CBC asks for $400M in increased government funding to go ad-free(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
CBC asks for $400M in increased government funding to go ad-free
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cbc-radio-canada-ad-free-proposal-1.3871077
130 comments
oh hey an even more thoroughly government controlled media outlet. their reporting is so biased and so far politically left its embarrassing to listen to. fuck those guys
In my view, the CBC is stronger with reporting than it is with the cheesy, low-budget original programming -- and I think they should focus on that.
When it comes to programming, I get that they want to have a 'Canadian voice' -- but the shows are always so cheesy. I'd rather they air some of the stronger programming from the BBC.
I'm not in-the-know, but they really messed up by losing Hockey Night in Canada.
When it comes to programming, I get that they want to have a 'Canadian voice' -- but the shows are always so cheesy. I'd rather they air some of the stronger programming from the BBC.
I'm not in-the-know, but they really messed up by losing Hockey Night in Canada.
Why don't they just have an optional premium subscription that makes it ad-free.
I'm old enough to remember the "it's your 8c/day" slogan for the (AU) ABC. CBC is proposing $46/year, which is only 12c. Pretty good deal!
Assuming that CBC were to get this, how does this not make CBC a literal paid-mouthpiece for whatever the government might ask?
Assume that the CBC is ad-free with this money(grant?) then what stipulations may the government make regarding what they may or may-not run?
I am fine with things being ad-free, it just seems like a request like this would be rife with manipulation/corruption... even if not day-one -- but even within five years - the narrative is then owned.
Assume that the CBC is ad-free with this money(grant?) then what stipulations may the government make regarding what they may or may-not run?
I am fine with things being ad-free, it just seems like a request like this would be rife with manipulation/corruption... even if not day-one -- but even within five years - the narrative is then owned.
Well, if you ask some of my more hardcore conservative relatives, they'll say the CBC is so slanted to the left that it should have all of its funding revoked.
Personally, I've voted Conservative, Liberal, and NDP in various elections at various times. Every election, I print out each party's platform, make notes, watch the debates, and only then make a decision.
Approaching the CBC from that perspective, I've found them to be quite fair overall. They actually seem a bit hostile to whoever is currently governing. I've seen the hosts of some of CBC's political shows give government ministers and MPs from all parties a hard time, asking them tough questions and pointing out when they contradicted themselves.
I think you concern is valid, but I haven't observed it happening even though CBC already receives lots of government funding.
Personally, I've voted Conservative, Liberal, and NDP in various elections at various times. Every election, I print out each party's platform, make notes, watch the debates, and only then make a decision.
Approaching the CBC from that perspective, I've found them to be quite fair overall. They actually seem a bit hostile to whoever is currently governing. I've seen the hosts of some of CBC's political shows give government ministers and MPs from all parties a hard time, asking them tough questions and pointing out when they contradicted themselves.
I think you concern is valid, but I haven't observed it happening even though CBC already receives lots of government funding.
The government already gives the CBC much more than 400M/year. And so far it seems to be fine.
Thanks - completely ignorant to the situation there...
> up from the current $34 per Canadian it currently receives,
they are publicly funded anyway.
edit: They also have a separate recommendation
http://future.cbc.ca/recommendations.html > Depoliticize CBC/Radio-Canada funding so that it is predictable and stable, tied to the existing five-year licence cycle, indexed to inflation, and separated from the election and annual government budget cycles. This would be similar to how the BBC now operates. Indexation is critical – without it, inflation of just 1.5% per year would erode the new government funding of $150 million to zero in just six years.
they are publicly funded anyway.
edit: They also have a separate recommendation
http://future.cbc.ca/recommendations.html > Depoliticize CBC/Radio-Canada funding so that it is predictable and stable, tied to the existing five-year licence cycle, indexed to inflation, and separated from the election and annual government budget cycles. This would be similar to how the BBC now operates. Indexation is critical – without it, inflation of just 1.5% per year would erode the new government funding of $150 million to zero in just six years.
Thanks - I am ignorant of the .ca market/regulation space...
Wouldn't that make every ad funded newspaper and TV channel a paid mouthpiece of its advertisers?
What is your reason for thinking they aren't?
Advertisers are almost completely in charge of what shows makes it to TV - that's what they do at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upfronts - they show advertisers proposed shows and the ad execs pick which ones make it to market.
The advertisers can't pick the specific content of news type shows, but they can pick which news shows are broadcast in the first place.
Advertisers are almost completely in charge of what shows makes it to TV - that's what they do at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upfronts - they show advertisers proposed shows and the ad execs pick which ones make it to market.
The advertisers can't pick the specific content of news type shows, but they can pick which news shows are broadcast in the first place.
Well, technically they tacitly are... meaning that if the advertiser didn't like what they were saying, the advertiser can pull funding... but if the funder (sans ads) is a state/government agent, then its much less desirable.
But if the public doesn't like how the government is running a public institution, they can elect different public officials.
To have anything resembling a similar amount of say about how a privately funded media company operates, I have to boycott all of its advertisers, which likely entails long-term lifestyle changes.
To have anything resembling a similar amount of say about how a privately funded media company operates, I have to boycott all of its advertisers, which likely entails long-term lifestyle changes.
What about the BBC they seem to walk the tightrope of being funded by the government while still being about as balanced as a news org can be.
$400,000,000 per year to produce audio content? Seems high. NPR is at $140,000,000.
CBC is also a premium quality television channel and news/media website. I believe CBC Radio is already ad free. The only ads I hear on it are ads for its own programming.
> The only ads I hear on it are ads for its own programming.
I wonder if they would also eliminate their house ads?
I wonder if they would also eliminate their house ads?
I hope not. They're not really ads so much as information. They're incredibly short and don't feel like ads. It's basically a, "Tonight at 8 we talk with some professor about some current event."
CBC produces at least 4 radio streams (Radio 1/2/3 in english, and at least one in french), and at least three TV channels (CBC TV, CBC News Network, and Radio-Canada)
To add to what you already have listed: there is a second radio stream in French (called Espace Musique) as well as a French equivalent to CBC News Network (called RDI for Réseau de l'information). There are also regional broadcast (in both French and English) as well as an international version.
There's also ARTV and Explora (both in french).
I'd be happy to pay my $45.71 per person per year. The BBC makes amazing shows - I don't see that Canada can't do the same. As Canadians, if we believe that we have something to say to the world, we need to fund saying it.
It provides close to zero value to me, I don't listen to radio at all.
What's your proposal to me? I'm supposed to pay $45.71 so other people can listen to the radio ad-free? When they can already listen with ads and basically pay for it themselves?
What's your proposal to me? I'm supposed to pay $45.71 so other people can listen to the radio ad-free? When they can already listen with ads and basically pay for it themselves?
