This "redneck ignoramus" says lets decide..

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 29 2005, 06:03 PM
What is the difference? The Feds are cutting their funding of PBS. That's the point.

The difference is YOUR statement Rouge. I am not sure you can even validate THAT statement. Is the PBS getting an equal share of the revenues/distribution coming into CPB? What IS the contribution to CPB vis-a-vis the "funding" that PBS GIVES BACK to CPB. It was the CPB funding that was cut by the American gov't.

PUBLIC broadcasting is just that... public.... in the States anyway. Private donations are their key revenues. In Canada, our "public" CBC corporation doesn't go the private donation route, it is funded by all of us, regardless of whether we want it or not, whether it is profitable or not, whether it reflects our opinions or not, whether we see the programming we want or not.

Sorry mate, for Americans to cut a sliver out of a small sliver doesn't relate to the topic at hand. Actually, it does. That whole article goes to the subject at hand. It is trying to lead the reader to a particular viewpoint (including yourself) whereby the bottom line indicates otherwise.

$100 mill in the grand scheme of things down there? That is about the cost of producing ONE good movie.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 29 2005, 06:16 PM
The difference is YOUR statement Rouge. I am not sure you can even validate THAT statement. Is the PBS getting an equal share of the revenues/distribution coming into CPB? What IS the contribution to CPB vis-a-vis the "funding" that PBS GIVES BACK to CPB. It was the CPB funding that was cut by the American gov't.

PUBLIC broadcasting is just that... public.... in the States anyway. Private donations are their key revenues. In Canada, our "public" CBC corporation doesn't go the private donation route, it is funded by all of us, regardless of whether we want it or not, whether it is profitable or not, whether it reflects our opinions or not, whether we see the programming we want or not.

Sorry mate, for Americans to cut a sliver out of a small sliver doesn't relate to the topic at hand. Actually, it does. That whole article goes to the subject at hand. It is trying to lead the reader to a particular viewpoint (including yourself) whereby the bottom line indicates otherwise.

$100 mill in the grand scheme of things down there? That is about the cost of producing ONE good movie.

The Feds are cutting their funding to the CPB which in turn funds PBS. It may be a sliver of a sliver and you can do all the division you want, but the federal funding of a leftist (alleged) media outlet is being cut. Period.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 29 2005, 06:23 PM
The Feds are cutting their funding to the CPB which in turn funds PBS.

But DOES it? PBS is a listed funder of CPB!! By how much? (in both directions)? IF PBS is contributing moneys to CPB for whatever reason, and they see their CPB revenues dropping, would they not drop theirs to CPB? People support PBS, and will continue to. You yelled "fire!!!" at a PBS candle lit dinner. You indicated "It might spell the end of public broadcasting down there." for the same dinner. Pretty much overreacting, obviously, given the facts previously indicated.

PBS will live on, they will eat. If the public wants it, they will fund it. Take the whole sliver away even, and someone will step up to consume it.

Your statements are totally erroneous in this case.

[4X4]

Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 29 2005, 05:14 PM
But how do you ensure it's neutral without monitoring?

Do you mandate from its inception that it broadcasts no commentary of any kind, nor shows any material that has any political aspect?

You don't have to 'ensure' it's neutral. You just have to refrain from 'ensuring' that it's biased.

You know what? I take the whole thing back. You are right. The public is too stupid to take a gift like that & put it to good use. Why the hell should I subsidize someone's fruity idea of 'art' anyway?
Screw a public broadcaster. And definitely screw the CBC.

As for the whole idea of why can't it be sold? Why can't it? Sell the thing to GroupAction or to the Liberal Party of Canada. There's nothing new about a network with a bias.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by 4X4@Sep 29 2005, 06:48 PM
You don't have to 'ensure' it's neutral. You just have to refrain from 'ensuring' that it's biased.

You know what? I take the whole thing back. You are right. The public is too stupid to take a gift like that & put it to good use. Why the hell should I subsidize someone's fruity idea of 'art' anyway?
Screw a public broadcaster. And definitely screw the CBC.

