What should the CBCs mandate be

[timun]

Originally Posted by 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.

The annual reports don't break it down in detail, and haven't for many years, but it used to be spilt almost evenly between English TV, French TV, English radio and French radio. It leaned a little heavier toward English language services, which always made sense to me in that there's more English language infrastructure across the country (more radio and TV stations and rebroadcasting transmitters, etc.). Likewise the revenue leans a little more heavily toward the English TV network.

[timun]

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.

The point I was making is if you're cancelling (numbers are just picked out of a hat for the sake of argument) $150M spent on fiction programs that bring in $100M, and instead produce non-fiction programs that cost $100M and bring in $50M, you have saved nothing. I don't know how to make this any simpler and clearer.

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.

They already produce news and sports programming, and those news and sports programs cost a huge chunk of that $1.2B of annual funding you seen to have a problem with, so we're back to square one in the discussion about money and worth. I'm not arguing that fictional programming on the CBC isn't as much of a money-loser as non-fictional and that's why it should be kept, I'm saying that whatever you replace it with won't perform any better financially, so the financial argument to do such a thing is moot.

GGG's argument to support getting rid of fictional programming on the English TV network was that "fictional programming does not inform or enlighten and is debatable whether it entertains," without elaborating in any way. I said they'd have to walk me through that, 'cause I don't see how one comes to that conclusion. Now you may see that as "come at me bro", but I'm trying to give GGG (and you) the benefit of the doubt. From where I'm sitting at its core it's basically arguing "fiction is dumb". Without writing volumes and volumes about the cultural and historical significance of fiction since... at least the Epic of Gilgamesh, I don't know how to respond to it other than asking that it be clarified, or treating it as a pointless non sequitur with "... So, anyway, like I was saying..."

[jayswin]

Haha, I feel you've ben crystal clear the whole time, timun.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by timun

I'm saying that whatever you replace it with won't perform any better financially, so the financial argument to do such a thing is moot.

My primary point here was that you don't have to replace $150 MM (or whatever number) of fictional programming with any dollar value of non-fictional programming, one of the choices is to not spend anything on replacing it. There isn't some magical number of shows they need to do per year. If the mandate changed to do less fictional programming they could replace it on the air with reruns they already own, or news broadcasts they already pay for on the news network, etc.

The argument that it isn't possible to spend less because the fictional programming earns revenue fails. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do it, but it does mean a discussion around the costs and benefits to Canadians can be had without the short-circuiting argument that "any other choice would cost more" because that isn't true.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Littlest Hobo and Degrassi reruns on loop.

But a directors cut where Jay Woodcroft doesn't pull through

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The argument that it isn't possible to spend less because the fictional programming earns revenue fails. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do it, but it does mean a discussion around the costs and benefits to Canadians can be had without the short-circuiting argument that "any other choice would cost more" because that isn't true.

But nobody is making that argument so who are you pretending to argue with?

Almost everyone else is having the conversation you keep saying we can have. We know. We are in the conversation. What are you talking about?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But nobody is making that argument so who are you pretending to argue with?

Almost everyone else is having the conversation you keep saying we can have. We know. We are in the conversation. What are you talking about?

I mean, I quoted the exact line of the post I was responding to, where timun says that the financial argument is moot because switching to non-fiction won't perform any better.

I can provide a different quote saying something similar if you'd like.

Originally Posted by timun

The point I was making is if you're cancelling (numbers are just picked out of a hat for the sake of argument) $150M spent on fiction programs that bring in $100M, and instead produce non-fiction programs that cost $100M and bring in $50M, you have saved nothing. I don't know how to make this any simpler and clearer.

This says that if we switch out the fiction for non-fiction, you won't save money. But like I said in my very first post that's a false dichotomy. You can switch out the fictional programming for nothing if you want to and save money.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, I quoted the exact line of the post I was responding to, where timun says that the financial argument is moot because switching to non-fiction won't perform any better.

I can provide a different quote saying something similar if you'd like.



This says that if we switch out the fiction for non-fiction, you won't save money. But like I said in my very first post that's a false dichotomy. You can switch out the fictional programming for nothing if you want to and save money.

Cool, which isn’t what timun was responding to, hey were responding to the financial argument in favour of non-fiction. So, what are you talking about and who are you trying to talk about it to?

If you don’t give CBC money, you don’t spend money on CBC. Understood. I think that’s extremely clear to everyone.

