Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

21 - 40 of 100 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
You know there is a big island of ice floating near Greenland now! It a sign that the CBC need to send Bob Cole, Ron MacLean and Don Cherry floating away on that Iceberg!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
It's about time. CBC's news programming has taken a nosedive in quality in the past 2-3 years, and I've found CTV's journalistic integrity questionable in recent years. Global is my choice for national news now; used to be CBC for me.

At the regional level, I've found at least the Toronto newscast has become unwatchable. It seems so disjointed and lacking in real hard news. Lindsay Lohan news? Puh-leeze. Granted, the half hour they were alloted just a few years ago was insufficient for them to adequately cover Toronto-area news, but an hour should be sufficient. Ninety minutes is excessive, especially when a lot of material is repeated.

I remember there was talk not too long ago that the programming strategy used for CBC Television was soon going to be extended to CBC Radio - the Radio One network, at the least, performs extremely well in many parts of the country, far better than CBC TV (although I personally think CBC Radio has taken a similar nosedive in quality in the past 2-3 years that TV did). I wonder if this firing was related to fears over CBC Radio would be destroyed to the point it lost significant market share in key markets like Toronto and Ottawa.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
That would be a huge, HUGE mistake. Trust me.
Why? It costs taxpayers more than a billion dollars a year to sustain and delivers virtually nothing in return. What is the point of continuing to fund a public broadcaster that doesn't interest most of the public?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
NakedGord - What an arrogant and insulting comment. Canada was settled by "country bumpkins", and many still live rurally for a variety of reasons, people with attitudes like yours being one of them. Do you like eating? because it's the "bumpkins" and the small centres which service them that allow you the luxury of going to your superior urban supermarket to leisurely buy food.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Why? It costs taxpayers more than a billion dollars a year to sustain and delivers virtually nothing in return. What is the point of continuing to fund a public broadcaster that doesn't interest most of the public?
It may cost a billion dollars per year in subsidies but I don't feel we get virutally nothing in return for it.

CBC Radio One is the station I listen to almost exclusively. And now that Radio Two has cut down on the classical and increased play of Canadian mainstream music it's playing a growing role in exposing the young generation of Canadians to Canadian artists. These two stations are success stories. Large and growing audiences.

During my life, CBC News has played a big part. When I look back major news events in my life, I recall often that it was CBC's coverage that I watched (Constitution 1982, multiple political party leadership conventions, elections, Canadian reporters stationed abroad, etc.). I'd flip channels to CTV and Global and often ended back at CBC because their coverage was better. Plus NHL. And many good shows over the years.

In a country where $$ are scarse, it is always painful and controversial to direct money towards a public broadcaster and the arts and other things where their tangible contribution to society is difficult or impossible to measure.

I'm glad we've got the CBC. I'd like to see it get more funding. As long as there is oversight on its spending.

As for private broadcasters having to compete against a subsidized corporation (that supposedly because of its inefficient use of its resources produces sub-standard, low quality shows), tough luck. Why not pick up more superior American programming like CSI Cleveland, CSI Pittsburgh, CSI Portland to run against Being Erica, Republic of Doyle, etc.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
844 Posts
Why? It costs taxpayers more than a billion dollars a year to sustain and delivers virtually nothing in return.
Sorry but that is not fact, its merely your opinion (which you are entitled to of course). There are many who watch the CBC and enjoy the programming they air. Also of note, the billion dollars you refer to is not soley for the television service, its funding for the entire operation- the money that CBC TV receives is only a fraction of that.

As for private broadcasters having to compete against a subsidized corporation
The CBC should not be competing with private broadcasters, that is part of the problem here. Current management has turned it into a commercial venture, trying to make it similar to the private stations which is the wrong approach IMO. CBC should (and does for the most part) air exclusively CANADIAN content while the private broadcasters air exclusively AMERICAN programming so I don't see how one can say they compete against one another when they air completely different programming?!

Also they both serve different audiences, CTV & Global cater to those who are interested in foreign programming while CBC caters to those who want to watch quality, original programming created here at home by homegrown talent. They have produced many good shows, unfortunately many have been cancelled due to the current policies of creating ratings winners instead of good, stable shows that have a solid following. Not all good shows are number 1 in the ratings or have millions of viewers but it appears that to the current regime at the Ceeb, that is all they care about?! Hopefully this change at the top will result in an overhaul of all current policies and lead to a different approach in how they operate?!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,737 Posts
CBC Television will never be able to satisfy its critics under its current funding arrangement — a public broadcaster mainly funded by government.
On the one hand, if it has too much mass appeal, CBC will be accused of eating into the ratings and revenues of private conventional broadcasters.
On the other hand, if it caters only to an audience that isn't served by those same broadcasters, CBC will be accused of being elitist and not providing value for all the federal money we pour into it.
This is why I've always felt bad in a way for Richard Stursberg, his predecessors and his successors — whatever they do will always be wrong for one part of the CBC audience or another.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Global, CTV, et. al. are subsidized, too...

