I did post a source. See above. It's not my opinion. What shows do you see CBC getting high ratings for that aren't HNIC? You like the CBC, good for you. If you want to keep it around, you should have to pay for it, not me.
Stursberg Booted From CBC
81 - 100 of 100 Posts
I explained my thoughts in the earlier post, and the individual ratings certainly don't help your position, so I'd stay away from that line of reasoning.
Thanks, I think you are as well.
I agree because of Hockey. If you ask people what they watch on CBC besides that, you'd have a very small number.
My point was simply to point out that the channel is popular with a minority of Canadians beyond Hockey. That is backed up by the average viewership and the weekly ratings throughout the year.
The problem with this is, that number is severely skewed due to the high number of Hockey fans that watch during the season. Without Hockey, and this year the Winter Olympics, those numbers drop dramatically. You don't get huge numbers of viewers watching "Little Mosque on the Prairie" or "The Nature of the Things."
I didn't say they were. I just posted what the average number of viewers were for the CBC at any given time, and then pointed out how the numbers were flawed based on the fact they get huge numbers for a select few entities, and low numbers for most of the others.
CBC's top drawing cards are either Sports, Reality programming or News. That is the problem. They don't create original scripted programming that appeals to the masses. What they hang their hat on, I can get anywhere and it's usually better produced. That 325,000 number I referred to is not based on individual ratings. It's an average that is severely skewed when 6 million people are watching the Hockey Playoffs every night over the course of two months.
Summer ratings and viewing is very different than during the times between Sept. and May. There's far fewer viewers over the Summer months.
I have sampled them all and don't like any of them, so telling you which is the worst is really redundant. Also I'm a Coke guy.
On this point we just differ on quality and personal preference. No right or wrong on this point. Everybody likes different things. I liked Corner Gas, I also liked the Trailer Park Boys, neither of which aired on the CBC. The one big elephant in the room is that I don't support any other channels with my tax money. Just one, and I'm tired of it.
Look Neil the point was the average number of people watching CBC at any given time is about 1% of the population. I'm not saying the same 1% are watching all the time. I'm saying that is their average and it's severely flawed due to the high numbers that tune in to HNIC and the playoffs.
Blast the Toronto Sun for ever having used that "average audience at any given minute" statistic! Trask will not go down without a fight!
That stat was used as a way to measure the audience size before-and-after of Stursberg's arrival and departure.
Other than that it's not really the type of standard that anyone uses to measure TV ratings.
Also, there was no comparison. The article did not require it. I don't have any stat to back this up, but my guess is that if CBC's average audience is 328K then perhaps CTV's is 550K -- or 2% of population.
The decision to renew or drop TV shows is based on each individual show's rating (I know you know this). If you look at CBC's comedy and drama shows' audience levels you'll find that they're not as bad as you think.
I think you are over-estimating the impact of Hockey Night In Canada's audience on CBC's overal average audience numbers. This year was a great year for audience numbers for HNIC playoffs. In round one, the average audience was around 1.5 million -- similar to what CTV gets for first-run American prime-time shows.
Maybe the Stanley Cup finals did the numbers you stated, but I don't know. It's definitely not 6 million viewers 24 hours per day for two months straight. Maybe it's an average of 2.5 million for three hours per day for approx 30 nights per year (not every game is on CBC). There are not games every day on CBC after Round 1.
That stat was used as a way to measure the audience size before-and-after of Stursberg's arrival and departure.
Other than that it's not really the type of standard that anyone uses to measure TV ratings.
Also, there was no comparison. The article did not require it. I don't have any stat to back this up, but my guess is that if CBC's average audience is 328K then perhaps CTV's is 550K -- or 2% of population.
The decision to renew or drop TV shows is based on each individual show's rating (I know you know this). If you look at CBC's comedy and drama shows' audience levels you'll find that they're not as bad as you think.
I think you are over-estimating the impact of Hockey Night In Canada's audience on CBC's overal average audience numbers. This year was a great year for audience numbers for HNIC playoffs. In round one, the average audience was around 1.5 million -- similar to what CTV gets for first-run American prime-time shows.
Maybe the Stanley Cup finals did the numbers you stated, but I don't know. It's definitely not 6 million viewers 24 hours per day for two months straight. Maybe it's an average of 2.5 million for three hours per day for approx 30 nights per year (not every game is on CBC). There are not games every day on CBC after Round 1.
I agree. That was exactly my point a while back. At least with the CBC I know how much money they're getting and can account for how it is spent. Who knows how much more Canadians are paying for TV than they might otherwise be with private broadcasters and cable companies?
The majority is always right???
Hm...
All of you who say don't bother with a public broadcaster that most of the public, (without any statistical evidence), doesn't support, probably don't want the taxpayers to pay for libraries - how many of you use them? - national parks, defence, hospitals, whatever.
If everything we do as a nation has to be justified by paying for itself or by being supported by a majority of the public, I shudder to think what would qualify.
Come to think of it, a majority of the public didn't vote for the party that governs this country.
It's about values and quality of life that we need a public broadcaster. I'm glad the regime has been ousted at CBC because I disagreed in the direction he took the service. But I remain dismayed at the thought of pulling the plug on the place to appease those who don't want it. Though, Harper would probably love it if that happened.
Hm...
All of you who say don't bother with a public broadcaster that most of the public, (without any statistical evidence), doesn't support, probably don't want the taxpayers to pay for libraries - how many of you use them? - national parks, defence, hospitals, whatever.
