This issue was well recognized by Robert Rabinovitch during his tenure (1999-2007) as President of the CBC. You could actually have four reporters covering any particular event: English Television, English Radio, French Television and French Radio.  This fact led to the integration of the newsrooms, the filing of stories by the same reporter to both radio and television networks, and in certain markets, bilingual reporters filing to all four services. And instead of Vice Presidents for each of the radio and television networks (totaling four), the vice presidents of radio were eliminated, and the leadership of radio and television fell under one vice president for each language. 

I remember seeing a promo for Kim Brunhuber when he was CBC's correspondent in Los Angeles a few years back.  It showed him doing his own editing and camera when he was reporting. Not to say he didn't have access to a camera operator at all but it was interesting to see.  Kim has since moved to CNN but he does remember his roots since he always welcomes viewers from the United States and Canada at the top of the hour.  He also recently did an interview with Peter Mansbridge regarding the former anchor's new book Off The Record. 

When I worked at CFPL in 1979/80, there wasn't too much loved lost between the news departments of the London Free Press, CFPL radio and television.  They didn't share stories, especially an exclusive.  I remember a radio news person complaining about how CFPL TV was often more of an adversary than a sister company.  TV was also in another building away from the newspaper and CFPL radio.  However both the paper and radio were totally separate from each other within the large Free Press building, and back then the newspaper made bucket loads of money and they also acted like it. 

How about the weather department of CP 24?
CTV Toronto could use THAT instead of their own weather people. 
Oh, but that's not taxes & it's not CBC, so such a waste is okay...

Actually, Roy specifically says they DID pay him, as part of their rules and that he donated it to charity. 

But the point is they had the story in house and spent more taxpayer money that didn't need to be spent to get it again. The exact same thing, with the exact same person being interviewed. And you know when the CBC sends a crew, there's a camera person, a lighting guy, a sound guy, a reporter and possibly even a producer. Other stations would send just a camera guy and a reporter, if that, and call it done. 

In a sense, they were competing against themselves. And there's no other entity on the planet that would think that was a good use of funds. 

Unless, of course, those funds were being supplied from someone else's wallet.

paterson1 wrote:

But not to nit pick but it was on CBC News Network who are not supported by tax payer dollars

I'm pretty sure the employees were (and are) paid (and quite well, at that) using taxpayer dollars. So it doesn't really matter which pocket it came out of or if the all news network gets compensated by cable subscribers. it eventually comes out of your wallet and mine - the people who pay taxes for their salaries and also for cable or satellite.

To pretend otherwise isn't facing reality.

And no other broadcaster would pay for an interview, or a limo, or a breakfast and dinner, or a stay at one of the most expensive hotels in Canada. (In most shops I've worked at, it's seen as unethical to pay for an interview.)  I can guarantee you that wasn't coming out of petty cash! (Although I'm sure some there think of taxpayer funds as petty cash.)

One way or the other, taxpayers fund almost everything at the CBC. Arguments can be made whether that's a good thing or not, but it's pretty hard to deny that's the major source of their funding. 

The point is that no taxpayer funded government entity operates efficiently. I don't think there's even one. I'm not trying to get too political here, but a story emerged last week that the federal Finance Dept. wanted to know if Canadians are confident in the economy. So they did a poll. (Surprise! They're not.) 

They talked to 34 people. That's it. 34. And how much did you and I pay for this scrutiny? More than $53,000. To ask 34 people a few questions. I'm pretty sure I could do it for less than $100. But that's what governments do, and I'm not suggesting it's different under any other party. They're all profligate spenders. 

When CBC's cable outfit got started, they didn't make enough money off the ads and subscribers to be sustainable. I am absolutely convinced taxpayers paid at least some of the freight at the beginning. It's a very expensive thing to run and they almost certainly were not getting enough from the two sources you cite to keep it running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  I've worked in TV for over 25 years. I know how expensive everything is. 

