Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Azure]

There are lots of great news organizations in the US that are private.

Strange point to make.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If the CBC were as balanced in its editorial stance as the BBC, it would be as widely supported as the BBC. But it’s not.

Yay! A true example of begging the question and combined with an ad populum fallacy. Good job, Cliff.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

There are lots of great news organizations in the US that are private.

Strange point to make.

And what's their footprint/impact like compared to CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, The Daily Wire, etc.?

[Azure]

Pretty sure its growing a lot. Mainstream media isn't exactly getting great ratings these days.

[timun]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yay! A true example of begging the question and combined with an ad populum fallacy. Good job, Cliff.

Meanwhile, the CBC gets about a third of the funding the BBC gets per-capita from taxpayers—about $1.3B in annual government funding from a country with a population of about 40.5M people. Whereas the BBC gets $6.4B (3.74B GBP) from a country of 68M people; 68% more people providing 392% more money.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yay! A true example of begging the question and combined with an ad populum fallacy. Good job, Cliff.

Ad populum isn’t a fallacy when it comes to assessing the value of a public broadcaster. Should the people who run the CBC completely disregard how any many Canadians actually use and trust their news programming?

What criteria should we use to assess whether the CBC is being run well and fulfilling its mandate?

I’ll offer a few that should at least be in the mix:

* High degree of public engagement

* High degree of public trust

* Balance in public perceptions of bias (ie the 20/60/20 split for the BBC)

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by timun

Meanwhile, the CBC gets about a third of the funding the BBC gets per-capita from taxpayers—about $1.3B in annual government funding from a country with a population of about 40.5M people. Whereas the BBC gets $6.4B (3.74B GBP) from a country of 68M people; 68% more people providing 392% more money.

Isn't part of that because of the revenue models implemented by each country? BBC has no ads so they require more government funding whereas CBC does have ad revenue so they require less government funding.

[CliffFletcher]

The BBC gets most of its funding from an annual fee charged to every household with a TV - it’s currently $290 CDN a year. Good luck getting the Canadian public onboard with that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Ad populum isn’t a fallacy when it comes to assessing the value of a public broadcaster. Should the people who run the CBC completely disregard how any many Canadians actually use and trust their news programming?

What criteria should we use to assess whether the CBC is being run well and fulfilling its mandate?

I’ll offer a few that should at least be in the mix:

* High degree of public engagement

* High degree of public trust

* Balance in public perceptions of bias (ie the 20/60/20 split for the BBC)

Moving the goalposts now. You said the editorial balance of a broadcaster is reflected in how much widespread support it has. That's a fallacy. A broadcaster could be perfectly editorially balanced and still not receive widespread support for any number of reasons.

[timun]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The BBC gets most of its funding from an annual fee charged to every household with a TV - it’s currently $290 CDN a year. Good luck getting the Canadian public onboard with that.

Absolutely. But when the inevitable comparisons to the BBC begin the point shouldn't be lost on people that the BBC has almost quintuple the funding.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Moving the goalposts now. You said the editorial balance of a broadcaster is reflected in how much widespread support it has. That's a fallacy. A broadcaster could be perfectly editorially balanced and still not receive widespread support for any number of reasons.

You're right, it's well done but it sucks and no one gives a ####.

Checkmate

[chemgear]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...0time%20period.

Canada’s population shock drives most of recent productivity declines

As Ottawa overhauls its temporary immigration programs, a new analysis by Bank of Nova Scotia warns that the unchecked population surge of the past two years is behind two-thirds of the “massive” decline in productivity over the same time period.

The drop stems from a combination of two factors: chronically-low business investment in Canada and the sudden explosion in population, which grew by 1.25 million last year alone.

Given weak investment levels, that’s far more than the 350,000 permanent and temporary immigrants Canada’s economy can absorb without having a negative impact on productivity, according to Scotiabank economists Rebekah Young and René Lalonde.

“Canada’s immigration policy needs a reset, not quick-fixes,” the economists wrote in their report

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Moving the goalposts now. You said the editorial balance of a broadcaster is reflected in how much widespread support it has. That's a fallacy. A broadcaster could be perfectly editorially balanced and still not receive widespread support for any number of reasons.

It could. The example of the BBC - the institution the CBC is modelled after - may have no relevance to Canada. Canadian conservatives may be a lost cause.

But I’ll ask again: By what criteria should we judge the stewardship of the CBC?

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It could. The example of the BBC - the institution the CBC is modelled after - may have no relevance to Canada. Canadian conservatives may be a lost cause.

But I’ll ask again: By what criteria should we judge the stewardship of the CBC?

Maintaining coast to coast cohesion of our country.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Maintaining coast to coast cohesion of our country.

[DFO]

More CBC funding would be required to bring up the content quality and reach. Pretty evident when making those BBC comparisons. I’m fine with it.

[Erick Estrada]

CBC is kind of a polarizing topic as people don't like change and since CBC's been around for our lifetime that some feel it's more necessary than it actually is. I'm of the opinion that it's a relic of Canadian past and the declining returns in 2024 don't warrant the investment. You have to look at a lot of issues the country faces today and ask yourself if the country really needs to be spending over a billion dollars a year for a service that only a 1/4 of Canadians even use. It's one of those things where the country has to make the tough decision that it's an institution from the past that is no longer viable today with people using the internet for news and entertainment. The reality is that it's a "nice to have" and not a necessity for Canadians and defunding it is probably something that will inevitably happen.

[Ozy_Flame]

By what metrics are you using for that? Anecdotally?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

By what metrics are you using for that? Anecdotally?

Cable TV and cable news is a dying business. What exactly do you think is CBC's future? Honestly do you really, really think it's sustainable?

[powderjunkie]

Isn't traditional TV viewership declining across the board (except live sports)? is there any evidence that CBC is doing proportionally worse than anything else?