I believe CBC has not been eligible for the COVID assistance private companies have been receiving this year. 

Indeed, RA. And all of those who never drive on a highway should get that portion of their taxes back. Further, I'm very healthy and never visit a hospital, so I want those taxes back too. Oh, and I have no children, so why am I paying for schools on my property tax, or in my rent?

I live in a nice quiet town with almost zero crime. I'm tired of paying taxes for police services that I almost never use. I never see a Mountie, not even Dudley DoRight, even passing through! I've never seen a military vehicle or current-serving members of the military in uniform around these here parts, 'ceptin on Remembrance Day...and I can't even go there this year. Why am I forced to pay taxes to support them?

And another thing. If I want to see the weather, I look out my back window. Why am I paying for all them there environmental so-called scientists who think they're better than us and know it all? And, don't get me started on all those gubment people working on the Trent Canal system. I ain't got no boat anyhow. Geesh!
 

Well put Dial Twister.  Funding for CBC is not directly "out of pocket" like funding for BBC, which is a direct television tax per household.  Interesting to note that BBC's funding is about 4 times greater, and more expensive per citizen than CBC. Germany's public broadcaster even higher still.

Money for the crown corporation comes out of general tax revenues and is paid the same way as the military, Old Age Security, EI, children's benefits etc. Loblaw's is a private/public  company listed on the TSX, CBC is not so the comparison does not apply. Loblaw's also has a lot of leeway what they will charge for the 10,000 products they are selling in their stores.  CBC doesn't have that option.

Some like to whine about how they should be able to pick and choose where their tax money goes.  That would be a recipe for disaster.   Paying your taxes is not a lunch buffet where you pick and choose what you want to pay for. 

Last edited by paterson1 (October 27, 2020 10:36 am)

the CBC's been goin' downhill ever since "Cannonball" with William Campbell & Paul Birch was dropped

=12px"In other words, they're not a necessity, no matter how you try to shape it."
Speaking of necessity, why are the locks on the Trent System still a necessity? Is lumber still transported down to Lake Ontario this way? Are food, clothing and supplies still floated up to the towns and villages along the way? Of course not. The locks are still in operation for pleasure boats. As much fun and enjoyment that people get out of boating, it's hardly a "necessity". 

"In other words, they're not a necessity, no matter how you try to shape it."
To the contrary, the CBC is a lifeline to many communities where no for-profit broadcasters exist. And, let's admit that without the CBC, the vast majority of what we would be watching would be American, British, etc.

The CBC, with all its faults and foibles, increasingly tells Canadian stories to Canadians...not just American stories filmed here and made to look like it's taking place in some American city.

For profit broadcasters, in this country, act largely as minor-league divisions of the major US broadcasters. That brings with it all the pluses and minuses of American culture.

Public broadcasters around the free world, do the job that for-profit broadcasters prefer not to do. Public broadcasters, to the extent that their budgets allow, tell the stories of their host country.  For that, I thank the BBC, PBS, Australia Broadcasting Corporation, New Zealand On Air, etc., and yes, even the venerable old CBC.

Your $34 contribution is much appreciated. It's likely one of the best investments one can make. 



 

One thing I have noticed over the months when someone disagrees with you RA, you always tell the individual that they have "missed the point" which is usually not true. But nice try at the diversion.

Maybe you have missed the point when you try to compare Loblaws and the CBC?  One is a for profit company, free enterprise, on the stock market and free to set prices for all the many products they sell.  The other, CBC is none of those things.   So to make your comparison right from the get go doesn't make sense. Sure you don't need to shop or support Loblaws, so what?  That has got nothing to do with CBC, a crown corporation, and your taxes.  

And you are 100% wrong thinking you should be able to decide whether your $34 a year goes to CBC or not.  Paying taxes doesn't work that way and never has.  When and if the government changes CBC's funding model maybe then. 
 
What is this claim about CBC having resources that private broadcasters could only dream about?? Please.. What decade and world are we living in?  Bell and Rogers have much more at their disposal than CBC and a lot more money.   Look at the dozens of the pay specialty channels they both own, that are only available on cable companies and streaming services that they also own.  I would love to see Bell Media's monthly/yearly operating budget as compared to CBC. 

Rogers, Corus and Bell along with Videotron out of Quebec have much more ability to generate revenue that CBC does. It is CBC that should be envious of the private broadcasters resources.  Private companies who also are not afraid to apply for funding from the federal government for productions by the way.

You actually answered all that's needed to know when you said in the previous post that you "have always hated the CBC..." You may not be a rabid Conservative foaming at the mouth as you say but some of your biased views regarding CBC are decades out of date and besides the corpse is not government controlled as you like to say.
 
