Country would lose at least $1.3-billion if government privatizes CBC: report

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'll give it a shot. I'm a conservative who does appreciate/support the arts (regular seats at the CPO, etc).

I truly believe that the vast majority of the things of value the CBC produces would get picked up by private broadcasters, or continued without gov't support by a privatized CBC. In such a case, we'd get the same benefits without paying the substantial cost of the CBC.

***SNIP***

Well, we're definitely on very different sides of the argument, and this is probably one of those "No right answer" kind of issues. Thanks for outlining the position.

[octothorp]

I think the issue is much more complex than this CBC-commissioned study makes it out to be. Obviously if you simply cut the CBC off and don't replace that funding, then investment in Canadian media is going to go down. But if you privatize the CBC and invest some of that money instead into (well-designed) content development programs, what you get is a similar pool of money more equally distributed amongst the networks (and not just networks but independent content developers), you should actually see an increase in quality Canadian television.

What we have right now is an archaic attitude that the only way to protect Canadian content is through restrictions. During the last election, ACTRA announced their absolutely asinine proposal of extending current Can-con restrictions to the Internet. To me, this is backwards (not to mention unenforceable). The era of meaningful content restriction is coming to an end. The only way to really support Canadian content in the future is to help it succeed in the international (and online) media marketplace.

Current Can-con guidelines are based around air-time, so you have networks stretching a limited budget of new program funding across a large number of programs. The result is a lot of very low-budget (and usually low-quality) programs. It's a sort of scatter-shot approach that hopes that one of a large number of underfunded programs will actually become a self-sufficient success (Little Mosque is one of the few real success stories to come out of this approach). Allowing more freedom for networks to allocate funding could result in a smaller number of better-funded programs that are more likely to become self-sufficient and syndicated, and would have a better impact of keeping the top-end Canadian talent in Canada.

I'd also support seeing a model that made more of an emphasis on investment-style funding programs; if Canadian taxpayers fund a program and it turns out to be a big money-making success through advertising and syndication, then the taxpayers should at least recoup their investment. Every project should be undertaken with a goal of self-sufficiency, which certainly isn't the case with current Can-con restrictions and funding.

I also think that the funding models need to be more democratized. If a studio (even an amateur, home-grown studio) is operating outside the network infrastructure and producing good content that they're distributing online, and they can show a reasonable business model for success, then they should have equal access to funding as content creators who are getting their funding funnelled through the networks.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Well, we're definitely on very different sides of the argument, and this is probably one of those "No right answer" kind of issues. Thanks for outlining the position.

I'm certainly willing to agree to disagree, and admit that the only way to see what would happen for certain with a privatized CBC would be to actually do it, and I can understand why people of a different opinion wouldn't want to undertake that experiment.

It's a bit of a schrodinger's cat situation. We can't know for sure which outcome is superior without making an observation of both of them, but once we do so, it becomes difficult to go back if the current situation was judged to be superior.

[Azure]

I actually don't care that much about the political leanings. They don't have a lot of quality content which is why they shouldn't be propped up by taxpayer money year after year.

[troutman]

NPR Radio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding

In 2010, NPR revenues totaled $180 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants from foundations or business entities, contributions and sponsorships.[14] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges.[14] Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[14][15] While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR’s overall revenues.[14]

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. Now more money to fund the NPR network is raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations instead.[citation needed] According to CPB, in 2009 11.6% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB.[16]

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

I actually don't care that much about the political leanings. They don't have a lot of quality content which is why they shouldn't be propped up by taxpayer money year after year.

I think the radio programming is the best in the world. Some of the most popular podcasts on iTunes are CBC podcasts.

[Knalus]

Best Canadian content TV show produced in the last 10 years:

Corner Gas.

Not CBC




That being said, I have been noticing lately how much better the National has been, and how it always seems to be on when I am interested in watching the news. George Strombolopolis is pretty decent also. And I do have a soft spot for the older childrens television I grew up with: The Friendly Giant, Mr Dress-up, Fred Penner's Place.

If they play to their strengths, they can be a decent network. If all they do is try to replace CFL/NHL (Canadian centric programming people actually want to watch) with Anne of Green Gables, that's when they fail.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think the radio programming is the best in the world. Some of the most popular podcasts on iTunes are CBC podcasts.

I was actually talking more about CBC TV. I agree that CBC Radio is actually pretty good.

[getbak]

To me, a crown corporation should exist for one of two reasons: to provide a service that the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide; or to provide a service that is of vital importance that needs to be protected from being unfairly administered by the private sector. Wherever possible, Crown Corporations should not operate in direct competition with private corporations.

At one time, the CBC served a purpose because it was able to provide a service that private broadcasters were unable to provide profitably: broadcasting to remote and sparsely populated areas of the country. With satellite tv and radio services available, over-the-air broadcasting has a much lower importance for serving those remote areas.

I don't think people necessarily want the CBC shut down, just privatized. They do some things very well, and there's no reason to get rid of them, but there's also no reason to give a billion dollars a year to prop them up either.

Should they be using tax dollars to be able to put forth competitive bids against private broadcasters for programming rights to things like hockey and the Olympics?

If they produce programming that people like, people will watch it, and it will make money. If they're producing programming that is of no interest to a large percentage of Canadians, are they really fulfilling their mandate?


I agree with octothorp: Take the money that's being provided to the CBC now and put it towards investing in Canadian productions from any source, and you'd likely see an increase in industry investment because you wouldn't be funding the administration and operation of an entire radio and television network.

[CaptainCrunch]

I came to the realization that outside of the news and Hockey Night in Canada, there's really nothing on there that makes me watch the channel.

[Vulcan]

Besides what's been mentioned, I like the Nature of Things with Suzuki and other documentaries that are Canada focused. I look at the other networks and in prime time just about all their programming is American. Nothing wrong with these shows but it's good to have an alternative so we aren't completely brain washed by the Yankee hype.

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Best Canadian content TV show produced in the last 10 years:

Trailer Park Boys

Not CBC

fyp

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Besides what's been mentioned, I like the Nature of Things with Suzuki and other documentaries that are Canada focused. I look at the other networks and in prime time just about all their programming is American. Nothing wrong with these shows but it's good to have an alternative so we aren't completely brain washed by the Yankee hype.

You're holding up David Suzuki as an anti-brainwashing example? No bias there at all...