CBC employees have been locked out. Maybe I should care; I know there are some communities that depend on our national broadcaster for their news and other programming -- but I don't care.
The employees want us to believe that because the CBC is 'special', its needs as a broadcaster are different from other networks. The only thing 'special' about it is that their funding comes from us and they are not accountable to us.
Our other national broadcasters, CanWest Global and CTV, have to concern themselves with the opinions of their viewers. Advertising dollars keep them in business, and advertisers respond to the public. The difference between CBC and the other networks is that our state broadcaster doesn't depend on advertising revenue.
TVO & PBS are examples of public broadcasters, obligated to their viewers because their viewers are also their patrons. These stations receive tax dollars, but that funding is augmented by donations from those who enjoy what they air. Their funding is tied to their ability to raise revenue based on the public response to their programming.
CBC is expensive, and provides little that couldn't be done just as well by a private broadcaster.
The CBC employees should take note of the NHL lockout. The players lost big-time. Why? Because they can be replaced. The people who bankroll the teams (the owners) or the CBC (taxpayers) will always be more important to the equation than the workers, even as a group.
We can do without the CBC. There are other networks where we can watch bad Canadian shows, repeats of original comedies, children's television and even sports.
Now that the NHL lockout is over, I would hope we don't lose Saturday night hockey to this dispute, but if we did . . . we're already used to it, so who would care?
24 comments:
I watched some of the footage of the picketers on television tonight. One man had on a CCCP communist party t-shirt.
Is this ironic or merely to be expected?
It's amazing that we can live in a country and this can pass without even a blip.
There is no need for the CBC. If it were disbanded tommorrow I would go to that big red building on Front and dance a jig with a bottle o' scotch.
nicol,
make that single-malt and I'll join ya'.
Forget about elections for a while.
No free pub from the CeeB.
CBC is Canada's voice.
CBC isn't just channel 2 broadcasting Mr. Dress Up and Coronation Street. CBC Broadcasts 6 Radio and Television stations an abundance of local content as well as internat news for every province. Whether or not you were aware, the CBC is up there with the BBC and rueters for journalistic integrity. Not only that, but CBC is Canada's driving cultural force.
This would be evident if you ever listend to CBC radio, or watch the TV stations for that matter.
You should care what happens, the loss of CBC would be devastating to Canada.
You have no idea how pissed of I was when I turned on CBC Newsworld and treated to the daily BBC news 24 instead. Not to mention the fact that CBC Manitoba is also shutdown.
The CBC is on strike?
Peg City Kid:
Whether or not you were aware, the CBC is up there with the BBC and rueters for journalistic integrity. Not only that, but CBC is Canada's driving cultural force.
That's a damning indictment of the CBC if ever there was one.
CBC is a cultural driving force? Ha! CBC's ratings are terribly low, minus children's programming and hockey games etc, so clearly Canadians don't agree it's culturally important. So why are we paying for it? I don't watch much tv to begin with but I did catch a bit of CBC the other day. It was Air Farce, a rerun of them mocking Preston Manning and the Reform party. Geez, could they have at least played a rerun from this decade? They might as well have played some cheesy Degrassi Junior High rerun.
As for Newsworld, haha, I found it funny to see their hourly news updates conducted by some no name anchor with the newsroom in the background in complete black. They can't even turn the lights on! How symbolic of the CBC itself....it's fading to black and everyone knows it.
Peg, CBC employees are not so special that they deserve job security to the point where they continue to inflate costs by not accepting contracting out as part of the new reality.
The world is progressing. People no longer work for the same employer for 30 or 40 years until retirement. Workers in most industries have realised that they have to deal with being contract workers rather than employees. Why should CBC be any different? Their jobs, and their ability to do those jobs are not so highly unique that they can't be replaced.
CBC may be a 'driving cultural force' -- but where is it driving? Loyalist is right, your comparision between CBC and the BBC is accurate, but it is hardly an endorsement of the quality of their news programming.
They're lock-out? Well damm.Some managers who finally did something right.Now back to some real news on CTV.
