Ricki Bobbi Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 That is not entirely true. Take a close look at the credits at the end of the show. They pay homage to public grants. You are entirely correct. Please read post #98. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Black Dog Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Compare the funding. The pittance given to CG is nothing compared to the billions poured into the CBC. There is no need for a black and white world. But you can't justify your stance wihout resorting to one. How far do you plan on moving those goalposts? First, you were whinging about the stereotype. Then it becamse about public funding for stereotypes. Now it's public funding for stereotypes that exceeds a unspecified threshold amount. As to the nonsense about black and white: shit, you put it pretty starkly here: Just don't make me pay to enable them to do so. Should their be some funding to promote Canadian television? Yes. Should it be in the billions annually to promote a political agenda? Absolutely not It would make things a lot easier if you could put a dollar amount on how much needs to be spent advancing negative stereotypes before your sense of outrage kicks in. QUOTE(stignasty @ Jan 3 2007, 11:00 AM) For someone so outraged by stereotypes, you sure don't mind flinging them about yourself, do you? For someone so sanctimoniously pseudo-intellectual you can't take the time to read, can you? Your question is answered in post #96. That's for sure: Ignorant fools will say what they want and see the world in black and white ... when it is to their advantage. Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 It would make things a lot easier if you could put a dollar amount on how much needs to be spent advancing negative stereotypes before your sense of outrage kicks in.o be spent advancing negative stereotypes before your sense of outrage kicks in. Again, I know it's tough for you if the world isn't 100% black and white. Sorry won't put an exact dollar figure on it for you. But actually read the rest of my post and the logic will become clear. The Government should not be funding a major television network in Canada. The market has seen place to provide two. In the absence of Mother Corp a third would likely spring up. Thus a major television network in Canada should not be advancing a political agenda while receiving a substantial portion of its operation capital from the taxpayers. To make thing easier I'll let you define substantial portion of operating capital ... if you understand the terminology. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
mikedavid00 Posted January 3, 2007 Author Report Posted January 3, 2007 For all of you that believe this new show is going to "slam" white males... have you ever watched "According to Jim" or "King of Queens"? Fat, stupid men with hot slim wives that are the only brains in the family. The men are blathering idiots. So how are these shows different than Little Mosque? Oh, I know -- they are NOT on the CBC.... of course. There's truth to men acting like big kids in the house. Many would say that's almost factual. And it's not bad to do it when it's coming from a private broadcaster and written from people within our own common race and culture. What isn't acceptable, is having a sepearte religion based culture protray us in a non-truthful, negative light. How many white men desire to see a muslim womans cleavage? Not me (that would probably be the last thing i'd want to see actually). I doubt that there is one person here that goes to a diner and has a need to see a muslim womans cleavage. This is just an attack and false protrait of the white Canadian. Saying that men act like big kids around the house is not. Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
mikedavid00 Posted January 3, 2007 Author Report Posted January 3, 2007 The Government should not be funding a major television network in Canada. The market has seen place to provide two. In the absence of Mother Corp a third would likely spring up. Thus a major television network in Canada should not be advancing a political agenda while receiving a substantial portion of its operation capital from the taxpayers. I completely agree. It's also unfair to other broadcasters who have to compete with the CBC. Imagine you had a hotdog stand and tax dollars fund a super hot dog stand with 4 times the staff and 10 times the budget. That's how it's like for private media in Canada. Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
Charles Anthony Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 The Canadian television industry gets more than enough funding: free air and free sunlight and (if they open their mouths long enough with their faces pointed to the sky) free water. Should their be some funding to promote Canadian television? Yes.Why should they get more? Thus a major television network in Canada should not be advancing a political agenda while receiving a substantial portion of its operation capital from the taxpayers.Do you object to the agenda or to the excessive amount? and why? Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Black Dog Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Again, I know it's tough for you if the world isn't 100% black and white. Sorry won't put an exact dollar figure on it for you. But actually read the rest of my post and the logic will become clear.The Government should not be funding a major television network in Canada. The market has seen place to provide two. In the absence of Mother Corp a third would likely spring up. Thus a major television network in Canada should not be advancing a political agenda while receiving a substantial portion of its operation capital from the taxpayers. To make thing easier I'll let you define substantial portion of operating capital ... if you understand the terminology. And the goalposts receed into the distance, soon to be lost from view entirely. Now, I don't know where you cut'n'pasted that bit from, but it's such a far cry from your original hissy fit that it's not even on the same topic, really. To deal with this new argument on its merits such as they are: what evidence is there hat this particular program constitutes "advancing a political agenda". I'll await while you google up some more anti-CBC arguments and back peddle furiously away from those arguments you've already advanced. Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Why should they get more? Why should who get more? I"m not arguing for more public funds for anybody. Do you object to the agenda or to the excessive amount? and why? The combination of the two. If the CBC were to get the same amount of funding as Global and CTV then I would have no problem with them pushing whatever agenda they wanted. They would then be primarily privately financed. The small amount of funding that goes to Global and CTV goes indirectly in the forms of grants to support Canadian programming. 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.) If the CBC wants to push its agenda let it become a poor man's PBS. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Black Dog Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Why should who get more? I"m not arguing for more public funds for anybody. Yopu're saying public funds are necessary, which means you support some public funds being spent on an area you also say should be left to the private sector, funds which could be used to push a political agenda. IOW: you're argument is self-contradictary. This is a black and white issue: either public funds to support Canadian broadcasters are kosher (even if those funds are used to promote apolitical agenda or advance negative stereotypes: you do remember that it was the stereotypes that got you all worked up, right?) or they ain't. There's no real middle ground here. Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 This is a black and white issue: either public funds to support Canadian broadcasters are kosher (even if those funds are used to promote apolitical agenda or advance negative stereotypes: you do remember that it was the stereotypes that got you all worked up, right?) or they ain't. There's no real middle ground here. Let's put it in black and white terms for you. The current level of public funding available for program development is good. Public funding to pay for and run a network is bad. Simple enough for you? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Black Dog Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Let's put it in black and white terms for you.The current level of public funding available for program development is good. Public funding to pay for and run a network is bad. Simple enough for you? Simple. But not what you've been arguing. Face it, you've scampered away completely from most of your previous arguments: clearly you imagine this one is a winner, but given its illogical, self-contradictary nature and the fact that you've only just arrived there after spending the previous, like, nine pages on the whole "OMG white christian stereotyping sux!!1!" tip, you should probably head back to the drawing board. But here's a special bonus: why is one form of public subsidy "good" and another "bad"? Clealry it's not that you believe in the principle that the free market should rule. It's not even the prospect of public funds being used to push a political agenda. The only explanation for such a glaring contradiction is that it's a totally arbitrary line, based on this particular situation wherein you've been caught getting into a lather about one thing (the "...Mosque" depiction of a white prairie redneck) while explicictly defending another example of the same phenomenon ("Corner Gas" and its depiction of ignorant prairie yokels.) And no wyou're trying to weasel out. Quote
Catchme Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 For all of you that believe this new show is going to "slam" white males... have you ever watched "According to Jim" or "King of Queens"? Fat, stupid men with hot slim wives that are the only brains in the family. The men are blathering idiots. So how are these shows different than Little Mosque? Oh, I know -- they are NOT on the CBC.... of course. Actually those shows with fat stupid men and slim hot wives are a very destructive force upon some young, and maybe old, male minds. Some men grow up thinking in order to get a hot slim wife all you need is to be fat and stupid. Then later in life they wonder why no hot slim woman wants them. No, I think there is more to it than the CBC, and it is more to do with some thinking along the lines of what one poster said about LMoTP depicting Canadians as lesser than Muslims. The poster went on to infer how dare they as we know just who is "creating all the havoc" in the world. It is bigotry and/or ethnic/ religious bias. Also, involved in this black/white, good/evil, view of the world, some hold, is the example given here of the 2 second show snippet about Canadian men wanting to see a Muslim woman's cleavage. For "some", it translated into, a stereotype put down that ALL Canadians are perverted and immoral which they also feel/presume is according to Muslims lving amongst us, and is represented by the evidence.of "the cleavage" remark in LMoTP. Some even went so far as to deny feeling that way, or holding any interest in "Muslim cleavage" whatsoever, they took it so personally