This isn't a valid argument. You pay taxes for thousands of public services that you may or may not use. You elect the government that decides these things for you. You don't get to choose.
Some perfect examples: pot holes and road maintenance, tree care in your city, national parks, etc. etc. You could sit home and use nothing and still pay, and rightly so.
Some perfect examples: pot holes and road maintenance, tree care in your city, national parks, etc. etc. You could sit home and use nothing and still pay, and rightly so.
I've already addressed this. This isn't a valid argument, by that logic we should socialize everything and live in communism. Why don't we start with subsidizing your blog? How about socialized netflix subscriptions for all? Clearly there's a point at which something doesn't provide enough value to the average citizen to be worth paying for in taxes, but which they can go out and purchase themselves. Finding this line is the goal. So my argument here is perfectly valid.
To address your point more directly, many of those things benefit everyone generally. CBC however is neutral or even harmful to public knowledge. It benefits no one, except for those who share its biases. Media consumption needs to be a consumer choice to prevent the government promoting a certain set of biases that favor them.
For the same reason we don't have socialized food or cars, we shouldn't have socialized media. The market does a very good job sorting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to media as it does in most other industries.
Worse still, this creates an environment for socialized propaganda. We don't need a government mouthpiece we're forced to pay for. It's harmful to civilized society at large. Media is the very last thing we should socialize and the fact it's partially paid with tax revenue is enough of an insult to Canadians already. This is a negative value to citizens.
To address your point more directly, many of those things benefit everyone generally. CBC however is neutral or even harmful to public knowledge. It benefits no one, except for those who share its biases. Media consumption needs to be a consumer choice to prevent the government promoting a certain set of biases that favor them.
For the same reason we don't have socialized food or cars, we shouldn't have socialized media. The market does a very good job sorting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to media as it does in most other industries.
Worse still, this creates an environment for socialized propaganda. We don't need a government mouthpiece we're forced to pay for. It's harmful to civilized society at large. Media is the very last thing we should socialize and the fact it's partially paid with tax revenue is enough of an insult to Canadians already. This is a negative value to citizens.
This isn't just radio, this is also their television channel and the news website. I don't use the radio but I easily get $45/yr of value from the news I find through CBC.
Sure, but you're currently getting that value, it's still not an increase in value to you of $45/year. And it still doesn't rationalize it for someone like me who doesn't consume CBC content much to pay that.
I find they're way too politically slanted in their news coverage and I'd rather deal with the ads than pay them $45/year for the few programs I watch occasionally.
I find they're way too politically slanted in their news coverage and I'd rather deal with the ads than pay them $45/year for the few programs I watch occasionally.
Politically slanted in what direction?
I remember them criticizing the Chretien and Martin governments pretty heavily, then saw them do the same for Harper, and am seeing them criticize Trudeau quite heavily now that he seems to be dragging his feet on electoral reform.
A few elections ago, I remember a CBC host (can't remember which one) giving Jack Layton a hard time because he kept repeating talking points instead of actually answering questions.
I've voted for all three major parties at various points in my life, and I've watched CBC news criticize them all, which seemed fair to me.
But I completely understand that they way they cover things comes across differently to you.
I also find their non-political news coverage to be more calm and balanced than most alternatives. I was living in Ottawa during the Parliament Hill shooting a couple of years ago, and I remember following the coverage on both CBC and CNN. CNN had Wolf Blitzer flipping out and talking about multiple gunmen, while CBC had Peter Mansbridge staying calm, trying hard to separate fact from rumour. There were lots of remarks later on about the differences between the CBC and CNN coverage of the event[1].
It's fair to ask if the cost is worth it, but it's also fair to remember that it not being worth $45 a year for you doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I pay more tax than the average Canadian, and lots of it goes to things I'll never benefit from personally. I'm sure some it even goes to things I personally dislike. But I find that life is pretty decent overall, and what's best for me personally is not necessarily what's best for the country.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canad...
I remember them criticizing the Chretien and Martin governments pretty heavily, then saw them do the same for Harper, and am seeing them criticize Trudeau quite heavily now that he seems to be dragging his feet on electoral reform.
A few elections ago, I remember a CBC host (can't remember which one) giving Jack Layton a hard time because he kept repeating talking points instead of actually answering questions.
I've voted for all three major parties at various points in my life, and I've watched CBC news criticize them all, which seemed fair to me.
But I completely understand that they way they cover things comes across differently to you.
I also find their non-political news coverage to be more calm and balanced than most alternatives. I was living in Ottawa during the Parliament Hill shooting a couple of years ago, and I remember following the coverage on both CBC and CNN. CNN had Wolf Blitzer flipping out and talking about multiple gunmen, while CBC had Peter Mansbridge staying calm, trying hard to separate fact from rumour. There were lots of remarks later on about the differences between the CBC and CNN coverage of the event[1].
It's fair to ask if the cost is worth it, but it's also fair to remember that it not being worth $45 a year for you doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I pay more tax than the average Canadian, and lots of it goes to things I'll never benefit from personally. I'm sure some it even goes to things I personally dislike. But I find that life is pretty decent overall, and what's best for me personally is not necessarily what's best for the country.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canad...
You're already paying $36/year and dealing with ads.
Going ad-free and getting sixteen extra minutes per hour of additional television content isn't worth an extra $9 every year?
Going ad-free and getting sixteen extra minutes per hour of additional television content isn't worth an extra $9 every year?
It's actually $11 extra per year.
And no, it isn't remotely because I don't consume it. I'd rather the whole amount be removed.
CBC should be running in the private marketplace just like everyone else, considering the type of news coverage they tend to provide and the generally low quality entertainment they create. Tax payers paying for it seems like a complete waste of money. Just flushing money down the drain.
And no, it isn't remotely because I don't consume it. I'd rather the whole amount be removed.
CBC should be running in the private marketplace just like everyone else, considering the type of news coverage they tend to provide and the generally low quality entertainment they create. Tax payers paying for it seems like a complete waste of money. Just flushing money down the drain.
It sounds like you live in the wrong country to be arguing against socialized government services.
What next? Universal healthcare!?
What next? Universal healthcare!?
At least with something like universal healthcare I can see a guaranteed benefit in some ways. Both directly and indirectly. It's hard to predict healthcare costs. I can at least see the argument.
However, it's very easy to predict CBC consumption desires.
However, it's very easy to predict CBC consumption desires.
[deleted]
Do you think the low quality of the content has anything to do with the fact that advertisers pay for ratings? Conventional wisdom dictates that the best way to boost ratings is to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Seems to me the value proposition for a non-user is that the users the non-user interacts with are better informed through less commercially-biased sources. Something like the herd immunity value of vaccination.