I must admit it rubs me the wrong way when I hear knee-jerk criticisms of the CBC that make it obvious that the person doing the criticizing has never listened to CBC radio before and/or hasn't watched the CBC in over twenty years. If you're ideologically opposed to the idea of having a public broadcaster, just say that. You may be against the whole idea of public broadcasting but that doesn't mean everything the public broadcaster produces is of no value and is of poor quality.

I'm just throwing this out here, folks. But doesn't it seem like a form of government support when the Canadian government protects our market from foreign (American) TV signals coming through cable/sat? This whole thing about Canadian broadcasters buying the Canadian rights to American shows strikes me as a bit of an artificial industry supported by government.

Canada's private broadcasters buying the right to broadcast American programs in Canada seems like it wouldn't be as lucrative as it is for them without the benefit of government policy.

Almost all Canadians could be receiving the originating feed from the CBS/NBC/ABC over cable/sat and/or over-the-air. It is government policy that forces cable companies to sub-in Canadian advertising over the American network affiliate channels, thus protecting our market.

It's pretty easy to envision a way to make the system more efficient by cutting the Canadian private broadcasters out of the picture. We could just watch the American show on the NBC affiliate channel provided by our cable company.

If we take away this form of government subsidy, we would all be able to observe what true entrepreneurial geniuses our private broadcasters are.

I'm not saying that the system we have is wrong. It just seems like Canada's government has to go to extraordinary measures to provide an opportunity for Canadian "private business" to re-sell something to us that we could or ought to have access to relatively easily. When there are two culturally and linguistically similar countries literally touching each other, I would think things like TV shows would flow freely over each other's border. You have to make an effort to stop it. And Canada does - to the benefit of private broadcasters.

I just wanted to point out that there are multiple forms of government help. CBC gets direct funding. Private broadcasters exist because of government protectionism.

By the way, I also support the idea of 100% Canadian programming on CBC. All we need is another player competing sim-sub rights for Law & Order and CSI. I might be a hypocrite as far as Coronation Street is concerned, though.

See how hot and bothered people are about the CBC. We do care!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Sorry but that is not fact, its merely your opinion (which you are entitled to of course). There are many who watch the CBC and enjoy the programming they air. Also of note, the billion dollars you refer to is not soley for the television service, its funding for the entire operation- the money that CBC TV receives is only a fraction of that.



The CBC should not be competing with private broadcasters, that is part of the problem here. Current management has turned it into a commercial venture, trying to make it similar to the private stations which is the wrong approach IMO. CBC should (and does for the most part) air exclusively CANADIAN content while the private broadcasters air exclusively AMERICAN programming so I don't see how one can say they compete against one another when they air completely different programming?!

Also they both serve different audiences, CTV & Global cater to those who are interested in foreign programming while CBC caters to those who want to watch quality, original programming created here at home by homegrown talent. They have produced many good shows, unfortunately many have been cancelled due to the current policies of creating ratings winners instead of good, stable shows that have a solid following. Not all good shows are number 1 in the ratings or have millions of viewers but it appears that to the current regime at the Ceeb, that is all they care about?! Hopefully this change at the top will result in an overhaul of all current policies and lead to a different approach in how they operate?!
Yes it's my opinion, and the ratings show that my opinion is shared by quite few more Canadians than yours. If by "many" you mean about 1% of our population, then you're right, but I don't consider 1% a lot in any standard of measurement. I didn't say the whole Billion went to the TV operation. I said we spend a billion dollars a year on a public broadcaster that only appeals to a minority of Canadians. That's not my opinion, that is a ratings fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
That would be a huge, HUGE mistake. Trust me.
I agree but that statement is taken out of context. What I am saying is that a pubcaster that appeals to a market that has a history of privatizing pubcasters instead of a more urban, progressive demo at the expense of ratings or otherwise is placing themselves in jeapordy of being privatized.