Here's the equation: Governments always waste money. The CBC is a government funded agency. Therefore, the logical argument is that the CBC must waste money. I'm pretty sure if you could get into their books you'd be stunned by what you see. (I remember the old stories about them having to hire a union person if an announcer wanted his or her mic moved up closer to their mouths. After all, that's a union job - and it costs more for that mic mover. There's no way that's efficient!)

I don't think there's anyone here who thinks the CBC is a bargain or a money saver for the audience it attracts (perhaps outside of Radio 1 and perhaps even then.) And yes, as noted, I hope things are different now. But it would not surprise me at all if they're exactly the same as they've always been - if not worse. 

And remember, that was Roy Green's story - not mine. Do you really think things have improved in the last 30 years? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing. If the CBC doesn't buy it first.

paterson1 wrote:

My point was Roy's claim of the limo and overnight stay at the Royal York being paid by the taxpayer is likely not accurate since it was CBC News Network that did all of this. 

That's quite an assumption to make. It was Green who related the story and he was very convincing. You can hear it for yourself here - just go to the Tom Korski interview and fast forward to the 8:40 mark. I don't believe his own story is not accurate. It was his experience and he sounded quite convincing. And you have nothing to base your "not accurate" judgment on. He lived it. I think he would know better than either of us what happened.

paterson1 wrote:

The fact that they didn't share stories or exclusives between CBC networks to me is not really that odd either since the cable news channel was new and attempting to scoop The National.  Isn't competition supposed to be good?  Even if it is in house. 

No other news organization would send an entirely separate crew to scoop themselves. Do you think CTV would send a camera and a reporter to get viz and tape for CP24 and CFTO separately if they've already shot it? New or not, it only happens when money is no object.  

paterson1 wrote:

Tell me that Bell, Rogers, GM,  Cargill, Heinz/Kraft or Microsoft are efficient.  Oh yes they are private companies and yes you can argue that they have "earned" the right to do as they wish with their money...because it is their money...And this money came from who?

Oh yes the same person as the taxpayer.

Yes but as you rightly surmise, I can choose not to buy Heinz ketchup or that new Windows computer. I don't get that choice in funding the CBC. It's certainly not the same comparison at all. One is voluntary and I can pick what I want to do with my discretionary income. The other is literally forced out of my wallet by the taxman. I get no say where it goes or what the CBC uses it for. That instantly makes it different.

paterson1 wrote:

And private companies wasting money and  overpaying executives and management?  Well unlike governments we never hear about all of their waste until they are broke and often go to the government for a bail out.

 Apples, meet oranges. Private companies are not always "bailed out" by the government, as you suggest. Has it happened? Sure. But it's by no means a definite thing and in fact, it's pretty rare. What private companies do is their business. If they don't run the place efficiently, they're gone. And deservedly so. Cutbacks at the CBC are rare. And in fact, given the current governments we've had over the past half decade, the money going there has only ever increased. So it's even worse if it's wasted. 

paterson1 wrote:

All I am saying is that large corporations and government have a lot in common and in the end there is only one person that pays for it all.

Wow, that's quite a conclusion to reach. Based on??? Rogers or Bell don't get a dime of my money because I don't choose to spend it on their products and I hope I never will. It's a small protest against what I see as their unreasonable business practices. But at least it's my choice. If they waste their money (and I'm pretty sure they know where every penny is going) that's up to them. Not being a customer or a stockholder, I don't lose a thing. 

Similarly, I don't pay anything if Heinz goes out of business. I'll just have to get my mustard elsewhere. But the CBC would never be allowed to fail. They'd just get more and more money which I fear would be used for good purposes on one hand and waste on the other. It's just the nature of government run organizations. Private businesses, on the other hand, have to run lean or they don't run at all.  

paterson1 wrote:

This is why I don't rag a lot on the CBC.  As compared to other national public broadcasters they actually are a bargain in terms of price to the taxpayer.

