Discussion:
MORE funding for CBC, not less . . . .
(too old to reply)
(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
2014-06-26 23:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Let's test the leadership candidates for the next election on the
subject of funding for the CBC. Harper we can ignore. How would Justin
Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair handle public funding for the CBC?
___________________________________________________

Contributed to The Globe and Mail - Thursday, Jun. 26 2014
by Wade Rowland


The CBC’s a service, not a business


The CBC’s strategic plan to shift priorities from broadcast to digital
services and outsource virtually all but news and current affairs
programming is, on the whole, a sensible strategy – from a purely
business perspective. It saves money by reducing production and
distribution costs. Shedding more jobs will further enhance the bottom
line between now and 2020; as many as 1,500 positions will be eliminated
in the plan announced Wednesday.

The thing is, however, that the public broadcaster is not a business in
any conventional sense. It exists not to make money or to satisfy
financial goals, but to fill a public need – one that is not being
served by private media outlets. The CBC is a public good, like the
school system, like medicare, like our universities and colleges, our
public museums and galleries.

In a world of commercial sponsorship of media, both broadcast and
online, the CBC’s purpose is to serve its audiences as citizens, rather
than as consumers. Its purpose is to create news, information and
entertainment that’s judged for its creative, intellectual and artistic
integrity, rather than its ability to attract large audiences that can
be sold to advertisers.

What CBC management has delivered is not a public broadcasting strategy
but a business plan, one that further distances the corporation from its
public-service mandate.

For example, most people who study digital online media recognize that
one of its impacts is to atomize audiences. Where traditional
broadcasting creates a kind of congregation, a community of interest,
the fragmented, specialized nature of Internet content tends to
encourage individuals to focus on their own established interests. There
is certainly a place for this, but it runs counter to the
community-building remit of public broadcasting.

Another example: Nowhere in Wednesday’s in-house town-hall webcast, nor
the accompanying documentation, was the issue of whether the public
broadcaster ought to be carrying advertising even mentioned. The best of
the world’s public-service broadcasters (PSBs) carry no commercials.
Their involvement means engaging in the ratings game, which pushes
programming toward the lowest common denominator in tastes and
interests. This is why commercial-free subscription television services
such as HBO and Netflix, like true PSBs, tend to produce superior
programming.

One of the reasons why CBC is anxious to accelerate its shift to online
services is because that’s where advertising revenue is moving. It hopes
to cash in on the bonanza.
But a reliance on ad revenue from online services is just as corrosive
to PSB values and goals as it is in conventional TV and radio, for the
same reasons.

If 70-odd years experience with the CBC to date proves anything, it’s
that the public broadcaster can’t serve two masters. It should leave
commercial sponsorship to the private media, which exist to serve
advertisers, and it should focus on its public-service mandate exclusively.

Can the CBC survive without advertising revenue? That’s like asking
whether the public school system can survive without corporate
sponsorship. Of course it can – as long as that’s a public priority, as
it ought to be.

At present, the CBC receives an annual parliamentary appropriation of
about $1.34-billion. This puts Canada third from the bottom of the list
of OECD nations’ support for their PSBs. A subsidy of $3-billion would
boost us to around average. That level of funding would make it possible
for the CBC to produce television programming matching the highest
international standards, and to continue to finance an exceptional radio
service while providing online services as the market – rather than
internal balance sheets – dictates.

A dedicated 5 per cent to 7 per cent impost on what the CRTC calls
Broadcast Distribution Undertakings – the big, vertically integrated and
enormously profitable Internet/wireless/telephone/broadcast providers
like Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Quebecor – could bring CBC funding up to a
level that would allow it to properly do its job of providing an
alternative to commercial media.

It could put the CBC back in the business of being an authentic
public-service broadcaster, beholden to no vested interests, commercial
or political. It’s what the country needs and deserves as a culture and
a community – more so than ever in the evolving digital era.
______________________