Infact those higher ratings may make them more appealing to be privatized since it would be of more interest to the private industry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
I must admit it rubs me the wrong way when I hear knee-jerk criticisms of the CBC that make it obvious that the person doing the criticizing has never listened to CBC radio before and/or hasn't watched the CBC in over twenty years. If you're ideologically opposed to the idea of having a public broadcaster, just say that. You may be against the whole idea of public broadcasting but that doesn't mean everything the public broadcaster produces is of no value and is of poor quality.

I'm just throwing this out here, folks. But doesn't it seem like a form of government support when the Canadian government protects our market from foreign (American) TV signals coming through cable/sat? This whole thing about Canadian broadcasters buying the Canadian rights to American shows strikes me as a bit of an artificial industry supported by government.

Canada's private broadcasters buying the right to broadcast American programs in Canada seems like it wouldn't be as lucrative as it is for them without the benefit of government policy.

Almost all Canadians could be receiving the originating feed from the CBS/NBC/ABC over cable/sat and/or over-the-air. It is government policy that forces cable companies to sub-in Canadian advertising over the American network affiliate channels, thus protecting our market.

It's pretty easy to envision a way to make the system more efficient by cutting the Canadian private broadcasters out of the picture. We could just watch the American show on the NBC affiliate channel provided by our cable company.

If we take away this form of government subsidy, we would all be able to observe what true entrepreneurial geniuses our private broadcasters are.

I'm not saying that the system we have is wrong. It just seems like Canada's government has to go to extraordinary measures to provide an opportunity for Canadian "private business" to re-sell something to us that we could or ought to have access to relatively easily. When there are two culturally and linguistically similar countries literally touching each other, I would think things like TV shows would flow freely over each other's border. You have to make an effort to stop it. And Canada does - to the benefit of private broadcasters.

I just wanted to point out that there are multiple forms of government help. CBC gets direct funding. Private broadcasters exist because of government protectionism.

By the way, I also support the idea of 100% Canadian programming on CBC. All we need is another player competing sim-sub rights for Law & Order and CSI. I might be a hypocrite as far as Coronation Street is concerned, though.

See how hot and bothered people are about the CBC. We do care!
I don't agree with taxpayer dollars being used for a Public broadcaster and it's certainly not a knee jerk reaction. I have listened to CBC radio many times and watched CBC as well and I'm sorry but I don't share your opinion of it's quality. I see programs cheaply made and poorly acted, silly story lines and little of interest to me. This wouldn't be a problem under normal circumstances because different people like different things and can simply change the channel to something they prefer. The difference is, I'm helping to subsidize this organization that I find gives little in the way of entertainment, and that's a problem for me.

The other part of your post I completely agree with. I don't see the need for private broadcasters in Canada to be spending millions on programs we can see directly from American sources. Maybe if Canadian Broadcasters would put more of their money toward Canadian productions, we'd have better quality Canadian programming, but they don't, instead spending huge sums of money on the CSI's that are available down the dial.

I realize there is a group of Canadians that values the CBC, and I have no problem with that. All I'm saying is, the CBC should be subsidized by the people who watch it through a PBS type model, instead of taxpayers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
NakedGord - What an arrogant and insulting comment.
I'm sorry if you're offended, I truly am, but Alberta privatized their public tv broadcaster and IMO programming to that market with Wild Roses, Heartland or casting an Albertan in their darling Being Erica series is not a way to ensure a supporter base of people who would not want to see the CBC privatized. Just the opposite in fact.

Plus it's usually the rural areas that lean more right politically and it's that political idelogy which is usually the crowd that supports privatizing pubcasters.

If it wasn't for the progressive, urban supporter pubcasters would find few who would be advocates for them - and advocates are alot different than viewers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Trask said:

"...it's certainly not a knee jerk reaction..."

To be fair to you, nothing you said particularly rubbed me the wrong way (well, the part about virtually nothing of value...maybe a bit), but what I read by you reminded me of other more ingnorant things I've heard in the past by others who have criticized the CBC without really being familiar with it.

I wouldn't consider anything you said a knee-jerk reaction.

I agree with you that CBC TV is far from perfect. The CBC's shows are guilty of silly story lines --- much like virtually every other show on TV.

Correctly, you point out that your tax dollars are not going directly to support other networks' programming - your tax dolllars are going to the CBC. You're against that. I'm not. That's because we see the subsidy issue differently with respect to the CBC.

Anyone who subscribes to cable is indirectly subsidizing the system we have in place where CTV gets to sim-sub over CBS during CSI. Your tax dollars aren't paying for it. You're paying through higher cable bills.

