to stories about the potential cabinet shuffle. Look at the lead, i.e. the first sentence of the story. Which is more negative to the Government?

A widely-anticipated cabinet shuffle in Ottawa could happen as early as tomorrow, with as many as five portfolios and 10 politicians affected

vs.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will shuffle his cabinet Thursday, with embattled Environment Minister Rona Ambrose expected to be moved to another ministry.

Look at the adjectives used in both leads. Clearly embattled is more negative than widely-anticipated.

Guess which one is from the CBC web site...

Yes, I know it is only one case, but this is an example you can engage.

[Figleaf]

I thought it looked kind of funny, personally I'd love to see a show making fun of Toronto as well.

I challenge anyone to write anything actually funny about Toronto.

[stignasty]

I challenge anyone to write anything actually funny about Toronto.

King of Kensington was a Canadian television sitcom which aired on CBC Television from 1975 to 1980. It was the first genuinely successful and popular Canadian sitcom.

The show starred Al Waxman as Larry King, a convenience store owner in Toronto, Ontario's Kensington Market who was known for helping friends and neighbours solve problems. His multicultural group of friends consisted of Nestor Best (Ardon Bess), Max (John J. Dee), and Tony "Duke" Zarro (Bob Vinci), who hung around regularly to the perennial disapproval of King's mother Gladys (Helene Winston).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Kensington

[bk59]

If seeing it is soooo important to you pay for the transcript.

If your example had any weight to it you could find some way of showing us the material you find offensive. As you pointed out earlier, don't expect others to do your work for you.

How's this for an example if you aren't just trying to pull my chain.

Here is a quickie five minute content analysis of the CBC and CTV Web sites. Both have links to stories about the potential cabinet shuffle. Look at the lead, i.e. the first sentence of the story. Which is more negative to the Government?

OK. First, you can't directly compare "embattled" with "widely anticipated" in the way that you do because they are adjectives referring to two different things (Ambrose versus the cabinet shuffle). However, when only reading the first sentence the CTV article has a neutral statement versus the CBC's putting up the speculation about Ambrose first. So if you stopped reading there it would seem that you have a point. (A weak one in my opinion, but still, a point.)

Now let's actually read the articles.

When it comes to mentioning Ambrose & the environment file, what do they have to say?

Article 1 (CBC):

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will shuffle his cabinet Thursday, with embattled Environment Minister Rona Ambrose expected to be moved to another ministry.

...

It has been rumoured for weeks that Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice could replace Ambrose, who has been criticized for her performance in the high-profile portfolio and for failing to sell the government's proposed clean air act to Canadians.

...

When asked about plans for a cabinet shuffle in a recent interview, Harper would not confirm it, but fuelled speculation by saying: "Minister Ambrose has had what has turned out to be the most difficult portfolio, it's very challenging."

Article 2 (CTV):

...

While the names are being tightly held, some of the expected key moves include embattled Environment Minister Rona Ambrose being shifted out of the environment portfolio -- although she will remain in cabinet.

Ambrose's future as environment minister was cast into doubt after she was lambasted by opposition members and environmentalists for her handling of the key portfolio -- specifically the way she sold the government's proposed Clean Air Act.

...

She is widely expected to fill the Intergovernmental Affairs post, a role that she has experience in from her days in the Alberta government.

...

The environment file has been widely seen as the Harper government's biggest challenge and is bound to become an election issue.

...

Ambrose's defenders have said the Edmonton MP has been a victim of micromanagement, on both policy and communications, by the prime minister's office.

...

Also from Article 2:

...

There were doubts that Emerson, a former Liberal minister and surprise addition to Harper's cabinet, would run in the next election after he accomplished last year what he said he most wanted to do: sign and seal a softwood lumber deal with the U.S.

...

So let's see... both articles use "embattled" to describe Ambrose. So no bias either way there.

The CBC article says Ambrose's performance was criticized. CTV says she was lambasted by the opposition and environmentalists. Which is more negative to Ambrose there? (Personally, I think lambasted is more negative.)

CBC quotes Harper as saying the environment file is difficult. CTV has no Harper quote, but does indicate that it might be an election issue. Take the line about an election any way you want.

The CTV then goes on to include a line about how some are suggesting that Ambrose was a victim of micromanagement by the Prime Minister's Office. That seems kind of negative to the Conservatives and Harper don't you think? Funny that CBC didn't bring that up.

Finally CTV brings up Emerson, reminding everyone that he used to be a Liberal (before he crossed the floor at Harper's request).

I think maybe you picked the wrong two articles to compare. When I read them I find the CTV article to be more critical overall of the Conservative government. Although to be fair, I don't think either article is biased.

[Ricki Bobbi]

OK. First, you can't directly compare "embattled" with "widely anticipated" in the way that you do because they are adjectives referring to two different things (Ambrose versus the cabinet shuffle). However, when only reading the first sentence the CTV article has a neutral statement versus the CBC's putting up the speculation about Ambrose first. So if you stopped reading there it would seem that you have a point. (A weak one in my opinion, but still, a point.)

If you go to the main page of both sites that is all you see and all you can read.

You have to click on the link and read both stories to read the adjective in both.

For those people who do not go to the story they leave the respective Web sites with a more negative impression of the CPC after leaving the CBC Web site.

Surely not the strongest argument, but I found that one on a whim. How many of those weak examples would it take to build a case for systemic bias on the part of the CBC? seriously

[Figleaf]

The woman who wrote the show lives in Regina with her husband, that's where the idea of the location came from.

And the CBC ran with it and produced the show to harp on the stereotype of Western Canadians being uneducated hicks.

Western paranoia is running rampant, I see. Imagine the bitter outrage there'd be if CBC had rejected this home-grown western creation!

[Ricki Bobbi]

Western paranoia is running rampant, I see. Imagine the bitter outrage there'd be if CBC had rejected this home-grown western creation!

It's a homegrown Western creation because the writer and producer is a Muslim woman who lives in Regina?

[bk59]

If you go to the main page of both sites that is all you see and all you can read.

You have to click on the link and read both stories to read the adjective in both.

For those people who do not go to the story they leave the respective Web sites with a more negative impression of the CPC after leaving the CBC Web site.

Surely not the strongest argument, but I found that one on a whim. How many of those weak examples would it take to build a case for systemic bias on the part of the CBC? seriously

Wow. So for that category of people - those who go to the trouble of typing in the CBC and CTV website addresses, but for some reason do not actually read anything once they get there - there may be an extremely small perception of bias?

But we're not arguing about that category of people, are we?

You are trying to show that CBC is pushing a political agenda. And for that you have to actually read what they write. You can't just take random samples and then proclaim that you have proven your point. After reading the whole articles, do you still think the CTV article is more positive toward Harper and his party than the CBC article?

[mikedavid00]

I thought it looked kind of funny, personally I'd love to see a show making fun of Toronto as well.

I challenge anyone to write anything actually funny about Toronto.

I moved to Toronto from Ottawa 2.5 years back. yup... I didn't know how to get around so I'd sometimes ask for directions. Around the second week here I stopped and asked this lady for directions. And I must say I was quite amazed! I finally found someone that could speak English.

In Toronto, you don't see kids playing hockey, you see the kids playing cricket. But that's not a joke, that's just factual. They play it outside my house down the street. I took pics incase people didn't beleive me. But that's old news becuase since then I've seen people playing cricket around the city countless times in parks, driveways, etc.