As for the whole idea of why can't it be sold? Why can't it? Sell the thing to GroupAction or to the Liberal Party of Canada. There's nothing new about a network with a bias.

Or better yet, sell it to a huge corporation, and let's watch more American television! Good stuff!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 29 2005, 06:37 PM
But DOES it? PBS is a listed funder of CPB!! By how much? (in both directions...

Geeezus what an exercise in pointless minutiae gathering.

But...

http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/budget/

Revenues
Federal Appropriation
$390,000,000

Estimated Interest
$3,250,000

Total
$393,250,000

-------------------------------------------------

Allocation
$195,243,750
Direct grants to 350 local public television stations

$60,742,500
Direct grants to 800 local public radio stations

$67,518,750
Television programming grants

Does PBS give back money to the CPB? I don't know. Doesn't make a lot of sense though, does it? Something, I'm afraid, is erroneous.

I didn't yell fire. I was influenced by PBS employees.

"This could literally put us out of business," said Paul Stankavich, president and general manager of the Alaska Public Radio Network, an alliance of 26 stations in the state that create and share news programming. "Almost all of us are down to the bone right now. If we lost 5 or 10 percent of our budgets in one fell swoop, we could end up being just a repeater service" for national news, with no funds to produce local content.

I suppose it's possible that you know a lot more about it than this guy, but I doubt it.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 29 2005, 07:06 PM
Geeezus what an exercise in pointless minutiae gathering.

Really... factually challenging a bold statement like yours is now considered an "exercise in pointless minutiae"? So, we should just step back and accept the opinion of BuddaRouge here, eh?

Does PBS give back money to the CPB?# I don't know.# Doesn't make a lot of sense though, does it?# Something, I'm afraid, is erroneous.

Yes, that you alluded that PBS would lose 25% of its funding. And that "It might spell the end of public broadcasting down there"... pretty erroneous statement in my books.... CPB indicates PBS is a funder..... on THEIR site. As I indicated, I have no idea what funds flow between the two, but that statement alone indicates transfer from public donations earmarked for PBS to CPB.

I didn't yell fire.# I was influenced by PBS employees.

"This could literally put us out of business," said Paul Stankavich, president and general manager of the Alaska Public Radio Network, an alliance of 26 stations in the state that create and share news programming. "Almost all of us are down to the bone right now. If we lost 5 or 10 percent of our budgets in one fell swoop, we could end up being just a repeater service" for national news, with no funds to produce local content.

I suppose it's possible that you know a lot more about it than this guy, but I doubt it.

Similar to... "I didn't yell fire, THAT GUY DID!!! I just repeated it!!"

Me thinkst you are confusing the PBS entity with every independent public radio/TV station out there.

Even in your quote above, the APRN (also please advise how they are PBS employees) indicate a concern about having a "5 or 10 percent" reduction "in one fell swoop" to their budget. How does that compare to the previously documented cuts that would be less than 4% this year (if Gov't funding is distributed equally)?

Rouge, I know you like to get a good political debate going, but seriously, until you can factually indicate that you have a toe to stand on regarding your posts here, sorry, I am tired of playing.

The facts are the facts, regardless if you "suppose it's possible that [I] know a lot more about it than this guy, but I doubt it." Darryl Sutter makes lots of statements that we all know are used to motivate people in many ways, regardless if they are completely factual or not. If a sound bite from an Alaskan wing of some questionable "employee" relation to PBC is enough to alter your judgement.... yikes.

CU L8R.

[Igottago]

Do you guys honestly think the CBC is that slanted?? I personally find their news specifically, to be refreshing because it doesn't have the obvious right wing slant of stations like Global..maybe its just they tell me what I want to hear, or tell you what you don't want to hear. I feel much more like I'm being told what's going on rather than told what to think of what's going on when I watch CBC news. I feel insulted when I hear the thunderous music and fear inspiring graphic overlays when a story is introduced on Global National, for example. Is it a movie, or news??