'Peg City Kid
"You should care what happens, the loss of CBC would be devastating to Canada."
The sun will still rise and set. Liberal corruption will continue. Citizens will still vote Grit. Hockey night in Canada will be broadcast without sound (so I hear.) Gas prices will go up and up.
Ok, Marxists criminals in Zimbabwe and the Muslim slavers in Sudan will be deprived of CBC International for a time. They can handle it.
Repeat after me. Serentity now. Serenity now......
Jesus!! Get over yourselves!!
Instead of trimming the hangnail, remove the arm, very good. Bravo!!
Nicol,
Really!!!! a CCCP communist party t-shirt?!?! Pinkie Scum!!!! Start the witch hunt!!!!
Loyalist,
please explain, your comment makes absolutely no sense to me, as BBC sets the standard.
To "Liberal" for ya?? Are you more of A CNN type person? Bullsh*t American propaganda.
Fabian,
la Télévision de Radio-Canada has the highest ratings in Quebec.
Granted, CBC English ratings have sagged, but is that really reason enough to disband the CBC?? Man, Am I glad the Conservatives lost.
CBC, The Health Care System, what's next?? Welfare??
Fabian, just in case you were wondering, CBC is locked-out, which means nobody is working, hence no need for light.
Although that bit of logic is probably a little to subtle for a conservative to pick up on. That requires a certain level of perceptiveness.
Canadianna,
I agree with you 100%. I'm not a union man, they're more corrupt than the management. I totally agree with CBC's stand and I understand and agree with CBC's concerns, and this lock-out. That wasn't my point.
My point was to defend the integrity of CBC. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. CBC is world renowned. What more can I say, It's not an opinion, it's fact. It's on paper. Fortunatley, that's not up to you.
The real question is whether or not you can accept that.
Do you thing Canada is the only country with a government funded media outlet???????
Why shouldn't Canada have one??? Because you happen to not like the programming?? Once again, fortunately that's not up to you.
john the mad,
The States will still be occupying Iraq, killing innocent civilians on a daily basis, White house backed coups will still fail, and Israel will still have American made nukes.
Ok, Trigger happy American Butchers in the middle east will be deprived of CBC International for a time, and you're right, they probably could handle it.
CBC, The Health Care System, what's next?? Welfare??
Sounds like a good start to me.
Do you thing Canada is the only country with a government funded media outlet?
No. Most Soviet block countries had them (for example). So do many other countries.
The real question here, though, is why should anyone trust anything that comes from an entity that is on the gov't dole?
I would far rather get my news from a source like the WSJ or NYT than some entity that gets its money from the government.
Peg, you're believing the CBC's own press-- 'world renowned'? That's hilarious -- Canada is hardly known around the world, but you think our public broadcaster is? The only thing the CBC does well enough to be known for is sports.
Your take on the BBC is old. The BBC has been consistently and repeatedly making an ass of itself over the past several years. They hardly 'set the standard'. Hence, your comparison with CBC is accurate.
As I said in the post Peg, my problem isn't with their programming, it is with their attitude and how they pay for their programming, their on air personalities, and their technical staff. Public dollars. Not public dollars in the same way as TVO (Ontario's public television station) or PBS the US public broadcaster). No, rather than having to meet ratings targets or quality or programming targets -- they are fully funded regardless of the quality or popularity of their programming.
Like it or not, if you're going to be in the media business, it's the ratings that count. At least with TVO and PBS the viewers are asked to shell out of their pockets -- funding is based largely on these stations ability to raise money privately -- in other words -- if people aren't willing to donate, the government slashes funding. It's performance based funding -- and it keeps those stations accountable both to their viewers and the taxpayer.
CBC's editorial stance etc. is funded by the public but they are not accountable via ratings or anything else to their shareholders (us).
My like or dislike of their programming is not the issue. The point is that there is nothing that they do that can't be done more efficiently by a private outlet. Since that's the case, they have no earthly purpose than to keep a bunch of liberal flunkies in their government jobs.
You go on about conservatives, but there you are, advocating 'conserving' government services that are proven not to work.
