What should the CBCs mandate be

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Redliner

Agree with this 100% but the CBC is absolutely carrying Government water. It’s been years since they’ve been anywhere close to objective with their coverage, and under the Trudeau government they have basically become the Ministry of Truth.

I dont see this. Besides, there are so many other news outlets that being obviously biased would be a death knell.

I really feel the CBC has a place in Canadian society.

[JohnnyB]

People dump on CBC for having boring content in comparison to BBC or to American content, but ignore the possibility that CBC is fulfilling its mandate well and Canada just has a pretty boring culture. One of my favorite descriptions of Canadians is that we're like furniture; we're comfortable to have around, inoffensive, and utterly boring. I mean, it's a country that prides itself on being balanced and polite everywhere that's outside of a hockey game. Is it any wonder that the media produced by a culture like that is pretty boring everywhere outside of a hockey game?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

People dump on CBC for having boring content in comparison to BBC or to American content, but ignore the possibility that CBC is fulfilling its mandate well and Canada just has a pretty boring culture. One of my favorite descriptions of Canadians is that we're like furniture; we're comfortable to have around, inoffensive, and utterly boring. I mean, it's a country that prides itself on being balanced and polite everywhere that's outside of a hockey game. Is it any wonder that the media produced by a culture like that is pretty boring everywhere outside of a hockey game?

No, that’s pretty nonsensical. How exciting Canada is as a country has nothing to do with the quality of tv shows we make. England has a far more bland culture and the BBC makes all kinds of good shows.

It really just comes down to money, talent and geography.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

People dump on CBC for having boring content in comparison to BBC or to American content, but ignore the possibility that CBC is fulfilling its mandate well and Canada just has a pretty boring culture. One of my favorite descriptions of Canadians is that we're like furniture; we're comfortable to have around, inoffensive, and utterly boring. I mean, it's a country that prides itself on being balanced and polite everywhere that's outside of a hockey game. Is it any wonder that the media produced by a culture like that is pretty boring everywhere outside of a hockey game?

Okay, but then one could contend that why bother then? Why waste the taxpayer dollars on boring content that nobody wants?

Someone said 'Mr. D' was a good show, in much the same vein that having your fingernails removed with plyers is a fun time.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, but then one could contend that why bother then? Why waste the taxpayer dollars on boring content that nobody wants?

Someone said 'Mr. D' was a good show, in much the same vein that having your fingernails removed with plyers is a fun time.

I think it's just for the sake of giving a platform for regional content, because even if it's not catching eyeballs in a media marketplace next door to the US, it's better than there being no platform for that content at all. Being boring doesn't mean it has no value.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

No, that’s pretty nonsensical. How exciting Canada is as a country has nothing to do with the quality of tv shows we make. England has a far more bland culture and the BBC makes all kinds of good shows.

It really just comes down to money, talent and geography.

It's nonsensical to think that the culture doesn't substantially determine the cultural product.

I see you are also unfamiliar with British culture.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Let's take a step back and realize that ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, all have crappy programming.

Don't get me wrong, they have some great programming too.

But let's not go down a rabbit hole of comparing the worst of CBC to the best of NBC.

If we're going to do that, who's taking Fox's Mulaney over CBC's Schitt's Creek?

Seriously though, it's not apples to apples.

[TheIronMaiden]

Although the media market has changed dramatically in the last 10 - 20 years, having some media company whose mandate is promoting cultural sovereignty is important. Even if they are fighting a losing battle.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by timun

No, what I'm saying is at least the fictional English TV programming brings in some revenue to offset its production costs, whereas whatever non-fictional productions you think the CBC should be making instead will almost assuredly bring in less revenue and you end up essentially back at square one with respect to the overall amount of government funding put into it.

This is a false dichotomy. If you cut spending on fictional programming you don't need to spend it on non-fiction programming (you can play re-runs, rebroadcasts, etc).

You could spend the money on healthcare, or lower taxes, or adding the dental subsidy, or climate goals etc, etc. Money is fungible - if you don't spend it at the CBC it's usable elsewhere.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This is a false dichotomy. If you cut spending on fictional programming you don't need to spend it on non-fiction programming (you can play re-runs, rebroadcasts, etc).

You could spend the money on healthcare, or lower taxes, or adding the dental subsidy, or climate goals etc, etc. Money is fungible - if you don't spend it at the CBC it's usable elsewhere.

That’s not what they’re saying. There is no “false dichotomy” as they are referring to things people have actually mentioned. They’re saying that by ceasing the portion of funding that goes to fictional English television programming, you’re also ceasing the thing that brings in meaningful advertising revenue and creates a financial “return on investment,” so you’re not actually saving any money.

I think everyone understands that money is fungible and that the money could be used elsewhere, but it isn’t very much money at the scale we’re talking about. You can also cut money from any number of other areas or increase taxes and put MORE money into the CBC (or healthcare, or climate goals, etc)! Crazy how it all works.

[Matata]

i like when the cbc removes comments on their videos and articles. By removing the ability to express dissenting views, you really streamline the thinking process and it keeps everyone on the same page about what the truth is. Sweet, sweet government mandated truth.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Matata

i like when the cbc removes comments on their videos and articles. By removing the ability to express dissenting views, you really streamline the thinking process and it keeps everyone on the same page about what the truth is. Sweet, sweet government mandated truth.

lol freedom of speech isn't youtube comments. Go outside.

