CBC cancels New Year's Eve broadcast special due to 'financial pressures'(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
CBC cancels New Year's Eve broadcast special due to 'financial pressures'
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cbc-cancels-new-year-eve-broadcast-1.7071478
25 comments
I don't know if any data has been published. Michael Geist, a prominent Canadian lawyer who specializes in tech and media law and who manages an active blog on those topics in Canada, has published a good breakdown of the bill as it currently exists (it was essentially rewritten once a deal was made):
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/12/bill-c-18-is-dead-long-l...
The bill threw smaller orgs under the bus in favour of larger ones like Torstar and Postmedia, which is par for the course in Canada where the government frequently gives a helping hand to incumbents at the expense of challengers. We love our protectionism.
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/12/bill-c-18-is-dead-long-l...
The bill threw smaller orgs under the bus in favour of larger ones like Torstar and Postmedia, which is par for the course in Canada where the government frequently gives a helping hand to incumbents at the expense of challengers. We love our protectionism.
> The bill threw smaller orgs under the bus in favour of larger ones like Torstar and Postmedia
The bill was trying to protect what little media outlets Canada has left, few people were clicking through when the gist of the article was on Google.
You can’t argue that Canadian media orgs don’t require government protection when they’re all completely reliant on a single American company to provide them the right exposure.
The bill was trying to protect what little media outlets Canada has left, few people were clicking through when the gist of the article was on Google.
You can’t argue that Canadian media orgs don’t require government protection when they’re all completely reliant on a single American company to provide them the right exposure.
This isn’t correct. News media can, if they want, completely restrict google/meta previews or even disable google. Meta/google are huge revenue drivers for media.
But through a complex narrative the media has pretended that google and meta take their money, and so they got the govt to blackmail google/meta.
It didn’t work with meta. The blocked news (one of the options the law allowed). The media squawked because this hurt them, while meta is doing fine.
Ultimately now CBC can’t share on meta, and lost any deals it had with google/meta. They’ll get a portion of Google’s $100 million and that’s it.
But through a complex narrative the media has pretended that google and meta take their money, and so they got the govt to blackmail google/meta.
It didn’t work with meta. The blocked news (one of the options the law allowed). The media squawked because this hurt them, while meta is doing fine.
Ultimately now CBC can’t share on meta, and lost any deals it had with google/meta. They’ll get a portion of Google’s $100 million and that’s it.
I thought they had a problem with Canadians sharing news articles on Facebook, not searching for them on Google. Or maybe both?
> The bill threw smaller orgs under the bus
That's not the way it appears to me. The bill caps the amount big orgs get, leaving a larger share of the pie to small orgs.
That's not the way it appears to me. The bill caps the amount big orgs get, leaving a larger share of the pie to small orgs.
Unsure, but Google paid.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-online-news-act-1.70...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-online-news-act-1.70...
I wonder whether any of that cash has actually made its way to the CBC. Promises of future revenue are often hard to turn into salaries today.
It would be interesting if that was at all a confounding variable , one thing for sure is its impact has been under reported
This is a Canadian Press story CBC is syndicating that's unfortunately about them. Not like they'd want to draw attention to this really. They can continue on with the actual news of the day. Fine with it.
This hardly needed to be here also, other than the Google/FB media tie in discussion.
This also doesn't mean there isn't new year's celebrations going on with accessible media. Maybe a chance for people to connect with their local municipal celebrations many of which are fireworks, performers and streamed on YouTube etc as is the norm now.
This hardly needed to be here also, other than the Google/FB media tie in discussion.
This also doesn't mean there isn't new year's celebrations going on with accessible media. Maybe a chance for people to connect with their local municipal celebrations many of which are fireworks, performers and streamed on YouTube etc as is the norm now.
This is a shame. CBC should trim the fat elsewhere.
What are your thoughts on state funded media? I see the benefits but also the drawbacks, namely their partisanship when a political opponent wants to stop the hand outs
What are your thoughts on state funded media? I see the benefits but also the drawbacks, namely their partisanship when a political opponent wants to stop the hand outs
> This is a shame. CBC should trim the fat elsewhere.
In what world is a New Year's Eve broadcast "meat" when CBC is cutting news staff?
What "fat" do you think is remaining in the CBC budget?
In what world is a New Year's Eve broadcast "meat" when CBC is cutting news staff?
What "fat" do you think is remaining in the CBC budget?
> This is a shame. CBC should trim the fat elsewhere.
Contrary to conservative talking points that the CBC is some sort of pro-liberal propaganda machine, the CBC just runs the same news, with roughly the same slants, as the rest of the media here. The anti-EV hit pieces get clicks. Clicks bring money. Money keeps CBC afloat. Those kind of articles frankly everywhere right now, likely because someone is paying to propagate them, and the outrage they generate ("guvnment forcing EVs on us") sells.