[Erick Estrada]

I can honestly say the CBC may as well not exist in our household and I'm sure that we aren't alone as millions of Canadians never use it. With people switching to streaming services it feels like CBC is slowly running its course as ratings are plummeting to all time lows as people aren't even watching the evening news broadcasts anymore. It's turning into a big money pit and one has to wonder when enough is enough.

[Ozy_Flame]

Two things will happen with the Canadian right-wing movement when/if CBC gets killed off:

1. They will claim victory that their relentless pressure finally killed it as a taxpayer scourge (even though it will be a far more nuanced and complex reason to do so). There will be schadenfreude over the job losses and major hit to the arts and media community that is seen as unnecessary to a strong economy, and will lament why they could never produce anything close to a 'superior' product like big budget-produced TV shows from south of the border.

2. They will have to find a new public vice to complain about, they'll have lost their Mecca of liberal wastefulness. I'm thinking Canadian Council for the Arts, National Arts Centre, National Film Board, and the National Gallery of Canada would be next in their crosshairs. Heck, they might even get saucy and start complaining about Parks Canada, and begin wondering why we are paying for 'nature'.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I can honestly say the CBC may as well not exist in our household and I'm sure that we aren't alone as millions of Canadians never use it. With people switching to streaming services it feels like CBC is slowly running its course as ratings are plummeting to all time lows as people aren't even watching the evening news broadcasts anymore. It's turning into a big money pit and one has to wonder when enough is enough.

Do you click links on cbc news articles posted to Calgary puck?

In terms of online they reach 18 million unique users per month

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I can honestly say the CBC may as well not exist in our household and I'm sure that we aren't alone as millions of Canadians never use it. With people switching to streaming services it feels like CBC is slowly running its course as ratings are plummeting to all time lows as people aren't even watching the evening news broadcasts anymore. It's turning into a big money pit and one has to wonder when enough is enough.

I don't attend high school. No one in my house attends high school. Millions of people in this country don't attend high school. Maybe we once did, but we don't now.

Why are we funding education?! It's a money pit!

[Fuzz]

I don't think a day goes by that I don't listen to CBC radio, view their news site, or watch some news on TV. It would be a very big loss for Canada.

[RyZ]

They should continue to be a highly biased, highly partisan propaganda mouthpiece for the sitting government that pays for their operation. Nobody outside of their curated bubble gives them the time of day or a minute of thought anyway, so they might as well just continue as they currently are and pray to God that their guy stays in the PM office. If not, it might be time for many of them to start learning to code.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by RyZ

They should continue to be a highly biased, highly partisan propaganda mouthpiece for the sitting government that pays for their operation. Nobody outside of their curated bubble gives them the time of day or a minute of thought anyway, so they might as well just continue as they currently are and pray to God that their guy stays in the PM office. If not, it might be time for many of them to start learning to code.

Sounds like you could benefit from some time with the CBC to get out of the bubble you are in.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by RyZ

They should continue to be a highly biased, highly partisan propaganda mouthpiece for the sitting government that pays for their operation. Nobody outside of their curated bubble gives them the time of day or a minute of thought anyway, so they might as well just continue as they currently are and pray to God that their guy stays in the PM office. If not, it might be time for many of them to start learning to code.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you click links on cbc news articles posted to Calgary puck?

In terms of online they reach 18 million unique users per month

What's that got to do with their all time low viewership? People can dance around it all they want but the reality is that it's 2022 now and we don't need the CBC.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I don't attend high school. No one in my house attends high school. Millions of people in this country don't attend high school. Maybe we once did, but we don't now.

Why are we funding education?! It's a money pit!

Attacks on the public education system would be a next in line in terms "shutting down government propaganda" too for people of a certain ideological outlook.

[AltaGuy]

I know five people who work in various capacities at the CBC - one in tech, one tv producer and one radio producer, and two journalists. Amusingly, three of the five lean right on the political spectrum on most things, yet believe the CBC is an important part of our Canadian identity.

The one cool thing about them all that I've noticed: they're all exceptionally empathetic and accepting of ALL political views across the spectrum. Far more than I am for sure. I always assumed it was something about the culture of the workplace. (Not one is a Liberal supporter, either)

[RyZ]

The CBC is a tabloid.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...vity-1.6639834
https://www.cbc.ca/television/the-pa...zzle-1.6631466

Last year hiking was racist and the year before that mathematics were racist, now its crossword puzzles.

Any political party can defund a propped up national broadcaster that acts like failing VICE or The Huffington Post and nothing will be missed. If chasing stories like this are what my tax dollars are going to, I 'll put in a word against it.