 If so, it's a devil's bargain. We've covered this ground before. Yes, there is competition from the big, bad U.S. of A. But at the same time, just as I'm not forced to buy bananas at No Frills, I shouldn't be forced to pay for a TV network I never, ever watch. In my mind, there's not much difference between this and stealing.

I didn't buy much of what Aaron O'Toole was selling in last month's election (in fact, I didn't buy anything any of them were selling), but I thought the idea of CBC going to a PBS model was an intriguing one. it would have been very, very interesting to see how many would have contributed freely because they value it so highly. I suppose we'll never know. But I think we can both guess they'd never be able to raise enough to keep it at its current level. 

paterson1 wrote:

Whether a public broadcaster is of any value or necessary is another debate.   CBC and all Canadian broadcasters also have the unique situation of sitting next to the entertainment powerhouse of the world, a country with a similar culture.

Well, in that case, perhaps CTV, Global and City should all get taxpayer funding for their locally produced programs, too, since those poor guys are also forced to compete against the southern border broadcasters. Why only the fawned-on CBC? If you like shows like "Heartland" (and I'm aware there are lots of people that do) please enjoy it. But I've never seen an episode and don't care to. Just don't make me pay for something I will never use. I can't see how anyone can have an issue with that.

Can you imagine what PBS could do with the kind of money the Mother Corporation has access to.

My assumptions?  Wasn't going to go there but since you brought it up...let's discuss your assumptions.  I need to paraphrase some of these so my apology. 
 No government taxpayer entity runs efficiently, don't think there is even one.  How about the Canada Pension Plan? The fund has low overhead and enough in the bank to cover all pensions with bi annual increase and population growth for the next 80 years.  No other G7 country comes close to this with their domestic pension funds.  
How about the healthcare system?  No, I haven't got into my meds early, or drunk!  Canada has one of the highest life expectancy rates in the world, and those with Cystic Fibrosis have the longest life expectancy in Canada, as much as 10 years longer.  Our cost per citizen for healthcare while not the lowest in the world is better than many.  Canada has handled CO"VID better than any other G7 country with the best results by far in terms of infections and death. 

Nobody here would call the CBC a bargain or efficient, doubt if anything has changed in 30 years.   Thanks to the graph that Josh Holliday provided we see that in fact the CBC is a bargain compared to the amounts that taxpayers in other countries pay for a public broadcast system.  Thirty five years ago the CBC/RC had over 11,000  employees, today about 7,400, so yes things have changed.  Interestingly CBC/Radio Canada has about the same number of full time employees as Bell Media! 

When CBC's cable outfit started, they wouldn't make enough money from subscribers and advertising to be sustainable.  Taxpayers had to have paid some of the freight since cable fees and advertising wouldn't be enough to run an expensive cable channel 24/7.  Any figures to back up this claim?  CBC's news channel was not a stand alone station and was packed with the other channels like CNN, TSN, Headline News, maybe even Much Music.  So they went in with a lot of subscribers.  I never bought the station, with Rogers when CBC Newsworld signed on they were part of the cable package.  Same with CTV when their news channel started up. 

Rogers and Bell don't get a dime of my money....Yup they do.  Both Bell and Rogers regularly apply for and receive government programming funds and incentives.  You and I pay for this through tax dollars. 

Why should I be forced pay for a network I never watch...We have been through this again and again and you choose to ignore logic and the facts.  In life you are forced pay for lots of things you don't use or even like. yes even with your tax dollars.  Everything you pay for with your tax dollars is not necessarily for the greater good.  In the private sector same thing.  You are paying for all of the channels and programs that Netflix is offering, even though you won't watch or have any interest in 90% of them. You said you recently bought a new car and you helped to pay for the advertising for the car company.  Used to be about $300 per new vehicle that goes to the dealer association for advertising.   Besides you can make a case that CBC is for the greater good. 

No other company would send out another crew to scoop themselves.  Bet it happens more than you think.  I sited my example of CFPL back in the 70's.  But you choose to ignore this. 