Is there a fair and unbiased Canadian news source out there, in your opinion?

PS - Comparing CBC to Fox News is laughable, even if there is a slight left bias in the CBC, it is nowhere near the rediculous excuse for journalism that Fox spews out.

[Zarathustra]

I enjoy CBC.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Funny thing about the CBC is they are not even a public broadcaster in any practical sense.

With very few exceptions their shows do not appeal to the vast majority of Canadians, and in most markets almost no-one watches their local programming. Other than the sports they cater to a very, very small crowd.

They aren't public, they're eliteist.

I don't like the wasted billions on the CBC. But i could live with it if they were at least accomplishing something other than driving up costs for the rest of the networks.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FireFly@Sep 29 2005, 06:04 PM
Or better yet, sell it to a huge corporation, and let's watch more American television! Good stuff!

The implication in your statement is that CBC is providing you with programming that represents Canadian thought . . . . and that probably isn't the case.

As an example, a 2003 University of Windsor/UofC study found that CBC radio journalists, as one example, voted 40% NDP in the 2000 election compared to 14% of private sector journalists and 8% of the population in general. On the other hand, that sounds like an improvement because I recall a survey from the late nineties finding that 70% of CBC radio employees voted NDP.

A few days ago, Patrick Watson, ex-CBC chief, writing in the Globe & Mail, called for the entire CBC operation to be folded and re-invented, saying it had lost its way and no longer represented Canadian thought.

You have to admit that's a killer blow.

I've issued the challenge before to find someone who actually accuses CBC media of right wing bias and so far only Rougeunderoos, who managed to find one (1) disgrunted ex-CBC employee and NDP activist, to claim a surprising prize of honour. Most mainstream media - FOX being an obvious exception - are routinely accused by both the left and right of bias. CBC is right there with FOX.

Its time to get rid of or at least re-invent this ridiculous waste of taxpayer money as Patrick Watson, not exactly a right wing wingnut, demands.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 29 2005, 08:09 PM
Really... factually challenging a bold statement like yours is now considered an "exercise in pointless minutiae"? So, we should just step back and accept the opinion of BuddaRouge here, eh?

[Q]Really... factually challenging a bold statement like yours is now considered an "exercise in pointless minutiae"? So, we should just step back and accept the opinion of BuddaRouge here, eh?[/Q]

Yes it is pointless minutiae and we are both doing it. Unless of course you think these little details are really important.

I'll cut to the chase -- again. The Federal government is cutting money to the CPB and that will have an effect on PBS. A negative $$ effect. You can do all the gymnastics you want. That is the gist of it. That was part of my point -- that Transplant, who clearly doesn't want his tax dollars going to a liberal media outlet, might be happy to hear that less of his tax money would be going to a liberal media outlet. Pretty straightforward, no?

Was it less than 25%? It sure sounds like it and you proved it. Does the CPB get money from PBS? Not according to their rather straightforward budget. Does anyone care about these piddling arguments? I doubt it. I know I don't.

The only reason I even looked up the PBS crap was to prove a point to Transplant that it's not only the evil Liberals that fund public television. What I found I thought relevant to the topic at hand. I still do. My point still stands.

I'm truly sorry that I didn't do the proper division and make sure I had done a extensive google search and I must admit that I did not clear this with a proofreader before I submitted my paper.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 29 2005, 07:46 PM
The implication in your statement is that CBC is providing you with programming that represents Canadian thought . . . . and that probably isn't the case.

As an example, a 2003 University of Windsor/UofC study found that CBC radio journalists, as one example, voted 40% NDP in the 2000 election compared to 14% of private sector journalists and 8% of the population in general. On the other hand, that sounds like an improvement because I recall a survey from the late nineties finding that 70% of CBC radio employees voted NDP.

A few days ago, Patrick Watson, ex-CBC chief, writing in the Globe & Mail, called for the entire CBC operation to be folded and re-invented, saying it had lost its way and no longer represented Canadian thought.

