Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

41 - 60 of 100 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
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.
So now it's not just "country bumpkins" but also Albertans as a whole. Your posts get better each time. I'm surprised such an urbane, progressive sophisticate such as yourself would flame with such generalisations.

Perhaps you're right- maybe the CBC should remove any reference to Alberta being part of Canada at all, lest it offend the extraordinary tastes of renaissance men such as yourself.

add- last I checked my taxes, and those of all Canadians, funded the CBC. The mothercorp has a mandate to service all Canadians even the dastardly Albertans and "country bumbkins" or those who don't have your more refined tastes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
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.
except lower income people who can't afford cable, "country bumpkins" who are living in rural areas (a group whose lifestyle you feel shouldn't be "glorified" as Canadian) or the people of the north who can only receive the CBC OTA.

or the millions of Canadians living rurally or in the north who depend on CBC radio as their source of culture and information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Sorry but that is not fact, its merely your opinion (which you are entitled to of course).
This, of course, is the problem with government supported broadcasters, art, entertainment, etc. The government uses money appropriated from everyone but personal taste differs.

Most often, the government wants to subsize the 'art' that it deems the public should appreciate, but doesn't support. Symphony orchestras are a prime example.

I have to agree with trask. Get the government out of it. The CBC should rely on individual and corporate support. If the CBC can't attrack that support, it should die.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,318 Posts
I have to agree with trask. Get the government out of it. The CBC should rely on individual and corporate support. If the CBC can't attrack that support, it should die.
So should the same go for other industries (fisheries, automobile, etc.)? And say drop funding for federal museums and national parks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
In my opinion, yes. I am not a fan of corporate welfare (let the free market take care of things) or government supported culture. And yes, I know I am in the minority, but that is my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
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.

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.

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.
You're right. TV is a business. Shows are a product. And if producers can find someone to purchase the rights in another country to rebroadcast the show of course they will sell it. Makes sense to me. That's what I would do, too.

The system still seems like it is set-up to to cost Canadians more than it has to, though. It's not a subsidy. It's not a tax. But it is still $$ out of viewers' pockets.

As I said, I'm willing to go along with the system since I am happy to have my CTV and CityTV local news and programming. To CTV's credit, they have produced a lot of quality, entertaining, and marketable programming in recent years (as had CBC).

It's just when I hear about how people defend Canadian private broadcasters saying they shouldn't have to work so hard to compete against a publicly subsidized corporation (CBC) because it's not a fair fight, it seems a little funny to me. Especially since in the next breath the same person will say that everything the CBC produces is junk, unappealing to audiences, and that no one watches it. Then why is it so hard to compete?

What about primetime network shows like Dateline NBC or 48 Hours Mystery that don't get picked-up by a Canadian network for simsub? The producers are not blocking their shows distribution into Canada and asserting their rights to sell the show for rebroadcast to a Canadian network.

If the CBC network is carried by Buffalo cable operators, are show producers for Being Erika getting paid or otherwise blocking the signal? I think the broadcast rights for Being Erika have been sold to a US cable network SOAPnet. Is CBC's broadcast of Being Erika blacked-out by Buffalo cable operators when it is shown?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
except lower income people who can't afford cable,
It's funny that you accuse me of stereotyping the "Cletus the slack jawed yokel" crowd yet you're doing the same thing here towards the lower income crowd.

First off basic is $30 a month so most lower income people could afford that. I live well below the poverty line yet the reason why cable became useless for me was when CTV/Canwest dumbed down Showcase/Bravo into mainstream gutter channels instead of cutting edge arts channels.

Just because we're lower income doesn't mean we want braindead crap that Canadian TV has turned into. CBC used to be the exception to that. A sorta Canadian HBO for all Canadians with remarkable programming from The Kids in the Hall to The Newsroom to Twitch City.

Now it's just pedantic and it appeals to the yokels of Canada.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
Nice attempt at spin. The major difference is you painted an entire group of people in a derogatory, disrespectful way. I did not. Do we need to review your posts?

I hardly think disputing your ludicrous claim that only "urban progressives" should have a say in the CBC's mandate by pointing out that many rural, northern, and lower income Canadians, (as well as those who just choose not to support the BDU's) depend on the CBC as a primary source of information and culture, is stereotyping- but I understand your desire to deflect attention away from your insulting comments

You are lucky someone didn't report your posts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
Reported my ports? For saying that the Ceeb has been pandering to the low brow country bumkin crowd instead of the more high brow crowd that want programming that is brilliant?

For pointing out Alberta privatized their prov pubcaster?

And that it'd be foolish for the CBC to continue to pander to them and their almost all right wing elected government led by a man who openly called for the CBC to be privatized instead of markets like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and the east coast who has historically been supportive of the CBC and who didn't elect almost 100% Conservative MPs led by a man who has called for the CBC to be privatized?

C'mon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 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?
Yeah you're preaching to the choir in regards to Canadian Private Broadcasters. I agree with you, and over the air is the best alternative if you don't want to support them.