Stuffle,
Go back you Wisconsin. Sorry, Wiscaaaansan.
Wall Street Journal??? New York Times??? Why don't I just puke on a peice of paper and scrawl out the words "I Love America" on it. That's almost as good, and it won't cost you a dime.
Canadianna, get with it!!!
If you mention the word Canada, especially in the middle east, they'll blurt out "Toronto", before you finish you sentence.
Perhaps you can explain to me how the BBC has made an ass of itself?? Help out a poor misguided liberal.
Well, you answered your own question.
I already talked about CBC's Ratings, and whether or not you want to believe it, It's not me, nor CBC saying it's world renowned, sorry.
Not only that, but I kind of enjoy not having to watch the constant teledrives, the nagging for money, and the threat of cancelation from the public broadcasters. And lets be honest, the public braodcasting isn't that great. They buy what they can afford.
"The point is that there is nothing that they do that can't be done more efficiently by a private outlet"
I'm not aware of any private 24 news and cultural networks in Canada.
"Since that's the case, they have no earthly purpose than to keep a bunch of liberal flunkies in their government jobs."
Yeah, that's not the case. CBC is just as critical towards the Libs as they are anyone else. It's just that the Cons have a lot more to be critical about. Sorry, it's not they're fault.
Peg wrote:
Wall Street Journal??? New York Times??? Why don't I just puke on a peice of paper and scrawl out the words "I Love America" on it.
Um, no, that is what you would be more likely to get if the media was run by the government.
Since the WSJ and NYT are not paid for by the government, they are far more likely to offer valid criticisms of the government, and both the WSJ and NYT do, often (one from a conservative slant, the other liberal). It is part of the whole idea of having a free press.
BTW - I don't have to "go back to Wisconsin". I am still there. See, that's the thing about the Internet. I can write comments on a Canadian's blog without actually going to Canada. You seemed to be a bit confused there. Thought I would sort that out for you...
The way to end this debate is to take out the subjective nature of the arguments:
To Peg City Kid:
Who are the "right-leaning" people employed at CBC Newsworld who are paid to give their opinions?
Every time such a person is brought on board, it happens to be someone who has a left-leaning bias. Why is that? Are you going to say that there is nothing wrong with taking the tax dollars of the 4 million Canadians who voted for Harper and the Conservatives in the last election and using those tax dollars to shill in favour of the governing Liberals?
And you have attacked CNN.
CNN employees the likes of Robert Novak, Kate O'Beirne, and Bay Buchanan to balance out the opinions on the left, such as Paul Begala, James Carville, and Mark Shields.
Who are the "right-leaning" equivalents at CBC Newsworld?
Another news source CBC and the left like to attack is FOX News.
FOX News has Geraldo Rivera, who oppenly acknowledges his Liberal bias. He's a self-described fan of Bill Clinton, and even went so far as to blame Ken Starr for the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
And not only that, but FOX News has extended his contract, signing him on for another 4 more years.
Tell me, how does an individual with such an anti-Bush, anti-Republican, liberal bias come to work at FOX NEWS, let alone given a contract extension and a promotion, too?
Let's play a word association game:
Geraldo is to FOX NEWS what ____________ is to CBC Newsworld
Now that the subjective arguments have been removed, Peg City Kid can now attempt to justify taxpayers' dollars going to subsidize left-leaning news.
Peg -- Re: BBC's credibility ---
BBC bosses faced a furious backlash last night after they were forced to admit that they packed a TV terror debate with Muslims. (August 2005)
BBC Newswatch
"Shall we just leave that there?" Click the link for an audio clip of Nick Clarke silencing discussion of BBC News Director Richard Sambrooke's role in the Kelly affair. Audio link
And remember when they planted fake hecklers at a Tory convention? Here's the link to that:
Daily Telegraph
They're just the ones I remember off the top of my head.
anonymous -- Thanks -- Great points. And I really wish you'd sign.
Stuffle,
Last time I checked, the National Inquirer was privatley owned as well, does that make it a good source for news??? No, I don't think so.
Oh Wow, Stuffle, um.....