[fulham]

Any attempt to restrict funding will be seen as partisan, and an attack on news, and the arts. Nobody questions the motives of people handing out checks, and promotions to CBC staff.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Cheques*

[timun]

Originally Posted by Matata

i like when the cbc removes comments on their videos and articles. By removing the ability to express dissenting views, you really streamline the thinking process and it keeps everyone on the same page about what the truth is. Sweet, sweet government mandated truth.

*facepalm*

You're a funny guy, Matata. The post you wrote before this one, in the "Twitter teetering on transaction" thread, reads:

Originally Posted by Matata

[...] social media will be quickly usurped by highly motivated groups who stand to make obscene amounts of money through social media manipulation.

Don't you think that comments on CBC articles are ripe to be "quickly usurped by highly motivated groups" engaging in "social media manipulation"?

[Joborule]

Since this was from the previous thread, will reply here:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They aren't all terrible. Little show called Schitt's Creek got pretty good reviews.

I would hope the bar would be higher than one great show once a decade.

Canadian media is woefully inadequate in generating hit TV shows though. As you(?), and mentioned in this thread, with US next door, the desire is to work down there. And the Canadian companies piggy back off the Amercian producers for their content.

Not sure it'll be possible to change that. I don't even think loading a brinks truck to make it financially competitive would work (nor should it done). Hollywood is a behemoth that can't be replaced. Best that can be done is to continue to encourage film production to occur in Canada, and keep supporting Canadian artist to do good locally, while giving them the ability to move down south if they have high aspirations.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s not what they’re saying. There is no “false dichotomy” as they are referring to things people have actually mentioned. They’re saying that by ceasing the portion of funding that goes to fictional English television programming, you’re also ceasing the thing that brings in meaningful advertising revenue and creates a financial “return on investment,” so you’re not actually saving any money.

I think everyone understands that money is fungible and that the money could be used elsewhere, but it isn’t very much money at the scale we’re talking about. You can also cut money from any number of other areas or increase taxes and put MORE money into the CBC (or healthcare, or climate goals, etc)! Crazy how it all works.

I mean, their fictional programming loses money, so not doing it would mean they'd have more money left over. Yeah you'd lose the revenue from it but since that revenue is less than the expenses not doing it any more would reduce the loss. The fact that they generate some revenue isn't an argument for keeping that. If Canadians as a whole agree it is worth funding with taxes then fine, but the argument was that it loses less money than their non-fiction programming.

It doesn't seem like a big leap that news and sports are more culturally relevant than having another police procedural that happens to be set in Toronto instead of New York. The arguments in favour keeping it seem to be roughly

1) it loses less money than non fiction
2) come at me bro I'm not convinced

If something isn't worth the money we spend on it we should stop, even if its only a measly fifty or hundred million dollars.

The CBC gets $1.2 billion in government funds per year, that's enough that discussing it is valid.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, their fictional programming loses money, so not doing it would mean they'd have more money left over. Yeah you'd lose the revenue from it but since that revenue is less than the expenses not doing it any more would reduce the loss. The fact that they generate some revenue isn't an argument for keeping that. If Canadians as a whole agree it is worth funding with taxes then fine, but the argument was that it loses less money than their non-fiction programming.

It doesn't seem like a big leap that news and sports are more culturally relevant than having another police procedural that happens to be set in Toronto instead of New York. The arguments in favour keeping it seem to be roughly

1) it loses less money than non fiction
2) come at me bro I'm not convinced

If something isn't worth the money we spend on it we should stop, even if its only a measly fifty or hundred million dollars.

The CBC gets $1.2 billion in government funds per year, that's enough that discussing it is valid.

The fact that is generates revenue isn’t an argument for keeping it, it’s contextualising the number of money that goes towards it.

And yes, whether it’s worth the $50-$100M is a separate argument, nobody is making it based on the fact that it loses less money, which is a different point entirely. And nobody is saying “come at me bro,” so stop being a dork about it. Even if the conclusion to that argument is that no, it’s not worth the money, then discussion moves to whether it’s worth improving the product and how you would do that vs. continuing to fund it. It’s not an automatic “oh well if it’s not worth the money we should stop.” People obviously value the product, so you have to quantify that somehow and go from there.

And nobody is saying that discussing isn’t valid, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea. That’s literally the thread.

[powderjunkie]

Can anyone shed some actual light on numbers, or is everyone just spitballing? I poked through the annual report but the expenses are not broken down at all usefully.

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, but then one could contend that why bother then? Why waste the taxpayer dollars on boring content that nobody wants?

Someone said 'Mr. D' was a good show, in much the same vein that having your fingernails removed with plyers is a fun time.

I always thought Gerry Dee seemed like a super lame comedian until I watched the show. It's a pretty good derivative of The Office; Jonathan Torrens as vice principal and Mr Leung the librarian alone make the show great...everything else is fine.

[timun]

Thank you for chiming in and recontextualizing my post, PepsiFree. I feel like you're the only poster who understands what I'm getting at.