That's a terrible value proposition, especially for someone who finds that CBC is extremely politically slanted in their news coverage. I would say I find regular CBC consumers slightly less informed on average if anything.
Personally, I find CBC the only news that is palatable. They do have a left slant, but that seem consistent with the average citizens position when compared to the USA and the news/media we get from them.
The stories are different too, which might come from an incentive to provide a public service rather than a sensationalization of what is happen as a profit motive.
The stories are different too, which might come from an incentive to provide a public service rather than a sensationalization of what is happen as a profit motive.
Perhaps freedom from advertisers' influence will have a positive affect on this (I'm not placing any bets though).
Which Canadian TV news channel is markedly less biased than CBC?
Both Global and CTV's I find tends to do a decent job covering both sides. CBC's leans pretty strongly to the left. We don't have a lot of strongly right leaning TV outlets in Canada, but I wouldn't encourage paying publically for the Sun or National Post either.
My mom is a Global fan, surely you've noticed their biases as well?
Realistically, the CBC's left leaning is a balance to all the conservative leaning of the other broadcasters.
There is value in providing content that isn't 100% profit incentivized, especially as a predominately left leaning country (relative to the USA).
Realistically, the CBC's left leaning is a balance to all the conservative leaning of the other broadcasters.
There is value in providing content that isn't 100% profit incentivized, especially as a predominately left leaning country (relative to the USA).
Global is rather conservative biased. I do find CTV to do pretty reasonably, and have some decent talent, but still I'd rather have a publicly funded organization that doesn't have to worry about ratings.
So what? Why do people think they should get a precise share of the value in public utilities? A public good has a calculable value, it's not simply the aggregate of everyone's private good. I'm so sick of this zero-sum mindset which has no rational basis in economics but rather demonstrates ignorance of anything beyond the individual's own economic activity.
Why don't we just have public food? And why only CBC? Why have consumer choice at all?
I'm willing to listen to that economic argument when it's hard to calculate the value you get from something or when you may have a large unexpected cost, but with things like this that have a clear use to value proposition and are completely optional, it's pretty clean cut.
I'm willing to listen to that economic argument when it's hard to calculate the value you get from something or when you may have a large unexpected cost, but with things like this that have a clear use to value proposition and are completely optional, it's pretty clean cut.
I disagree about your assessment of the use to value proposition. I find a distinct value in being in a population that has a base level of awareness about public affairs, which awareness is likely to be much better supported by a publicly owned broadcaster than one that has to be responsive to the needs of its advertisers. That remains true even if I don't listen to or watch said media myself.
> which awareness is likely to be much better supported by a publicly owned broadcaster than one that has to be responsive to the needs of its advertisers
Do you have any evidence to support this position? Especially with a biased source like CBC, it seems a pretty big claim.
Do you have any evidence to support this position? Especially with a biased source like CBC, it seems a pretty big claim.
I do, and I'm delighted you asked. There is some academic evidence (linked below in a relevant news article) but I would have held much the same attitude anyway having grown up and lived in countries with a public broadcaster and then moved to the US which doesn't really have one in the same way. My personal impression is that US consumers enjoy massive choice but that most of the products in he media market are total crap. Consumers are entertained, but that's like saying that consumers who eat a lot of fast food are satisfied by the taste; we can point to a legitimate economic preference, but we're fooling ourselves if we think that a Big Mac is high quality food.
Quality in media is hard to define, but I'd say it means delivering a decent awareness (in the aggregate obviously) of current affairs, sufficient cultural literacy to know a basic history of art, science, and nations, and somewhat greater familiarity with the history of the home country, stuff like that. It would be nice if there were no bias or ideological slant, but that's probably an unachievable goal, and only through the lens of history can we have much certainty about who was objectively right on any given topic. A charter should aim to minimize bias, while accepting its existence as an unavoidable trade-off of media organizations in general, and aiming for measurable improvements in functional knowledge among its consumers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/1...
Quality in media is hard to define, but I'd say it means delivering a decent awareness (in the aggregate obviously) of current affairs, sufficient cultural literacy to know a basic history of art, science, and nations, and somewhat greater familiarity with the history of the home country, stuff like that. It would be nice if there were no bias or ideological slant, but that's probably an unachievable goal, and only through the lens of history can we have much certainty about who was objectively right on any given topic. A charter should aim to minimize bias, while accepting its existence as an unavoidable trade-off of media organizations in general, and aiming for measurable improvements in functional knowledge among its consumers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/1...
[deleted]
[deleted]
I can't disagree on them being biased, i don't watch enough of them to say one way or the other. But they are one of the better news stations in Canada by far.
Biased is entertaining.
[deleted]
> I'm supposed to pay $45.71 so other people can listen to the radio ad-free?
Yes. It's part of the basic compact we call a civil society where we don't insist on a direct line between tax dollars paid and personally-felt value gained, because we trust that the larger, more comprehensive value of a strong civil society is worth more than $45.71.
After the number of times I've paid hundreds or thousands in extra property taxes to fund a stadium I'll never visit, where people I'll never befriend enjoy a sport I'll never play, I'm okay with this. More happiness all around benefits me generally.
Yes. It's part of the basic compact we call a civil society where we don't insist on a direct line between tax dollars paid and personally-felt value gained, because we trust that the larger, more comprehensive value of a strong civil society is worth more than $45.71.
After the number of times I've paid hundreds or thousands in extra property taxes to fund a stadium I'll never visit, where people I'll never befriend enjoy a sport I'll never play, I'm okay with this. More happiness all around benefits me generally.
What you're saying is of course completely true, but it also means that "I'd be happy to pay my $45.71 per person per year" is equally invalid as a indicator as to whether some public good or service is worthwhile. I believe your parent comment was calling that out, rather than making an argument that it's worth nothing at all.
As an aside, I think it's reaching quite a lot to say that an ad-free CBC is somehow equivalent to a "strong civil society". I get that you're saying it's an ingredient, but unless you quantify the value then it's an argument you could apply to absolutely everything under the sun. (The government should fund my blog for $0.01 per person, after all a strong civil society is certainly worth a penny each!)
As an aside, I think it's reaching quite a lot to say that an ad-free CBC is somehow equivalent to a "strong civil society". I get that you're saying it's an ingredient, but unless you quantify the value then it's an argument you could apply to absolutely everything under the sun. (The government should fund my blog for $0.01 per person, after all a strong civil society is certainly worth a penny each!)
The parent was saying that he shouldn't have to pay $45.71/year because there's no direct benefit to him. My response was that a strong civil society requires some latitude in how directly one needs to benefit in order to support taxes for things one doesn't directly enjoy. I agree that a mere willingness to fund something is not, in itself, a measure of some tax-funded good's actual value.