without even know full context and content! It seems, there are those that feel, without even actually seeing the whole show, that there is negative portrayal of ALL WESTERN Canadians. It also seems they feel they are being called evil by those they perceive as being true evil. Moreover, it seems they also feel the "evil Muslims" are being given the voice to do it by the evil Socialists on the left. Further than that, it seems they feel, albeit wrongly yet again, that they are paying for their own "terrorist" abuse by CBC's airing the show. Quote When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Simple. But not what you've been arguing. Face it, you've scampered away completely from most of your previous arguments: clearly you imagine this one is a winner, but given its illogical, self-contradictary nature and the fact that you've only just arrived there after spending the previous, like, nine pages on the whole "OMG white christian stereotyping sux!!1!" tip, you should probably head back to the drawing board. Public funds to fund a network is bad. Public funds to fund a network with an anti-Western Canadian bias is very bad. No contradiction. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 It seems, there are those that feel, without even actually seeing the whole show, that there is negative portrayal of ALL WESTERN Canadians. It also seems they feel they are being called evil by those they perceive as being true evil. Moreover, it seems they also feel the "evil Muslims" are being given the voice to do it by the evil Socialists on the left. Further than that, it seems they feel, albeit wrongly yet again, that they are paying for their own "terrorist" abuse by CBC's airing the show. No those opposing the show don't feel that and haven't argued that. You have to misstate the argument because the true argument cannot be disputed. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Black Dog Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Public funds to fund a network is bad.Public funds to fund a network with an anti-Western Canadian bias is very bad. No contradiction. Your first two statements beg the question: why is using public funds to fund a network bad? You've alluded to market primacy as the reason. Yet the same logic (that the free market should provide) extends to subsidies and grants such as those recieved by Corner Gas and other "private" ventures. So surely you musn't believe in a completely free market approach to the television marketplace. But then, if youi don't ,why would you oppose public funding of a network, which is merely a logical extension of something you already endorse? What makes one form of public subsidy unacceptable and another form acceptable? It seems, there are those that feel, without even actually seeing the whole show, that there is negative portrayal of ALL WESTERN Canadians. No those opposing the show don't feel that and haven't argued that. Some have. You, to be precise. Quote
Saturn Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Your first two statements beg the question: why is using public funds to fund a network bad? You've alluded to market primacy as the reason. Yet the same logic (that the free market should provide) extends to subsidies and grants such as those recieved by Corner Gas and other "private" ventures. So surely you musn't believe in a completely free market approach to the television marketplace. But then, if youi don't ,why would you oppose public funding of a network, which is merely a logical extension of something you already endorse?What makes one form of public subsidy unacceptable and another form acceptable? Simple. The Asper/Bell media is outraged that the CBC is receiving dollars that they view as rightfully theirs. The two push this view on their TV networks and their papers (which happen to be 80% of Canadian media) and their readers adopt this view as their own after reading it over and over again. Hence, the widespread view that public funding of some networks is bad and public funding of other networks is good. Quote
stignasty Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Actually those shows with fat stupid men and slim hot wives are a very destructive force upon some young, and maybe old, male minds. The most irritating thing about this thread is that no one arguing about LMotP has actually even seen it. We're on page 8 arguing what someone thinks they might have seen in a 30 second clip of the show. Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
stignasty Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 More crazy sh!t. Is there an ignore feature on this board? Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
stignasty Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Compare the funding. The pittance given to CG is nothing compared to the billions poured into the CBC. Yet, CTV, Global and all other private broadcasters are free to buy programming from around the world. CBC must air Canadian only programming. In that light, funding is only an leveling of the playing field. Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