Wade Rowland is the author of Saving the CBC: Balancing Profit and
Public Interest. He teaches in York University’s communication studies
department.
Greg Carr
2014-06-27 00:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Let's test the leadership candidates for the next election on the
subject of funding for the CBC. Harper we can ignore. How would Justin
Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair handle public funding for the CBC?
___________________________________________________
Contributed to The Globe and Mail - Thursday, Jun. 26 2014
by Wade Rowland
The CBC’s a service, not a business
The CBC’s strategic plan to shift priorities from broadcast to digital
services and outsource virtually all but news and current affairs
programming is, on the whole, a sensible strategy – from a purely
business perspective. It saves money by reducing production and
distribution costs. Shedding more jobs will further enhance the bottom
line between now and 2020; as many as 1,500 positions will be eliminated
in the plan announced Wednesday.
The thing is, however, that the public broadcaster is not a business in
any conventional sense. It exists not to make money or to satisfy
financial goals, but to fill a public need – one that is not being
served by private media outlets. The CBC is a public good, like the
school system, like medicare, like our universities and colleges, our
public museums and galleries.
In a world of commercial sponsorship of media, both broadcast and
online, the CBC’s purpose is to serve its audiences as citizens, rather
than as consumers. Its purpose is to create news, information and
entertainment that’s judged for its creative, intellectual and artistic
integrity, rather than its ability to attract large audiences that can
be sold to advertisers.
What CBC management has delivered is not a public broadcasting strategy
but a business plan, one that further distances the corporation from its
public-service mandate.
For example, most people who study digital online media recognize that
one of its impacts is to atomize audiences. Where traditional
broadcasting creates a kind of congregation, a community of interest,
the fragmented, specialized nature of Internet content tends to
encourage individuals to focus on their own established interests. There
is certainly a place for this, but it runs counter to the
community-building remit of public broadcasting.
Another example: Nowhere in Wednesday’s in-house town-hall webcast, nor
the accompanying documentation, was the issue of whether the public
broadcaster ought to be carrying advertising even mentioned. The best of
the world’s public-service broadcasters (PSBs) carry no commercials.
Their involvement means engaging in the ratings game, which pushes
programming toward the lowest common denominator in tastes and
interests. This is why commercial-free subscription television services
such as HBO and Netflix, like true PSBs, tend to produce superior
programming.
One of the reasons why CBC is anxious to accelerate its shift to online
services is because that’s where advertising revenue is moving. It hopes
to cash in on the bonanza.
But a reliance on ad revenue from online services is just as corrosive
to PSB values and goals as it is in conventional TV and radio, for the
same reasons.
If 70-odd years experience with the CBC to date proves anything, it’s
that the public broadcaster can’t serve two masters. It should leave
commercial sponsorship to the private media, which exist to serve
advertisers, and it should focus on its public-service mandate exclusively.
Can the CBC survive without advertising revenue? That’s like asking
whether the public school system can survive without corporate
sponsorship. Of course it can – as long as that’s a public priority, as
it ought to be.
At present, the CBC receives an annual parliamentary appropriation of
about $1.34-billion. This puts Canada third from the bottom of the list
of OECD nations’ support for their PSBs. A subsidy of $3-billion would
boost us to around average.
Funding should be cut or eliminated entirely.
That level of funding would make it possible
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
for the CBC to produce television programming matching the highest
international standards, and to continue to finance an exceptional radio
service while providing online services as the market – rather than
internal balance sheets – dictates.
A dedicated 5 per cent to 7 per cent impost
I already pay taxes on my internet bundle and don't want an additional
impost. The CBC is an archaic anachronism let it die.
on what the CRTC calls
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Broadcast Distribution Undertakings – the big, vertically integrated and
enormously profitable Internet/wireless/telephone/broadcast providers
like Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Quebecor – could bring CBC funding up to a
level that would allow it to properly do its job of providing an
alternative to commercial media.
It could put the CBC back in the business of being an authentic
public-service broadcaster, beholden to no vested interests, commercial
or political. It’s what the country needs and deserves as a culture and
a community – more so than ever in the evolving digital era.
______________________
Wade Rowland is the author of Saving the CBC: Balancing Profit and
Public Interest. He teaches in York University’s communication studies
department.
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
M.I.Wakefield
2014-06-27 01:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Let's test the leadership candidates for the next election on the
subject of funding for the CBC. Harper we can ignore. How would Justin
Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair handle public funding for the CBC?
___________________________________________________
Contributed to The Globe and Mail - Thursday, Jun. 26 2014
by Wade Rowland
The CBC’s a service, not a business
CBC Radio 1 and CBC North are services ... CBC television is a business

Snip!
Post by Greg Carr
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
The best of
the world’s public-service broadcasters (PSBs) carry no commercials.
Their involvement means engaging in the ratings game, which pushes
programming toward the lowest common denominator in tastes and
interests. This is why commercial-free subscription television services
such as HBO and Netflix, like true PSBs, tend to produce superior
programming.
Anyone here remember the Golden Age of CBC TV, when they produced cutting
edge dramas and comedies that had everybody at work talking about them the
next morning?

Me either. And before you object, "Kids In The Hall" wasn't a CBC
production.