I do think that there's probably a good argument that a strong civil society requires a public broadcaster, but my analogy was more about relative equity--I'm okay with your sports stadium, if you're okay with my public broadcaster, because our civil society is better when there's public goods for both of us. And that doesn't even get into the direct economic benefits that are the mainstay arguments for sports stadiums and public broadcasters.
I do think that there's probably a good argument that a strong civil society requires a public broadcaster, but my analogy was more about relative equity--I'm okay with your sports stadium, if you're okay with my public broadcaster, because our civil society is better when there's public goods for both of us. And that doesn't even get into the direct economic benefits that are the mainstay arguments for sports stadiums and public broadcasters.
> The parent was saying that he shouldn't have to pay $45.71/year because there's no direct benefit to him.
It provides no indirect benefit either. Instead it misguides and misinforms people. The problem is that something like CBC provides no benefit to anyone in society who doesn't share it's biases. A government mouthpiece is absolutely not necessary for civilized society. Nor does it truly provide a benefit to anyone, but a detriment to society at large. I don't believe society should be forced to pay to pander to a specific political niche.
But if you're making this argument, why stop at socialized media? Certainly some people could benefit from socialized food or cars? Why do those things deserve consumer choice, but media doesn't? The market arguably does an even better job with media than those things.
It provides no indirect benefit either. Instead it misguides and misinforms people. The problem is that something like CBC provides no benefit to anyone in society who doesn't share it's biases. A government mouthpiece is absolutely not necessary for civilized society. Nor does it truly provide a benefit to anyone, but a detriment to society at large. I don't believe society should be forced to pay to pander to a specific political niche.
But if you're making this argument, why stop at socialized media? Certainly some people could benefit from socialized food or cars? Why do those things deserve consumer choice, but media doesn't? The market arguably does an even better job with media than those things.
First, slippery slope is a fallacy: having a public broadcaster does not lead to socialized cars.
Second, we do have socialized food, it's called welfare, and going forward, that situation will only increase under the name 'guaranteed basic income' because we're automating away all the jobs people might have.
Third, you have media choice in Canada: elsewhere you say CTV and Global are better. Good choice.
> It provides no indirect benefit either.
This is silly. It provides a lot of jobs that pay well or offer good security or both, which benefits the economy generally in a number of ways. It provides funding for the arts, also economically beneficial but also culturally valuable, to some at least. It provides a media outlet directly subject to government controls, which takes some heat off CTV and Global to meet policy goals that the CBC can fulfill, like Canadian Content. It provides a public good for people like me so that when a new levy for a stadium comes around, I'm okay with paying the levy even if I'll get no direct benefit myself.
> Instead it misguides and misinforms people.
Okay, you don't like seeing a viewpoint you find wrong and harmful to be funded with your tax dollars; if the gov't funded a version of Fox News up here, I'd probably feel the same way. Whether or not I actually opposed that public Fox North would depend on my feeling about whether I can tolerate it as part of the broader program of public spending--maybe I'd be fine with it if the CBC was then allowed to drift even further left.
The point remains that we collectively compromise in order to ensure that the public good reaches the broadest number of citizens. If you're unable to tolerate $45.71 a year going to something that your fellow citizens enjoy, suck it up: I'm sure there's lots you're enjoying now that they'd prefer not to fund.
Second, we do have socialized food, it's called welfare, and going forward, that situation will only increase under the name 'guaranteed basic income' because we're automating away all the jobs people might have.
Third, you have media choice in Canada: elsewhere you say CTV and Global are better. Good choice.
> It provides no indirect benefit either.
This is silly. It provides a lot of jobs that pay well or offer good security or both, which benefits the economy generally in a number of ways. It provides funding for the arts, also economically beneficial but also culturally valuable, to some at least. It provides a media outlet directly subject to government controls, which takes some heat off CTV and Global to meet policy goals that the CBC can fulfill, like Canadian Content. It provides a public good for people like me so that when a new levy for a stadium comes around, I'm okay with paying the levy even if I'll get no direct benefit myself.
> Instead it misguides and misinforms people.
Okay, you don't like seeing a viewpoint you find wrong and harmful to be funded with your tax dollars; if the gov't funded a version of Fox News up here, I'd probably feel the same way. Whether or not I actually opposed that public Fox North would depend on my feeling about whether I can tolerate it as part of the broader program of public spending--maybe I'd be fine with it if the CBC was then allowed to drift even further left.
The point remains that we collectively compromise in order to ensure that the public good reaches the broadest number of citizens. If you're unable to tolerate $45.71 a year going to something that your fellow citizens enjoy, suck it up: I'm sure there's lots you're enjoying now that they'd prefer not to fund.
> First, slippery slope is a fallacy: having a public broadcaster does not lead to socialized cars.
I was merely trying to draw a comparison to things we can agree shouldn't be socialized, where consumer choice matters, not that one leads to the other. I believe slippery slope fallacy requires the implication that in this case, publicly funding CBC leads to socialized cars. Which I didn't mean to imply is true if it came off that way. Just to draw a comparison to see how you thought of it differently, because I find them fairly comparable personally.
Even in welfare or the mincome proposals you have consumer choice over where to spend and exactly how much to spend on food. Which you don't in this case with CBC's media. That's the part I have a problem with.
> I'm sure there's lots you're enjoying now that they'd prefer not to fund.
And I'm quite confident there's not. In fact, there are very, very few things I feel that the government should be funding. I'm more than willing to give up just about anything the government provides me if they're willing to do the same.
Why is the opposite proposal of saying we should remove these things rejected outright? How about we all just pay for the stuff we use instead of paying for other people's stuff? If we had a mincome-style system, would you be more okay with this sort of proposal?
I'd be much more open to mincome proposals if we could get rid of cruft like this we're paying for. I think it could generate real economic efficiency in cases like this.
I was merely trying to draw a comparison to things we can agree shouldn't be socialized, where consumer choice matters, not that one leads to the other. I believe slippery slope fallacy requires the implication that in this case, publicly funding CBC leads to socialized cars. Which I didn't mean to imply is true if it came off that way. Just to draw a comparison to see how you thought of it differently, because I find them fairly comparable personally.
Even in welfare or the mincome proposals you have consumer choice over where to spend and exactly how much to spend on food. Which you don't in this case with CBC's media. That's the part I have a problem with.
> I'm sure there's lots you're enjoying now that they'd prefer not to fund.
And I'm quite confident there's not. In fact, there are very, very few things I feel that the government should be funding. I'm more than willing to give up just about anything the government provides me if they're willing to do the same.