In terms of Roy, he has his sacred cows on his program.  He tends to only talk about 9 or 10 topics over and over and CBC or general anti-government, anti-liberal  topics are touched on pretty much any time I have listened to him.  Even if the topic isn't related he will often work in something about CBC, Justin Trudeau or the Alberta oil industry to get a few more shots in.  Like many of his ilk, Roy tends to cherry pick the facts and ignore or gloss over others. I don't mind him and he gives another perspective but I listen always with my eyes and ears open to the facts.     

Last edited by paterson1 (November 2, 2021 11:54 am)

You're both going through the motions at this point.

Thanks for your well thought out and detailed response RA.  Always a pleasure and dare I say fun to debate. I hope the other two people that have actually read our back and forth enjoyed it as well.  To everyone else who skipped ahead to something else, well done and a much better use of your time!

Very quickly a few things.
Never said there was no waste in the Canadian healthcare system.  There is waste in any business, service or company.  You had said that you doubted there was any government entity that was efficient, I gave you two examples.  Healthcare compared to many other countries actually is reasonably efficient.  Some ways to measure this is cost per citizen and how COVID has been handled along with life expectancy, and how Canada compares treating a rare disease like Cystic Fibrosis.  Using these metrics we stack up well. Should wait times be shorter, yes.  Could it be more efficient, yes.  Are we getting a good return for the investment, yes.  

CBC is a bargain compared to other public broadcast services. Like I said, whether the CBC should exist or even still necessary is another debate. But that's not what we were talking about. You also indicated that CBC likely hadn't changed in over 30 years.  I mentioned that their number of employees is about 35% less than in the 80's.  Change has happened everywhere in every organization.  Fewer employees but CBC costs us more than 30 years ago?  Everything is more expensive compared to 30 years ago.  GM has thousands of fewer employees as well, but the price of cars has doubled even tripled over 30 years.  What was your house worth 30 years ago as compared to today?  

Did the CBC waste taxpayer money needlessly on Roy Green.  This is the motherlode and crux of this whole long drawn out thing!!  Roy says taxpayer money was wasted with an overnight stay and limo ride to and from Toronto for a report that the CBC already had.  My contention was the fact that the two divisions were competing and the upstart new network was trying to scoop the main network.  Since it was the news network that paid for all of this, it is not a given that taxpayer money was used.  Their revenue is from advertising and cable fees, so that one is not a slam dunk on Roy's end.  Let's leave that one open to discussion.  You claimed they wouldn't have the money being new from the cable fees and advertising, I say we don't really know if that is correct.  

No other news organization would ever send out a crew or do a story that they already had.  I gave an example of this from a private broadcaster.  You countered that what a private company does with their resources and money is up to them.  That is not what we were debating, it was if other organizations would do this, and yes they would and they do. 

You don't get a choice supporting the CBC with tax dollars since the tax system is not a pick and choose buffet of what you want and don't want to pay for.  My point with Netflix or any other streaming service that you choose to purchase is absolutely your choice.   But what you don't have a choice in not paying for all of the many many shows that you will never watch and have no interest in on Netflix or any other service.  So you are in fact supporting and paying for shows that you have no interest and you have no choice in supporting these shows with your money.  Sort of like the CBC. 

No I don't listen to Roy all the time.  Catch him in the car if I am out Saturday or Sunday and I don't listen for the three hours.  Depends on the topic and his guests if I stick with him or not.  Notice that he has a lot of the same guests on and covers a lot of the same topics whenever I tune in.  Often when government inefficiency comes up he throws in the CBC as an example.  He has said his show is done with three people and the same show on CBC would have about 12 or 13 .  Is this true or exaggerated, I have no idea.  But Roy is sort of patting himself on the back if he is comparing his show to something like  As It Happens or Cross Country Check Up which could have that number working on the show.  Roy Green's show is no As It Happens or Cross Country Check Up. They are not even in the same league. 

Finally, enjoy next weeks Heartland???  Please, a boring kids show with lots of horses, don't think so. 

Last edited by paterson1 (November 3, 2021 8:50 am)