When I said 'go back to Wisconsin, I was using something called a "metaphor". Do you have those in America??
I obviously knew where you were from and I wasn't suggesting you should physically go back to Wisconsin, but rather keep your uninformed comments in your own fact tampering, treaty breaking, water polluting country.
What's this "Internet" you speak of???
Anonymous,
Do you even watch CBC?!??! I really don’t think so.
Who? Peter Mansbridge?? Michaëlle Jean?? Yeah, definitely a threat to the right.
NOVAK?!?? NOVAK?!?? He's knee deep in the Plame leak =) Not only that but he swore and walked of the set when he was put on the spot. Now, that's journalistic integrity.
How did Edie Emery, the spokesperson for CNN describe his behavior? Oh yeah, "inexcusable and unacceptable". He was suspended for it. Is this who you choose to represent right-wing media?? He wouldn't have been my first choice.
And I hate to break this to you but his show just got canceled. Fantastic example!!
Kate O'Brien? Perhaps you should read the article where she made false claims regarding the polls taken of Bush's handling of SS
Bay Buchanan?? You mean the one who backed Bush 150% on his claims if WMD's in Iraq?? Very good, you got me!
Man, this is just to easy.
You wrote a paragraph and managed to say absolutely nothing, a true politician.
"Are you going to say that there is nothing wrong with taking the tax dollars of the 4 million Canadians who voted for Harper and the Conservatives in the last election and using those tax dollars to shill in favour of the governing Liberals?"
First, What about the 10 million who voted Liberal? Not that it matters.
Second, I'm really not going to humor your conspiracy theories. You ever notice that whenever conservatives, both American and Canadian, do something wrong it's always the press's fault?? Hmmmmm.
Yeah, Let's play a word association game:
Geraldo is to FOX NEWS what You have no idea what your talking about is to CBC Newsworld.
Come back when you have something valid to say.
Canadianna,
The first link didn't go anywhere, post it again and I'll read it.
O.k, Susan Watts made accusation which have never been proven, Not that they're that far fetched. Still, I think it's in bad taste to use unsubstantiated accusation to smear someone's name, don't you? But Conservatives like doing that, Inky Mark, the Grewals, ect, ect...
As for the hecklers, BBC says one thing, the telegraph says another. No other serious news source reports on this.
Peg -
The National Inquirer isn't even in the same class as the NYT or WSJ. The comparison isn't even close to valid.
Of course, in the private sector you are going to find examples of good reporting and bad reporting. However, the NI does not try to pass itself off as anything other than a tabloid centered on entertainment gossip.
"The real question here, though, is why should anyone trust anything that comes from an entity that is on the gov't dole?"
Are you suggesting that, for example, "Baghdad Broadcasting Coroportion" is nothing more than the 10 Downing Street puppet?
No the real issues is waning faith Canadians and Americans have in media, particularly privatly owned media and the declining quality of news coverage.
"I would far rather get my news from a source like the WSJ or NYT than some entity that gets its money from the government."
And the vast majority of Americans and Canadians would disagree with you. The most trusted news casts in both countries are public, PBS and CBC respectively, and both would not survive without government money.
That said, Canada is not America. Canada has 32 million people. The US has close to 300 if the millions of illegals are counted. The private sector has not stepped up to the plate in terms of providing quality programming and given our small population and the size of the country there is no reason to expect that it ever will.
TV and radio are also not print media. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Oh and by the way, the CBC have teamed up with the NYTimes on a number of projects and have coprouduced a TV show called Times 7.
Stuffle,
Sorry for being so snappy, had a long week.
My point is that just because the source is privately owned does not mean it is good. In fact, if anything, it makes it a haven of bad reporting as these networks, (i.e. FOX, CNN, CBS, etc..) Rely purely on ratings, and report only on things that will generate good ratings, where as a government funded network has no such obligation.
The same goes with privately funded paper.
The best part about lurking around logs like this is laughing at your comments; smug in the knowledge that Conservatives will never again have a meaningful government in Canada.
Where did you find it? Interesting read » »
Post a Comment