Why is the opposite proposal of saying we should remove these things rejected outright? How about we all just pay for the stuff we use instead of paying for other people's stuff? If we had a mincome-style system, would you be more okay with this sort of proposal?
I'd be much more open to mincome proposals if we could get rid of cruft like this we're paying for. I think it could generate real economic efficiency in cases like this.
I didn't listen to radio at all until, in the last year or two, I learned about and started listening to NPR through its app called "NPR One".
It's an app for your mobile device that streams NPR stories one by one, podcast style, starting with live news updated hourly, followed by anything else of significance, and continuing with stories related to your listening preferences.
On each item you can click "Interesting" to indicate your preference for more similar material. They are typically mini-segments analogous to a single news article, on the order of 2-15 minutes, though some go longer. There are also specific podcasts to follow such as "Planet Money", "Hidden Brain", and "All Things Considered".
Here's a particularly memorable segment that came up on my steam: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/10/04/130329523/how-f... - 7:50 story of the unexpected and unconventional economists who saved Brazil from (worse) hyperinflation by introducing "virtual currency". Lately it also has a ton of political content.
If you're interested in business, politics, world events, with a bit of science/technology and culture thrown in, then NPR is an excellent listen. It's not usually an activity that I sit down to listen to deliberately, but it does a fantastic job of filling the time while getting dressed in the morning, on the ride to work, etc.
Furthermore, following podcasts normally is kind of a pain in the ass, but NPR One makes it easy: just open the app and press play, and it streams segments until you tell it to stop. It's good for hours of content weekly, and has a large back catalog of past stories as well, which it will stream of it exhausts recent segments.
I'm not sure if it's available outside the US, but for US audiences it's completely free and has very few ads.
It's an app for your mobile device that streams NPR stories one by one, podcast style, starting with live news updated hourly, followed by anything else of significance, and continuing with stories related to your listening preferences.
On each item you can click "Interesting" to indicate your preference for more similar material. They are typically mini-segments analogous to a single news article, on the order of 2-15 minutes, though some go longer. There are also specific podcasts to follow such as "Planet Money", "Hidden Brain", and "All Things Considered".
Here's a particularly memorable segment that came up on my steam: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/10/04/130329523/how-f... - 7:50 story of the unexpected and unconventional economists who saved Brazil from (worse) hyperinflation by introducing "virtual currency". Lately it also has a ton of political content.
If you're interested in business, politics, world events, with a bit of science/technology and culture thrown in, then NPR is an excellent listen. It's not usually an activity that I sit down to listen to deliberately, but it does a fantastic job of filling the time while getting dressed in the morning, on the ride to work, etc.
Furthermore, following podcasts normally is kind of a pain in the ass, but NPR One makes it easy: just open the app and press play, and it streams segments until you tell it to stop. It's good for hours of content weekly, and has a large back catalog of past stories as well, which it will stream of it exhausts recent segments.
I'm not sure if it's available outside the US, but for US audiences it's completely free and has very few ads.
NPR content is much, much better than CBC content though. And it costs about 1/10th the money per capita.
Even better: if you don't pay they'll send armed soldiers to imprison you or worse!
CBC issued a well-researched Strategy available at http://future.cbc.ca/ that addresses some of your concerns.
Just a few most compelling arguments:
1. Every $1 invested in CBC contributes to $2 to the Canadian economy as a whole (+ 7.200 jobs created, even though it's debatable if this is a good thing if these jobs are really as unnecessary as some of the contributors here comment)
2. CBC is supporting local talent and culture of Canada, which is threatened by the hegemony of its southern neighbour. It offers its viewers differing views to topics such Syria refugees or economical plight America's rustbelt towns that influence political dynamics in the U.S. election. Not to mention the value it brings to French or indigenous speaking parts of the country.
3. The whole advertising business model for traditional media is breaking down, as explained in Chapter 3 of the Strategy. Without government funding of the content that matters, we risk of being left in the world where a handful of Silicon Valley corporations make billions in advertising profits from people sharing self-made fake news. This is also an argument for redirecting the ad money to CBC's private Canadian competitors - they are going to need all the help they can get to survive the disrupting media landscape.
4. Chapter 4 offers a showcase where similar strategies made a considerable difference in both quality of programming and its sustainability - that of BBC.
5. Digital innovation is an integral part of the laid-out strategy, offering hope that this is not a short term plan to get more money from tax payers to fix a leaking bucket.
All in all, I find the strategy thought out, well-researched, and worthy of support.
(edited for formatting)
Just a few most compelling arguments:
1. Every $1 invested in CBC contributes to $2 to the Canadian economy as a whole (+ 7.200 jobs created, even though it's debatable if this is a good thing if these jobs are really as unnecessary as some of the contributors here comment)
2. CBC is supporting local talent and culture of Canada, which is threatened by the hegemony of its southern neighbour. It offers its viewers differing views to topics such Syria refugees or economical plight America's rustbelt towns that influence political dynamics in the U.S. election. Not to mention the value it brings to French or indigenous speaking parts of the country.
3. The whole advertising business model for traditional media is breaking down, as explained in Chapter 3 of the Strategy. Without government funding of the content that matters, we risk of being left in the world where a handful of Silicon Valley corporations make billions in advertising profits from people sharing self-made fake news. This is also an argument for redirecting the ad money to CBC's private Canadian competitors - they are going to need all the help they can get to survive the disrupting media landscape.
4. Chapter 4 offers a showcase where similar strategies made a considerable difference in both quality of programming and its sustainability - that of BBC.
5. Digital innovation is an integral part of the laid-out strategy, offering hope that this is not a short term plan to get more money from tax payers to fix a leaking bucket.
All in all, I find the strategy thought out, well-researched, and worthy of support.
(edited for formatting)
I'm also happy to pay - it's less than Netflix. It would be great to go ad-free so I could watch online without the commercials. I watch it almost daily.
The thought also occurs to me that if CBC could make headway into immigrant and minority communities with their programming somehow, it could serve as a cultural bridge.... or something. Just a thought.
The thought also occurs to me that if CBC could make headway into immigrant and minority communities with their programming somehow, it could serve as a cultural bridge.... or something. Just a thought.
$45.71 for how long? They'll need more money each year, surely,yes?
Yet you'd probably pay much more than that. Consider that many people pay little up no taxes (i.e. children, unemployed, etc) and presumably Canada has a progressive income tax system so the typical hacker news commenter is paying more than average tax. Children actually pay negative tax in that they reduce their parents' tax burden, in the US anyway.
I'd be happy the pay that as well BUT for news and related non-fiction shows only.
I don't mind also funding arts but IMO they shouldn't be lumped together.
I don't mind also funding arts but IMO they shouldn't be lumped together.