At least with the CBC I'm getting some Canadian programming and I can see exactly how many dollars are going towards them.

Your position is consistent. You're opposed to government funding of the CBC and you think the current system regarding cable/private Canadian networks, and American programming is silly.

My position is consistent, too. The whole thing is silly, but I can see why the system exists this way and I'm willing to go along with it. I like my CBC so I support the funding. And the private broadcasters do a decent job providing us with local programming subsidized by imported American programming which is in turn subsidized by higher cable bills paid by Canadians. And possibly, the only reason why any Canadian private broadcasters are able to exist is because of protectionist government policy.

I recently cancelled my cable and went 100% over-the-air in Toronto -- I get every Canadian and US network. So I guess I have found the only way to beat the system! I can watch either the CTV Super Bowl or the Fox Super Bowl. Hmmm. Whose ads should I watch?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Sorry but that is not fact, its merely your opinion (which you are entitled to of course). There are many who watch the CBC and enjoy the programming they air. Also of note, the billion dollars you refer to is not soley for the television service, its funding for the entire operation- the money that CBC TV receives is only a fraction of that.
The mandate of CBC does not live up to what is delivered. It is a broadcaster that is supposed to appeal to the entire country. As for funding, the numbers are clear. CBC English gets 600 million and CBC French gets 400 million. The documents are public. Radio gets its own money.

The CBC should not be competing with private broadcasters, that is part of the problem here. Current management has turned it into a commercial venture, trying to make it similar to the private stations which is the wrong approach IMO. CBC should (and does for the most part) air exclusively CANADIAN content while the private broadcasters air exclusively AMERICAN programming so I don't see how one can say they compete against one another when they air completely different programming?!
The only measure of success with a broadcasting enterprise is if people are watching. It's seriously the only worthwhile metric. They want to justify a billion, they have to show that a decent number of people are watching.

Also they both serve different audiences, CTV & Global cater to those who are interested in foreign programming while CBC caters to those who want to watch quality, original programming created here at home by homegrown talent. They have produced many good shows, unfortunately many have been cancelled due to the current policies of creating ratings winners instead of good, stable shows that have a solid following. Not all good shows are number 1 in the ratings or have millions of viewers but it appears that to the current regime at the Ceeb, that is all they care about?! Hopefully this change at the top will result in an overhaul of all current policies and lead to a different approach in how they operate?!
http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/docs/policies/program/mandate.shtml

That's not changing. That's exactly what you want. It fails for a reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
The CBC needs, as I mentioned, a restructuring and re-direction. As said before, BBC and ABC in Australia are very popular and highly competitive with their commercial counterparts. Infact, BBC One was voted Britain's most popular channel in 2001 and has held that title ever since! If the CBC wants to garnish more viewers, it needs to compete, to bring us the best that British, Aussie, European and American television has to offer, while at the same time producing great Canadian programming, that other networks such as CTV and Global don't seem to have an interest in. Great news and informative programming, entertainment, non-mainstream and documentary, even sports! There is a tonne of things the CBC could offer to Canadians that we would value, if only they had the direction the needed. Unfortunately, so far no head of the CBC has seemed to have much brains when it comes to the obvious.

As for funding, that does need fixing, however Trask, who claimed it costs us a Billion a year is absolutely out of his mind. A good funding plan in my mind, would be a Television license of 12 dollars a year per family, 1 dollar a month. That would go along way to helping the CBC, without costing an exorbidant amount. This would ofcourse be contingent on the CBC providing people with good programming.

(Appoint me to the CBC, I'd have it running straight in 2 years, I gaurentee it;))
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
Stursberg's mistake was trying to unfairly compete with private broadcasters by making CBC just as shallow and commercial driven as any private network.

Just as a point of information; all Canadian video and film productions are government subsidized whether made by CBC, CTV or Global through a tax credit.

Perhaps the CRTC should leave Cancon to the CBC and allow the private networks to produce and show whatever they like. They pretty well do anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
The change was overdue. His legacy will be the guy who brought Wheel of Fortune to CBC, where contestants buy vowels and consonants to solve word puzzles for cash......

And the new head of CBC TV could take a page from CBC radio 1 in Toronto. Well produced and researched radio programs have vaulted them to number 1 in the ratings, rather than sink to the lowest common denominator of aping the intellectually lazy, thrown together call-in talk radio shows with moronic "personalities". (John Moore would be the exception).