Snip!
Post by Greg Carr
Funding should be cut or eliminated entirely.
Agreed, except for the aforementioned Radio 1 and North services.
(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
2014-06-27 20:12:58 UTC
Permalink
CBC television has got to have the most incredibly dismal track record of any
major tv outlet in the western world. No one else even comes close.
That's probably why so many Canadians watch it. And why it takes so
many awards.
And why the majority of people in Canada defend it when the rightwing
Harper government undermines it.

Ignorance is not always bliss, Schild.
(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
2014-06-27 02:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
I already pay taxes on my internet bundle and don't want an additional
impost. The CBC is an archaic anachronism let it die.
Hey, Crazy Carr, you got to watch the hockey games for free within your
'internet bundle' under the CBC.
You are now going to have pay-per-view for those games since Rogers got
the contract.
You're worried about supporting the CBC through tax dollars at a rate of
$34 a year?
Be ready to pay that for two hockey game viewings from Rogers.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2012/03/28/hands_off_our_sacred_cbc.html
Alan Baker
2014-06-27 03:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Post by Greg Carr
I already pay taxes on my internet bundle and don't want an additional
impost. The CBC is an archaic anachronism let it die.
Hey, Crazy Carr, you got to watch the hockey games for free within your
'internet bundle' under the CBC.
You are now going to have pay-per-view for those games since Rogers got
the contract.
You're worried about supporting the CBC through tax dollars at a rate
of $34 a year?
Be ready to pay that for two hockey game viewings from Rogers.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2012/03/28/hands_off_our_sacred_cbc.html
Would you care to place a small wager on that, Karen?
M.I.Wakefield
2014-06-27 03:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
You are now going to have pay-per-view for those games since Rogers got
the contract.
You're worried about supporting the CBC through tax dollars at a rate of
$34 a year?
Be ready to pay that for two hockey game viewings from Rogers.
Would you care to place a small wager on that, Karen?
That may be the dumbest thing she's written since she claimed that getting
rid of the penny would cause gas to be priced to the nickel.
(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
2014-06-27 20:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
That may be the dumbest thing she's written since she claimed that
getting rid of the penny would cause gas to be priced to the nickel.
Or I wrote that it would take 85 hours to charge the battery of a Tesla.
Alan Baker
2014-06-28 03:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
That may be the dumbest thing she's written since she claimed that
getting rid of the penny would cause gas to be priced to the nickel.
Given that lied and attributed the following text to someone other than
yourself...
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Or I wrote that it would take 85 hours to charge the battery of a Tesla.
...why do you imagine anyone would believe that he actually said that?
(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
2014-06-28 23:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by M.I.Wakefield
That may be the dumbest thing she's written since she claimed that
getting rid of the penny would cause gas to be priced to the nickel.
Given that lied and attributed the following text to someone other than
yourself...
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Or I wrote that it would take 85 hours to charge the battery of a Tesla.
...why do you imagine anyone would believe that he actually said that?
Because they're not as lazy as you are and could look it up quite easily
if they wanted to?
Just can't stop being a girl-pecker, can you, 'Baker'?
Alan Baker
2014-06-29 00:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Post by Alan Baker
Post by M.I.Wakefield
That may be the dumbest thing she's written since she claimed that
getting rid of the penny would cause gas to be priced to the nickel.
Given that lied and attributed the following text to someone other than
yourself...
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Or I wrote that it would take 85 hours to charge the battery of a Tesla.
...why do you imagine anyone would believe that he actually said that?
Because they're not as lazy as you are and could look it up quite
easily if they wanted to?
Just can't stop being a girl-pecker, can you, 'Baker'?
I'd say "lazy" is an attribute of those who make things up...

Greg Carr
2014-06-27 04:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Post by Greg Carr
I already pay taxes on my internet bundle and don't want an additional
impost. The CBC is an archaic anachronism let it die.
Hey, Crazy Carr, you got to watch the hockey games for free within your
'internet bundle' under the CBC.
You are now going to have pay-per-view for those games since Rogers got
the contract.
You're worried about supporting the CBC through tax dollars at a rate of
$34 a year?
Be ready to pay that for two hockey game viewings from Rogers.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2012/03/28/hands_off_our_sacred_cbc.html
I recall for years that the CRTC blocked an all NHL channel.
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
2014-06-27 20:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Post by Greg Carr
I already pay taxes on my internet bundle and don't want an additional
impost. The CBC is an archaic anachronism let it die.
Hey, Crazy Carr, you got to watch the hockey games for free within your
'internet bundle' under the CBC.
You are now going to have pay-per-view for those games since Rogers got
the contract.
You're worried about supporting the CBC through tax dollars at a rate of
$34 a year?
Be ready to pay that for two hockey game viewings from Rogers.
I recall for years that the CRTC blocked an all NHL channel.
What does that have to do with the CBC?
Loading...