There have been some great Canadian shows (e.g. Corner Gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Gas )
Interesting cover: 'the advertising revenue would go to privates'.
Aside of the obvious (private) joke, that simply sounds like bold-faced wealth redistribution in the wrong direction: get the gov (at the expense of the taxpayer) to sub the movement of money to the private sector.
Not that consumers really benefit financially either way. Still the rich get richer.
Aside of the obvious (private) joke, that simply sounds like bold-faced wealth redistribution in the wrong direction: get the gov (at the expense of the taxpayer) to sub the movement of money to the private sector.
Not that consumers really benefit financially either way. Still the rich get richer.
To me, the question is: Does the public want an information service that isn't beholden to their advertising money, but instead beholden to their chosen representatives, and are they willing to pay for it?
Thats the basis of pretty much all government services, and even government itself. Its not for their direct financial benefit, just as purchasing a cable subscription isn't to one's direct financial benefit. But its moving where the money goes towards something more accountable to the people.
Thats the basis of pretty much all government services, and even government itself. Its not for their direct financial benefit, just as purchasing a cable subscription isn't to one's direct financial benefit. But its moving where the money goes towards something more accountable to the people.
Exactly. It's a serious problem in the UK but I don't think the BBC is exempt.
We have private papers like The Telegraph, whose chief political editor resigned due to pressure from advertisers:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-...
But the BBC is part of the establishment, regularly running property porn shows and glossing over the financial crisis.
I have no solution, I just wanted to point out that national broadcasters are not "for the people" all the time. The BBC basically got beaten down by Blair who made the BBC chase ratings which was the perfect way to dumb it down and neuter it after they opposed the Iraq war. Having a "popular" national broadcaster is truly pointless because if they can compete on ratings they can derive their revenue from adverts. Just another thing in the UK that has been subtly eroded.
We have private papers like The Telegraph, whose chief political editor resigned due to pressure from advertisers:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-...
But the BBC is part of the establishment, regularly running property porn shows and glossing over the financial crisis.
I have no solution, I just wanted to point out that national broadcasters are not "for the people" all the time. The BBC basically got beaten down by Blair who made the BBC chase ratings which was the perfect way to dumb it down and neuter it after they opposed the Iraq war. Having a "popular" national broadcaster is truly pointless because if they can compete on ratings they can derive their revenue from adverts. Just another thing in the UK that has been subtly eroded.
Take a look at Chapter 3 of a well-researched Strategy CBC issued at http://future.cbc.ca/ - the whole advertising business model for traditional media is breaking down. Without government funding of content that matters, there's a risk of being left in the world where a handful of Silicon Valley corporations make billions in advertising profits from people sharing self-made fake news. These corporations are not subject to any policy frameworks many nations have, like mandatory quota of locally-produced content, nor are they obliged to pay any taxes to the country whose media landscape they disrupt. From here you can make an argument for redirecting the ad money to CBC's private Canadian competitors, as they are going to need all the help they can get to survive.
From a 2007 article about the cancellation of a critically acclaimed CBC show, http://thetyee.ca/Entertainment/2007/12/03/NoIntelligence/
"The CBC was born out of similar circumstances many years ago when there was a media monopoly and a feeling amongst people that it was necessary to have an alternate source of information and intelligence for the Canadian people. And now in exactly the same times I think it is really essential. The CBC is a threat because it's able to warn us of things that are going on in Canada that some of the other private corporate interests in Canada wouldn't want to warn us of because they may benefit from them.
"So I think we are really on that train. But I do think that there are a lot of people out there who are passionate about the CBC and curious about what's going on too because there have been so many changes, a lot of them not for the better. And we frankly need to figure out some way to get more funding back into the corporation while at the same time looking who in the CBC is making the big decisions."
"The CBC was born out of similar circumstances many years ago when there was a media monopoly and a feeling amongst people that it was necessary to have an alternate source of information and intelligence for the Canadian people. And now in exactly the same times I think it is really essential. The CBC is a threat because it's able to warn us of things that are going on in Canada that some of the other private corporate interests in Canada wouldn't want to warn us of because they may benefit from them.
"So I think we are really on that train. But I do think that there are a lot of people out there who are passionate about the CBC and curious about what's going on too because there have been so many changes, a lot of them not for the better. And we frankly need to figure out some way to get more funding back into the corporation while at the same time looking who in the CBC is making the big decisions."
Part of me loves the idea of a commercial free CBC, but I wonder whether it will make them just another bloated bureaucracy - less hungry and also much less likely to bite the hand that feeds them.
CBC has a pretty good history of pushing back against both itself and the government, I've never felt the CBC was corrupt or a government mouthpiece, I do worry about that last point also though.
By that reasoning they are currently much less likely to bite the hands of all of their corporate advertisers.
Is a broadcasting company that's accountable to private corporations really preferable to one that's accountable to the public?
Is a broadcasting company that's accountable to private corporations really preferable to one that's accountable to the public?
That's easily solved by securing their funding for several years into the future (possibly to the next government). That way the government can't retaliate for any hard hitting journalism.
Personally I think this is great and I think CBC does a pretty good (loved DNTO) job. However, the comments section of that CBC article seem to drastically disagree unfortunately. :(
What would you say to the people calling for the dismantling of the CBC?
It's hard because I see both sides of the coin, I worry about the same worry that most people point at, bureaucracy, blah blah blah. It's just that without a Canadian voice in the world, I feel we'll lose a lot, much of the original CBC programing (especially radio) talk a lot about what it means to be Canadian, where we came from. My parents and parents parents and I were all born in North Western Ontario and I feel like there was something special about listening to the CBC and understanding the culture.
without a Canadian voice in the world
Why do people say this? CBC doesn't speak to the world; where are their broadcast towers in Europe or elsewhere? They're a Canadian broadcaster whose habit is to talk at the Canadian public in a voice betraying contempt and impatience. The CBC certainly doesn't speak for me.
Why do people say this? CBC doesn't speak to the world; where are their broadcast towers in Europe or elsewhere? They're a Canadian broadcaster whose habit is to talk at the Canadian public in a voice betraying contempt and impatience. The CBC certainly doesn't speak for me.
People immigrate to and travel to Canada buddy. :)
Note the CBC already has $675 million in funding from the Federal Budget - this is on top of that.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/liberals-p...
Yeah, but for ad-free Beachcombers, it might be worth it.
Bring back Danger Bay and I'm in!
For those who are unaware; the UK TV tax of roughly $15 a month. I never signed up. I'd get a threatening call from the BBC every 6 months trying to shake me down with threats of fines and jail time. I told them that I didn't have TV or the internet at home. Their response was internet on the phone or at work was sufficient to be liable. I told them to b*gger off and they did. For 6 months.