You are naive if you believe they have zero political bias
I think CBC should transition to being entirely publicly funded and move away from creating most if not all of its original programming.
Instead, they should focus on 3 things: news, children's educational television, and high quality documentaries (in reality, even the docs might be irrelevant with the NFB). They should be ad-free (online and on television), and completely independent from profit or revenue concerns. There should be no bonuses for executives.
Parliament should also pass something like a "fairness doctrine" that is obligatory if any news agency receives any public funding.
Instead, they should focus on 3 things: news, children's educational television, and high quality documentaries (in reality, even the docs might be irrelevant with the NFB). They should be ad-free (online and on television), and completely independent from profit or revenue concerns. There should be no bonuses for executives.
Parliament should also pass something like a "fairness doctrine" that is obligatory if any news agency receives any public funding.
> There should be no bonuses for executives.
The problem with this is, as they say, that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Running a successful broadcaster is hard, and there's a limited pool of talent that can do this well.
So if you want to be successful, and not a public-money-wasting amateur-hour operation, you need to attract experienced professional talent. And if you aren't competitive on salary, why would they come to you?
I understand the spirit of your idea though.. Maybe bonuses should be based on specific metrics - like viewership or fundraising - that and publicly tracked and paid out in a very transparent way instead?
And maybe they shouldn't be only for executives.
Ad-free is a tough one, but maybe they have limited categories for advertisements, say things that are of public interest like events? Not sure...
The problem with this is, as they say, that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Running a successful broadcaster is hard, and there's a limited pool of talent that can do this well.
So if you want to be successful, and not a public-money-wasting amateur-hour operation, you need to attract experienced professional talent. And if you aren't competitive on salary, why would they come to you?
I understand the spirit of your idea though.. Maybe bonuses should be based on specific metrics - like viewership or fundraising - that and publicly tracked and paid out in a very transparent way instead?
And maybe they shouldn't be only for executives.
Ad-free is a tough one, but maybe they have limited categories for advertisements, say things that are of public interest like events? Not sure...
There shouldn't be a bonus, just a salary. If the salary is big enough, then you'll get talent. Executive's often fail upwards because they obsess over getting their bonus even when the org is failing or in trouble. The idea that bonuses are mandatory is something executives repeat ad nauseum because it is obviously in their own interest.
With executive bonuses all you get are executives who focus on short term metrics ("how do I maximize the chances of getting my bonus?") over their roles as public servants and the long term sustainability of the organization. Maximizing their chances of getting a bonus might make sense when the metric is profit, or share price, or revenue, because theoretically the executive's interest would align with the employees and the organization. But, when the point of the organization is a public service and disconnected from profit, revenue, or share value, then maximizing the executive seeking their bonus over all else does not easily or really align with public service or the organization's sustainability.
There are many other incentives to working in public service, for one example: public servants in Canada get frankly an insane defined benefit pension. Few people in Canada nowadays are able to get as good retirement benefits. There are also people who have dedicated decades to working at the CBC or in public service. The assumption seems to be that only ~executives~ from some chosen ~executive class~ can run an org, but in fact that is only a relatively recent idea. Choosing someone with proven dedication to the org, and with proven skills in many of the departments of the org, someone who has worked their way up, is probably a far better choice compared to someone from outside who has only private experience. It's also the way that executives were hired or developed for decades before the bonus obsession.
With executive bonuses all you get are executives who focus on short term metrics ("how do I maximize the chances of getting my bonus?") over their roles as public servants and the long term sustainability of the organization. Maximizing their chances of getting a bonus might make sense when the metric is profit, or share price, or revenue, because theoretically the executive's interest would align with the employees and the organization. But, when the point of the organization is a public service and disconnected from profit, revenue, or share value, then maximizing the executive seeking their bonus over all else does not easily or really align with public service or the organization's sustainability.
There are many other incentives to working in public service, for one example: public servants in Canada get frankly an insane defined benefit pension. Few people in Canada nowadays are able to get as good retirement benefits. There are also people who have dedicated decades to working at the CBC or in public service. The assumption seems to be that only ~executives~ from some chosen ~executive class~ can run an org, but in fact that is only a relatively recent idea. Choosing someone with proven dedication to the org, and with proven skills in many of the departments of the org, someone who has worked their way up, is probably a far better choice compared to someone from outside who has only private experience. It's also the way that executives were hired or developed for decades before the bonus obsession.
So we are paying millions of dollars in executive bonuses, and the CBC keeps getting worse? Not on my dime
Did you read my post at all?
Haven't watched CBC in years. Would prefer my tax dollars not spent on media.
Good, the more MSM die the better, put those tax dollars in something more important.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-canada-online-news-1...