You have to admit that's a killer blow.

I've issued the challenge before to find someone who actually accuses CBC media of right wing bias and so far only Rougeunderoos, who managed to find a disgrunted ex-CBC employee and NDP activist, has managed to find one (1) example. Most mainstream media - FOX being an obvious exception - are routinely accused by both the left and right of bias. CBC is right there with FOX.

Its time to get rid of or at least re-invent this ridiculous waste of taxpayer money as Patrick Watson, not exactly a right wing wingnut, demands.

Cowperson

What does voting patterns of cbc radio employees have to do with anything? I seem to think that CBCs supposed left wing slant is more valuable to Canada anyway as we are inundated with right-wing bias. Infact the moderate to very right wing views are so prevalent now that they appear moderate and the CBC (IMO being moderate) is appearing as left. I think a good role for the CBC is to present view points which are not heard or under represented. That should be the conscience of the public broadcaster to espouse points of view which other actors simply will not. That's not really a bad thing, this way you get a range of debate and can make suitable decisions. See John Stuart Mill.

[Resolute 14]

We are inundated with right wing bias in Alberta. That is not exactly the case across Canada.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 29 2005, 07:54 PM
You grouse about tax dollars going to leftist media outlets so I thought I'd bring up tax dollars going to leftist media outlets in the country you currently live and pay taxes in.

I didn't think it was much of a stretch. Apparently it was.

Anyhow, I thought you'd be happy to know that fewer of your tax dollars were going to fund a leftist media outlet. I guess not.

Thanks for admitting the CBC has a leftist slant. Thats all the thread asked in the beginning.

I'd MUCH prefer that NO tax dollars go to an entity that goes head to head with private business (IE: compete for advertising dollars)....but that's not the way of the Liberal world.

[MarchHare]

I'd MUCH prefer that NO tax dollars go to an entity that goes head to head with private business (IE: compete for advertising dollars)....but that's not the way of the Liberal world.

Well, the CBC could follow the BBC's model and go commercial-free, but then they'd also charge us a television license fee like they do in the UK, Japan, and elsewhere.

Of course, what you're really saying is that you hate the CBC and wish it was scrapped altogether. I think you'll find that the majority of Canadians won't agree with that sentiment.

[Resolute 14]

I think you might be surprised on that last point, MarchHare.

I think a majority of Canadians are completely indifferent to the CBC actually.

Personally, I believe it provides exactly two useful functions: HNIC and the National.

Both of which could easily thrive on another network.

[transplant99]

Of course, what you're really saying is that you hate the CBC and wish it was scrapped altogether.

No fooling you apparently.

I think you'll find that the majority of Canadians won't agree with that sentiment.

Disagree so vehemently.

Of course, there has never been a real opportunity to punt the goofs, they are pretty well protected from that.

[The Goon]

My guess is the CBC is left-leaning because Canada is left-leaning. The nation's broadcaster reflects the makeup of the nation.

I haven't spent much time thinking about what the CBC's agenda is. As long as they keep showing hockey and Coronation Street, I'm happy.

[Flame On]

I think the leaning is overstated, I mean the news covering stories of the day; say gay marriage etc. has been quite a story recently. Not to mention something that's trying to be passed by the government of the day. Why wouldn't they cover something like that? And it's not like they come out with headline, Gay Marriage Bill to Pass and the CBC backs it all the way.
Venture? A show about industry and trade oooo patently liberal I guess.
Hot Type? A literature show, now I know a lot of rednecks probably have trouble reading ( ) but really, how is that liberal per se?
The Nature of things, it started off as purely a nature show decades ago and sure Dr. Suzuki has an agenda now but it's not like the CBC provides him with scripts any more than they do the business news when they report how the oil industry is doing. Liberal show but is it them or the show? And should they not host that?
The Antiques Roadshow?!
I dunno I just don't see a big attempt at brainwashing going on, at least not as much as say Global's news with Kevin Newman or something.
Basically it's a taxation sour grapes i think.