The only thing I watch on CBC is HNIC. That package would be snapped up in an instant by a private broadcaster if made available; so to me the CBC is really irrellevant. It attracts 1% of the population to it's broadcasts regularly, and I guarantee you the majority of that is for HNIC. I understand that some Canadians view the CBC as a cultural necessity and enjoy some of it's homegrown programming, but as with any product that is based upon people buying it or not, the CBC should stand on it's own merits, and not be propped up by government funding imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
So should the same go for other industries (fisheries, automobile, etc.)? And say drop funding for federal museums and national parks?
There's a very big difference between helping industry that employs thousands if not millions, and a television station that attracts 1% of the population. That's a really poor argument to make. The CBC does not make money, and is a black hole for taxpayer dollars, in that they request more every year for adding nothing of value. It's been proven over and over how much money is wasted by execs of the CBC, and how little quality original programming they actually produce. This is an entity that appeals to a small amount of Canadians, while costing every Canadian. It needs to stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #52
Trask, you keep stating that CBC has 1% of the television audience. What is the source of this statistic?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
In my opinion, yes. I am not a fan of corporate welfare (let the free market take care of things) or government supported culture. And yes, I know I am in the minority, but that is my opinion.
This isn't about Corporate Welfare, this is about the Government providing a service to the people that private companies(whose only imperative is profit) are not interested in.

Unfortunately, right now, the CBC is not fulfilling that mandate, but that doesn't mean it can't. The BBC, France Televisions, ABC (Australia), TVNZ (New Zealand), ORF (Austria), and all the others, the do provide this service, and quite competantly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
CBC Subsidy...

FYI

I looked it up and CBC receives approx $1.1 billion per year as of 2009. Given the government currently in power, I doubt that amount has risen very much.

That would be for the whole operation including French and English and TV, radio, internet, etc. etc. Their operating budget is higher but the difference comes from revenues the CBC earns.

It is also worth noting that when the CRTC decided to allow local TV stations to negotiate with cable companies for carriage fees that the CBC was exempted from that.

The rationale is that if taxpayers are already paying for the CBC through their taxes, it would not be fair for the CBC to "double-dip" viewers by making them pay again through higher cable rates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,318 Posts
There's a very big difference between helping industry that employs thousands if not millions, and a television station that attracts 1% of the population.
Millions of Canadian employed by the auto or fisheries industries? That's a joke. What about the thousands of Canadians directly employed by the CBC (calling it a "television station" only makes it easier to discount your views) and the other thousands who produce content for their network of English and French television and radio stations or websites? Or are those jobs less important?

This is an entity that appeals to a small amount of Canadians...
You're wrong about that too... http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...upport-public-funding-for-cbc-poll-finds.aspx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
In my opinion; Stursberg was not the problem with the CBC. CBC no longer served the interests of Canadians since the early 90's when the Tory government punished regions across the country by closing CBC television stations in ridings held by Federal Liberals. One such station was CBIT Television in Sydney N.S. Lost was all local programming including Local news. I never really understood why the CBC went on to produce speciality channels and covered sporting events around the world when conventional broadcasters would have competed for the rights to do so.
I do not support the 1.1 Billion Dollar subsidy taxpayers contribute to the CBC.
The CBC has lost its mandate a long time ago and i think it should be privitized or shut down.
At the very least; it should survive on its own.
Best Regards!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Trask, you keep stating that CBC has 1% of the television audience. What is the source of this statistic?
I said no such thing. I said 1% of the population which is spelled out in this article that shows the highest per minute reading as 328,00 compared to 215,000 before Stursberg took over:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/08/14962161.html

That rating is always completely out of whack because of the huge numbers that HNIC draws, but at least Stursberg improved the overall numbers when HNIC wasn't on with a couple of reality shows, Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Millions of Canadian employed by the auto or fisheries industries? That's a joke. What about the thousands of Canadians directly employed by the CBC (calling it a "television station" only makes it easier to discount your views) and the other thousands who produce content for their network of English and French television and radio stations or websites? Or are those jobs less important?
Millions of Canadians are employed in industry, many thousands in the two examples you gave; which is why I was telling you your example was off base. The CBC doesn't employ nearly the amount of people those other industries do, and a number of their biggest entities like HNIC, would be picked up by other broadcasters ensuring those jobs would stay in tact. It also has little to do with the importance of the jobs. It's about putting taxpayer money into a losing proposition. The Government doesn't make a habit of sinking billions into the auto industry. They did it to avoid an economic meltdown of epic proportions. The CBC doesn't fall under that umbrella. It is a taxpayer funded TV and Radio Cultural entity that the majority of Canadians completely ignore.

As to your other point: Let's see, a poll done by a biased organization toward Canadian programming, that talked to 1200 people is somehow a feather in the pro CBC cap? Get real. All you have to do to see the reality of the situation is look at the numbers of who is actually watching, and they are terrible. There's no amount of spin you can put on this argument to change that.
 
41 - 60 of 100 Posts
Top