Catchme Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 It seems, there are those that feel, without even actually seeing the whole show, that there is negative portrayal of ALL WESTERN Canadians. It also seems they feel they are being called evil by those they perceive as being true evil. Moreover, it seems they also feel the "evil Muslims" are being given the voice to do it by the evil Socialists on the left. Further than that, it seems they feel, albeit wrongly yet again, that they are paying for their own "terrorist" abuse by CBC's airing the show. No those opposing the show don't feel that and haven't argued that. You have to misstate the argument because the true argument cannot be disputed. No those opposing the show don't feel that and haven't argued that. Well I have read several pages of posts that that is a very good paraphrase, when taken in context of my whole post, of what is being said by, not just you rickibobbi, but by a other posters too. Go back and read the thread over. hard to miss as i gave direct quotes in words from some posts. You have to misstate the argument because the true argument cannot be disputed. What have I misstated by way of the argument? I gave a synopsis of the entire thread and dialogue line as one of the reading public view points. What is the true arguement that can't be disputed, and according to whom is it true? Quote When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Yet, CTV, Global and all other private broadcasters are free to buy programming from around the world. CBC must air Canadian only programming. In that light, funding is only an leveling of the playing field. Stig, that's not even close to correct. Let's look at the CBC schedule for today in my hick little prairie city. Here's the link. 9 AM - Curious George 10 AM - Clifford the Big Red Dog 1 PM - Antiques Roadshow 4 PM - Frasier 5 PM - The Simpson's 7 PM - Coronation Street 7:30 - Coronation Street Boy if they must air *Canadian only programming* they are definitely not following the rules. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Catchme Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Compare the funding. The pittance given to CG is nothing compared to the billions poured into the CBC. Yet, CTV, Global and all other private broadcasters are free to buy programming from around the world. CBC must air Canadian only programming. In that light, funding is only an leveling of the playing field. They kinda got it all, all wrong though in the first place, on Canadian programs being shown on the CBC in regards to; the funding, the sponsorship, and the platform from which to view said programs. Assumption 1 - CBC funds, produces and airs all the programs it shows. INCORRECT Assumption 2 - CBC takesmoney away from other Canadian stations, by depriving them of access to monies from the government and advertising dollars. INCORRECT Assumption 3 - The CBC is a governmental mouth piece. INCORRECT There are more but those are the top 3 assumptions that are so incorrect. CBC does produces and air some of its own shows. However, if you watch the end of any show on the CBC it will tell you who the producers were/are, producers being the ones fronting/managing the cash sources for the programing. For example someone took an idea like that of LMoTP and sold their idea to a org, or group, that had funding available to do such a show, on such a topic. Funding sources to make the show happen could be the Gov of Canada, of BC, AB, or Sask, or the University of Sask, the National Film Board of Canada, or the National Geographic or any of the other privately funded production companies in Canada. Now the new show "idea" has "backers", the creators and/or producers need to find a station to air it on. So they set out and let's say they first go to Global and they hear; "no, too risky for my sponsors, they can't use it until its proven" or "I won't be able to sell it to my sponsors", and then they go to CTV/Comedy Network and they get told again "no, too risky" etc etc. Now who is left that has a Canada wide viewing audience and who has an actual mandate to fill niche markets with programs created by Canadians, that main line Canadian stations can't or won't fill? The CBC. So the CBC Programming Directors (or whoever makes programing selections) says;" okay, no one else wants to touch it, we will see if we can get sponsorship on Sunday nights from 9-10 for 9 weeks, and then we see". Sure enough, they go to their sponsors some of whom obviously said; "yes, I will sponsor this for a pilot 9 weeks", as the show is on the air. The cost out lay for the CBC at this point is; a meeting to see if they wanted to pick it up for 9 weeks, some telephone calls to sponsors, a meeting to sign contracts, and then meetings to plan to air and advertise it. And the only cash outlay that can be seen as coming from the Canadian taxpayers pockets is the initial meeting costs with the creator(s) and/or producer(s). After that advertising dollars from sponsors cover everything. 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 Quote When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 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. The marginal costs vaguely alluded to here don't include a share of the huge overhead that needs to be accounted for somewhere. 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. These are costs that Global and CTV manage to cover without taxpayer money. 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. 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... http://www.cbcwatch.ca/ Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Black Dog Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 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. These are costs that Global and CTV manage to cover without taxpayer money. Yet it's appropriate for the taxpayers to cover some of their costs. Why? http://www.cbcwatch.ca/ Ah, so that's where you've been getting your material. Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 Yet it's appropriate for the taxpayers to cover some of their costs. Why? Why is it appropriate for taxpayers to cover the majority of the CBCs costs? Ah, so that's where you've been getting your material. Which material would that be? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.