In general; I'm not a fan of states forcing people to pay for things they don't want.
In general; I'm not a fan of states forcing people to pay for things they don't want.
I'm positive that my taxes go to things I don't want as well as things I do.
Agreed, I now live in a tax haven. It's every bit as awesome as I imagined it to be :)
I wouldn't mind paying some tax but there is a point where you're paying for your own propaganda / chains.
I wouldn't mind paying some tax but there is a point where you're paying for your own propaganda / chains.
Tax haven "nice" or tax haven "we pay for our services by either depleting bountiful natural resources / mental regime / letting others avoid tax and taking a cut" ?
The government makes it's money via property and consumption taxes. And there is no military to fund. The economy is also helped by foreign tax avoidance. Interestingly; you'll find that the US is now by far the biggest enabler of foreign tax avoidance in the world. So I'm not sure what moral conclusion you're trying to allude to. At least here the same tax avoidance schemes are available to everyone.
> The economy is also helped by foreign tax avoidance
I hate it then. I also hate all the avoidance the UK and US enable.
I hate it then. I also hate all the avoidance the UK and US enable.
What is this place called, if you don't mind me asking?
[deleted]
I wonder what it would cost them to broadcast over the air instead? They stopped doing so in the transition from analog to digital, leaving people like me without cable to do without our "public broadcaster". Now pardon me while I select from the other two major (private) broadcasters that somehow managed to transition over.
Where are you located? Here in Montréal, you can watch HD TV over the air using a ATSC tuner. The picture quality is excellent, better than HD cable even.
Saskatchewan. The only CBC transmitter left in the province is in Regina and I am nowhere near in range. All the rest of the transmitters in the province in the link below were analog and have been decomissioned. At least Global and CTV broadcast digital OTA and the picture quality is indeed excellent.
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/explore/strategies/dtv/cov...
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/explore/strategies/dtv/cov...
The whole thing is baffling to me.
First, why wouldn't they just keep the ads and ask for more funding. It would be a smaller ask.
Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media? Maybe the GlobeandMail should ditch their crappy pay wall or maybe the National Post shouldn't auto-play videos.
Third, if CBC had no ads, it'll be a better experience and it would gain customers from the privates. It's a fairer playing field if CBC has to fund itself. The whole problem of govt funded corps is that they have an unfair advantage against privates, but they're saying the opposite?
(I guess it's not as bad as the NDP in Alberta taking $1.3B of taxpayer money and giving it to the electricity producers.)
First, why wouldn't they just keep the ads and ask for more funding. It would be a smaller ask.
Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media? Maybe the GlobeandMail should ditch their crappy pay wall or maybe the National Post shouldn't auto-play videos.
Third, if CBC had no ads, it'll be a better experience and it would gain customers from the privates. It's a fairer playing field if CBC has to fund itself. The whole problem of govt funded corps is that they have an unfair advantage against privates, but they're saying the opposite?
(I guess it's not as bad as the NDP in Alberta taking $1.3B of taxpayer money and giving it to the electricity producers.)
Because then you've got the worst of both worlds - you're still going cap-in-hand looking for money but you're also delivering a product covered in advertising that most people don't want.
Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media?
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is publicly owned. Doing basic research is a great way to avoid looking foolish before commenting on the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporat...
Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media?
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is publicly owned. Doing basic research is a great way to avoid looking foolish before commenting on the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporat...
My question was why do the want to fund private media. If you read the article it says "Critics have said that the CBC is taking ad revenue away from private media that are struggling financially." I wasn't asking why taxpayers were funding the CBC, a public company.
EDIT: regarding "worst of both worlds", CBC gets to fulfill it's mandate at a cheaper cost with ads.
EDIT: regarding "worst of both worlds", CBC gets to fulfill it's mandate at a cheaper cost with ads.
But there's no certainty that if CBC goes ad-free the same amount of ad revenue will naturally flow to its competitors. I think you're assuming there's a fixed amount of money in the economy that must go somewhere if CBC stops carrying ads.
Consider the possibility that company X advertises on CBC and 3 other private broadcasters. CBC stops showing ads, but it doesn't follow that company X will now increase its ad spend at the other vendors. Now it's true that the privately owned outlets might raise their ad prices a bit now that there are fewer ad slots available across the media as a whole, or they might increase their ratio of advertising to programming - at least up to the point where consumers get sick of hearing so many ads.
Anyway, private media outlets might make more money out of this...but then again they might not. It's no sure thing and so it's inaccurate to claim that ad spending will automatically shift towards the remaining market participants.
Consider the possibility that company X advertises on CBC and 3 other private broadcasters. CBC stops showing ads, but it doesn't follow that company X will now increase its ad spend at the other vendors. Now it's true that the privately owned outlets might raise their ad prices a bit now that there are fewer ad slots available across the media as a whole, or they might increase their ratio of advertising to programming - at least up to the point where consumers get sick of hearing so many ads.
Anyway, private media outlets might make more money out of this...but then again they might not. It's no sure thing and so it's inaccurate to claim that ad spending will automatically shift towards the remaining market participants.
We are on the same page I think. The CBC is saying $158mm will go to private media. You say that's inaccurate. I'm saying if it is accurate, taxpayers shouldn't be paying $400mm more for $158mm to go to private media.
I think there is merit to the argument that the government should do its best to not compete with private industry unless that competition is "fair" and warranted. Given that ad space is currently abundant and declining in value the "not warranted" part is pretty clear and that a public broadcaster need not run at a profit the "fair" part is a pretty good point too.
They are not considering "funding" private media so much as no longer undermining it to some (I think small) extent. (I am largely undecided on this point myself.)
They are not considering "funding" private media so much as no longer undermining it to some (I think small) extent. (I am largely undecided on this point myself.)
I'm guessing they're facing conflicts of interest that they would not have to deal with if they were not beholden to advertisers.
[deleted]
On this topic I spotted this tweet with a graph comparing per capita expenditure on public broadcasting. Canada is at the bottom along with the USA.
https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status/803353503225630720
https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status/803353503225630720
Additionally this graph explains why I've watched more fan translated Danish shows than Canadian TV. Low funding does not yield good TV.
Yep, and yet you couldn't even imagine that to be true if you saw half of comments around yours, and the immense right wing belly-aching and shitposting of a similar nature that occurs all over the comment boards of Canadian news articles.
Why on Earth the taxpayer is subsidizing the CBC to crowd out private media is beyond me. It's not 1930. We don't need a state broadcaster to serve an otherwise unserved nation. To the extent the CBC does have a legitimate function, that function most certainly does not include sports, dramas, comedies, etc. By all means, let them adopt the PBS/NPR model. But get them out of the private market, and put my tax dollars to better use.