Speaking of cancelled CBC shows. You can add Wonderland and The Tournament to the list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
...
I'm just throwing this out here, folks. But doesn't it seem like a form of government support when the Canadian government protects our market from foreign (American) TV signals coming through cable/sat? This whole thing about Canadian broadcasters buying the Canadian rights to American shows strikes me as a bit of an artificial industry supported by government.

Canada's private broadcasters buying the right to broadcast American programs in Canada seems like it wouldn't be as lucrative as it is for them without the benefit of government policy.

Almost all Canadians could be receiving the originating feed from the CBS/NBC/ABC over cable/sat and/or over-the-air. It is government policy that forces cable companies to sub-in Canadian advertising over the American network affiliate channels, thus protecting our market.

It's pretty easy to envision a way to make the system more efficient by cutting the Canadian private broadcasters out of the picture. We could just watch the American show on the NBC affiliate channel provided by our cable company.

If we take away this form of government subsidy, we would all be able to observe what true entrepreneurial geniuses our private broadcasters are.

I'm not saying that the system we have is wrong. It just seems like Canada's government has to go to extraordinary measures to provide an opportunity for Canadian "private business" to re-sell something to us that we could or ought to have access to relatively easily. When there are two culturally and linguistically similar countries literally touching each other, I would think things like TV shows would flow freely over each other's border. You have to make an effort to stop it. And Canada does - to the benefit of private broadcasters.
...
Television is a business. Companies invest huge amounts of money to develop and produce programs. They get the money back by licensing various companies to broadcast the programs in different countries of the world. Canadians originally viewed US stations because they could be received over the air along the border. Later, cable operators were permitted to carry the US stations because the industry would have failed without them. Satellite eventually carried them to every corner of the nation.

Program producers license US networks to broadcast their programs in the US. Similarly, they license Canadian networks to broadcast the same programs in Canada. In short, the program producers get paid for the Canadian broadcast rights even though some of the Canadian viewers are watching them on US stations. You can be certain that if Canada tried to import US networks into this country without the US program producers getting license fees, they would be on the phone in a flash to get their favourite politicians to start a trade war.

If the US networks had full access to the Canadian market and could become broadcasters or affiliate with Canadian stations, they would have to buy the Canadian rights as well as the US rights. Of course, the US owned 'Canadian' station might prefer to have you watch their network's nightly US newscast rather than a Canadian newscast from a Canadian perspective. Of course they might do a local newscast just like you see from Buffalo. The private broadcasters like CTV and Global would cease to exist or affiliate with a US network. US networks are very strong on local broadcast rights so they would quickly stop carriage of their US affiliates from US cities by Canadian cable and satellite companies.

So, what you see as a form of government protection is nothing more than the regular television licensing process in operation. There are no efficiencies to achieve by cutting Canadian broadcasters out of the equation unless you are also prepared to accept the end of private Canadian news programming and the termination of the staff.

This is a bit off-topic for a CBC thread but the "artificial industry" comment needed a response.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
The change was overdue. His legacy will be the guy who brought Wheel of Fortune to CBC, where contestants buy vowels and consonants to solve word puzzles for cash......

And the new head of CBC TV could take a page from CBC radio 1 in Toronto. Well produced and researched radio programs have vaulted them to number 1 in the ratings, rather than sink to the lowest common denominator of aping the intellectually lazy, thrown together call-in talk radio shows with moronic "personalities". (John Moore would be the exception).

Speaking of cancelled CBC shows. You can add Wonderland and The Tournament to the list.
Stursberg's contribution to the CBC won't really be appreciated for a decade or more. He managed to move programming toward the mainstream and generated better ratings as would be expected. He demonstrated that you can attract more viewers to CBC if you program to mainstream interests. Others have already proven that eclectic programming doesn't generate mainstream audiences.

I don't know why Stursberg left. Does anyone actually know if his departure signals a major change in programming policy? The departure was quick but not instantaneous so the reason could be personality clash or a disagreement on non-programming matters. A firing for being successful would sound really strange... On the other hand, perhaps the old guard finally succeeded in ousting him after a long campaign.

If a new head of CBC English television moves the network away from the mainstream and shrinks the audience with less popular fare then the consequences may be more than personal. Lower audiences make it easier to question the relevance of CBC and justify lower funding levels. CBC cannot go back to the old days - a new head will have to find a way to build on Stursberg's foundation and retain the higher audience ratings.
 
21 - 40 of 100 Posts
Top