If everything we do as a nation has to be justified by paying for itself or by being supported by a majority of the public, I shudder to think what would qualify.
Come to think of it, a majority of the public didn't vote for the party that governs this country.
It's about values and quality of life that we need a public broadcaster. I'm glad the regime has been ousted at CBC because I disagreed in the direction he took the service. But I remain dismayed at the thought of pulling the plug on the place to appease those who don't want it. Though, Harper would probably love it if that happened.
I hear what you're saying, but it's also about 50 percent of our hard earned income going to taxes. That has to be looked at.
I personally very much enjoy CBC radio2 nearly every day. It, along with Alberta's listener supported public radio CKUA, are my stations of choice. No commercials and excellent programming.
I sometimes wonder if perhaps viewer/listener supported is the way to go, along with some grants and limited corporate support. It's democratic, and places extra emphasis on providing viewers with the programming they want in order to survive.
Get rid of the commercials. The same four or five commercials played over and over again on the CBC makes me want to yank my hair out!
At any rate, I have read recently that Strasberg was behind the sexed up,idiotic changes to CBC News, so I'm glad to see him go if for no other reason than that.
Also, let's save the political comments for the politics section.
PBS, NPR, etc. get 40% of funding from government.
I never really knew this. It seems clear that many others here don't either.
I looked up the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's website - it is a major source for funding of shows on PBS and NPR. It is like a crown corporation in Canada. It is funded by annual federal appropriations.
Once all is said-and-done approx 60% of public television and radio funding comes from private corporate donations and and from "viewers like you" and about 40% comes from CPB, and other federal, state, and local funding.
I never knew this. I just thought it might be interesting to those who have been reading this thread.
I never really knew this. It seems clear that many others here don't either.
I looked up the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's website - it is a major source for funding of shows on PBS and NPR. It is like a crown corporation in Canada. It is funded by annual federal appropriations.
Once all is said-and-done approx 60% of public television and radio funding comes from private corporate donations and and from "viewers like you" and about 40% comes from CPB, and other federal, state, and local funding.
I never knew this. I just thought it might be interesting to those who have been reading this thread.
HWP said:
Nearly all worthwhile uplifting, informative and artistic endeavours have been subsidized over the centuries. The Renaissance was largely fuelled by private donations from wealthy people who were the de facto governments of the day. Stursberg was rightly booted from the CBC because his 'art' wasn't worthy of sponsorship by anyone.
What a load of complete rubbish and hyperbole. That's one of the other problems when it comes to discussing this topic with CBC supporters. Too often the subject matter turns to name calling and assertions that "well if you don't support funding the CBC then you must not support other public funding of things like hospitals, and looking after wildlife and fisheries blah, blah blah." No folks, the reality is, I'd rather see a big chunk of that billion plus dollars go to more worthwhile things like health care, rather than to a cultural entity that appeals to a small segment of the country.
Supporters of CBC always go off track and bring in these other comparisons, because the cold simple truth is: there isn't wide spread support of the CBC where it counts and that is viewers. CBC Radio does pretty well in a number of markets and that's fine, but that is not where the majority of the money is spent.
I'd even settle for a model like HWP provided from the states. If it has to be funded by taxpayers, at least reduce the amount and offset it with private funding and viewer donations. Take the most expensive items off the schedule and let them go to private broadcasters where at least the viewer has the option as to whether to pay for them or not. I know we pay a fee to fund Canadian broadcasters and soon that will expand to local news, but we do it with our cable bill, not our taxes. In other words we have the option not to pay it if we wish. Other government subsidies to Canadian productions do exist, but not nearly at the same level as the money given to the CBC.
So if the CBC must exist as a publicly funded entity, then at least reduce the amount given and make CBC an all Canadian content broadcaster that doesn't spend whopping amounts on sports and American game shows. It' s not ideal in my mind, but at least a better model than what we have now.
And *I'd* like to see the CBC move to the BBC model which guarantees stable funding through TV license fees. And a budget of $3.4 billion dollars (about half that of the BBC). Then you'd see American game shows booted off the network and ad-free programs.
So in your opening statement you make a clear political swipe (since clearlyy the CBC doesn't get 100% of taxes) and in your closing statement you chide others for making political statements.
Remarkable.
Try reading it again and see if you are able to possibly interpret it differently.
The final remark was meant as a general reminder to all of us, as I had just finished reading several posts which made reference to specific political parties. The first remark was in discussion with the previous poster in regards to keeping in mind there is a cost involved in enjoying public institutions to also be considered. It was not meant as a political statement. The comments were meant to be seperate.
I'm sorry if that is how it came across to you.
The final remark was meant as a general reminder to all of us, as I had just finished reading several posts which made reference to specific political parties. The first remark was in discussion with the previous poster in regards to keeping in mind there is a cost involved in enjoying public institutions to also be considered. It was not meant as a political statement. The comments were meant to be seperate.
I'm sorry if that is how it came across to you.
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
I don't know enough about NPR to say, but for PBS TV, the (part) federally funded entity known as PBS it largely a program production, purchasing, and distribution system (they might fund production through some affiliates, such as the This Old House Series through WGBH), and not really into broadcasting themselves, except for the PBS-X channel. Broadcasting is up to the state and local public broadcasters, who partly pay the PBS network for those programs.
81 - 100 of 100 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!