In Japan we're required to pay for TV for NHK. If you live in apartments that get the premium channels you're required to pay for it, too (about $250/year). The regular broadcast is around $135/year I believe.
having worked within the CBC, I don't trust the leadership at all! mis-management of funds is a CBC tradition and pastime!
they continue to struggle to understand the digital era, and the executives have gone on record plenty of times in their own town halls expressing their confusion and dismissal of "that thing called the internet".
and while the CBC continues to compare itself to BBC at every turn, that is not a fair comparison, more like a toad contemplating itself a deer.
they continue to struggle to understand the digital era, and the executives have gone on record plenty of times in their own town halls expressing their confusion and dismissal of "that thing called the internet".
and while the CBC continues to compare itself to BBC at every turn, that is not a fair comparison, more like a toad contemplating itself a deer.
This exactly. My GF works at the CBC which gives me some insight to what's going on behind closed doors and let me tell you that I've never seen such incompetence and mismanagement at the management level. An additional $400M will go up in smoke the minute the cheque clears with very little to show.
Well, the BBC does receive three times the public funding, so it's really not a fair comparison.
having also worked in CBC digital, this is very true.
...then another $400M, and another, and another. Never ending story.
Canada just HAS to go and do EVERYTHING right...
The price sounds low. My initial question, "doesn't NHL advertising alone come close to this?" seems to be answered already.
Not anymore. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-tv...
Not anymore. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-tv...
Let's look at the full "Creative Canada" proposal [1]. After reading through the full document, the arguments for moving away from advertising seem to focus on financial stability (page 6) [1]:
"Depoliticize CBC/Radio-Canada funding so that it is predictable and stable, tied to the existing five-year licence cycle, indexed to inflation, and separated from the election and annual government budget cycles. This would be similar to how the BBC now operates. Indexation is critical – without it, inflation of just 1.5% per year would erode the new government funding of $150 million to zero in just six years."
Yet, let's also look at the cultural arguments being made (page 29) [1]:
"Our focus would be more firmly on the needs of citizens, creators and our industry partners without the constant preoccupation of monetizing each of our initiatives.
It would create greater opportunities to find and nurture new talent. It would create more room for distinct Canadian programming, made by Canadians, featuring Canadians and telling the stories Canadian creators want to tell.
We would focus less on commercial return and more on cultural impact, exploring more ways to help Canadian content and creators thrive and grow. We would be able to commission programming that takes risks and has the time to find an audience without being overly driven by the need to deliver immediate success."
Advertising can take many forms. Let's take a closer look at the BBC, whose model is frequently referenced. Does this proposed "ad-free" model include a restriction on the shows themselves to avoid product placement? Does this include an obligation to blur, mute, bleep, or cut brands? The BBC allows product placement [2]. Does this proposed model restrict sponsorships and sponsored messages? The BBC also allows sponsorships, sponsorship credits, and limited messages by sponsors [2].
Now, with broader questions: will there be a ban on home shopping shows (think QVC)? Will there be a ban on infomercials? Will overlay commercials (the small banners that run during shows) be banned?
If other forms of advertising, such as those permitted by BBC, are still allowed, the broadcaster will still have commercial pressures. If shows are allowed to sell product placement and sponsorships, Canadian creators will still be under pressure for short-term monetization. What restrictions does CBC actually propose? I wish I could answer, but there are none. Without closing the earlier mentioned loopholes, CBC will not be ad free and will therefore be unable to fully achieve its cultural goals.
[1]: http://future.cbc.ca/images/acreativecanada.pdf
[2]: http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-504-3931
"Depoliticize CBC/Radio-Canada funding so that it is predictable and stable, tied to the existing five-year licence cycle, indexed to inflation, and separated from the election and annual government budget cycles. This would be similar to how the BBC now operates. Indexation is critical – without it, inflation of just 1.5% per year would erode the new government funding of $150 million to zero in just six years."
Yet, let's also look at the cultural arguments being made (page 29) [1]:
"Our focus would be more firmly on the needs of citizens, creators and our industry partners without the constant preoccupation of monetizing each of our initiatives.
It would create greater opportunities to find and nurture new talent. It would create more room for distinct Canadian programming, made by Canadians, featuring Canadians and telling the stories Canadian creators want to tell.
We would focus less on commercial return and more on cultural impact, exploring more ways to help Canadian content and creators thrive and grow. We would be able to commission programming that takes risks and has the time to find an audience without being overly driven by the need to deliver immediate success."
Advertising can take many forms. Let's take a closer look at the BBC, whose model is frequently referenced. Does this proposed "ad-free" model include a restriction on the shows themselves to avoid product placement? Does this include an obligation to blur, mute, bleep, or cut brands? The BBC allows product placement [2]. Does this proposed model restrict sponsorships and sponsored messages? The BBC also allows sponsorships, sponsorship credits, and limited messages by sponsors [2].
Now, with broader questions: will there be a ban on home shopping shows (think QVC)? Will there be a ban on infomercials? Will overlay commercials (the small banners that run during shows) be banned?
If other forms of advertising, such as those permitted by BBC, are still allowed, the broadcaster will still have commercial pressures. If shows are allowed to sell product placement and sponsorships, Canadian creators will still be under pressure for short-term monetization. What restrictions does CBC actually propose? I wish I could answer, but there are none. Without closing the earlier mentioned loopholes, CBC will not be ad free and will therefore be unable to fully achieve its cultural goals.
[1]: http://future.cbc.ca/images/acreativecanada.pdf
[2]: http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-504-3931
The saddest thing is the only good content on CBC radio now is 'From The Archives' where they play old recordings.
Content on CBC just isn't what it used to be. All the local anchors try to hard to be hip and with it.
Gone are the days of Peter Gzowski.
Content on CBC just isn't what it used to be. All the local anchors try to hard to be hip and with it.
Gone are the days of Peter Gzowski.
For those of you who are outside of Canada, and even for the many within, please take some time to consider the possibility that the CBC is not a benevolent public broadcaster, and is perhaps not actually putting out high-quality, unique, and novel information that would be inaccessible to Canadians without its public subsidies. Tristin Hopper[0] does a wonderful job of explaining a centrist's argument against funding the CBC/the CBC's modus operandi.
[0] Tristin Hopper: Maybe CBC could use its resources to do something other than steal other people’s ideas http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=ne...
[0] Tristin Hopper: Maybe CBC could use its resources to do something other than steal other people’s ideas http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=ne...
Further, unlike the BBC, the CBC answers directly to parliament. This means that the ruling party has direct control over the network and, should they desire, they can make it show only news and programs favorable to them. This makes the CBC a threat to Canadian democracy.