The only government controlled network in North America for a long time has been FOX and that is really the sad thing...  

paterson1 wrote:

One thing I have noticed over the months when someone disagrees with you RA, you always tell the individual that they have "missed the point" which is usually not true. But nice try at the diversion.

Maybe you have missed the point when you try to compare Loblaws and the CBC?  One is a for profit company, free enterprise, on the stock market and free to set prices for all the many products they sell.  The other, CBC is none of those things.   So to make your comparison right from the get go doesn't make sense. Sure you don't need to shop or support Loblaws, so what?  That has got nothing to do with CBC, a crown corporation, and your taxes.  

And you are 100% wrong thinking you should be able to decide whether your $34 a year goes to CBC or not.  Paying taxes doesn't work that way and never has.  When and if the government changes CBC's funding model maybe then. 
 
What is this claim about CBC having resources that private broadcasters could only dream about?? Please.. What decade and world are we living in?  Bell and Rogers have much more at their disposal than CBC and a lot more money.   Look at the dozens of the pay specialty channels they both own, that are only available on cable companies and streaming services that they also own.  I would love to see Bell Media's monthly/yearly operating budget as compared to CBC. 

Rogers, Corus and Bell along with Videotron out of Quebec have much more ability to generate revenue that CBC does. It is CBC that should be envious of the private broadcasters resources.  Private companies who also are not afraid to apply for funding from the federal government for productions by the way.

You actually answered all that's needed to know when you said in the previous post that you "have always hated the CBC..." You may not be a rabid Conservative foaming at the mouth as you say but some of your biased views regarding CBC are decades out of date and besides the corpse is not government controlled as you like to say.
 
The only government controlled network in North America for a long time has been FOX and that is really the sad thing...  

"Maybe you have missed the point when you try to compare Loblaws and the CBC?  One is a for profit company, free enterprise, on the stock market and free to set prices for all the many products they sell."

Of course I know the two aren't the same thing. It's called an analogy. I'm trying to say that no one should be forced to pay for a product they don't use that's not a necessity. It doesn't matter if its Loblaws or Rogers Cable. Don't force it on me if I don't want it. If you do, great, enjoy it. But YOU pay for it. 

"And you are 100% wrong thinking you should be able to decide whether your $34 a year goes to CBC or not.  Paying taxes doesn't work that way and never has.  When and if the government changes CBC's funding model maybe then." 

Yes, I'm aware of how taxation works. I just believe there are better and more important places to spend our money. Like health care or housing. No one's ever been cured of a serious disease or found a place to live by watching "The Nature of Things."   
 
"What is this claim about CBC having resources that private broadcasters could only dream about?? Please.. What decade and world are we living in?  Bell and Rogers have much more at their disposal than CBC and a lot more money."  

As you know, I'm not a fan of either of them. But the difference is this is THEIR money. Even if I believe they gouged it out of their customers, they can spend it as they wish. I'm not contributing to their bottom line. Unfortunately, I can't say that about the CBC.

"You may not be a rabid Conservative foaming at the mouth as you say but some of your biased views regarding CBC are decades out of date and besides the corpse is not government controlled as you like to say."
 
Ah, but its funding IS. That makes it partly an instrument of government, no matter which party is in charge. I have always been fundamentally opposed to government involvement in broadcasting. Beyond regulating, I will maintain until my dying day they have no business in the media. Their job is to make laws and keep the country safe. Not to fund production of Family Feud Canada.

We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this. And enjoy the CBC programming only a handful (relatively speaking) of Canadians watch. No matter how you slice it with Red and White Maple Leaf patriotic rhetoric, from a strictly business standpoint, it's not a very good investment. 

Dial Twister wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

No one's ever been cured of a serious disease(1) or found a place to live(2) by watching "The Nature of Things." 

1. Au contraire! Anyone with an open mind, watching episode after episode of The Nature of Things about what is happening to our planet as a result of human-induced climate change, may be cured of the disease of willful blindness in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

2. As for finding a place to live, if we don't get on top #1 above, we sure will need someone's help in finding #2.

If Suzuki and the CBC manage to awaken some people to reality, so much the better.
 

I don't believe "willful blindness" exists in any physician's manual. But I can ask my brother, who's a doctor. A bit of an over-extended metaphor if you ask me, but I'll give you points for going to extremes to try and make your case!  

...Meanwhile people in Waterloo region are opposed to adding $54/year to their tax bill to their sidewalks shovelled.  That's one thing I miss about living in Toronto.

You know, this whole argument has actually been fascinating reading.  My gut reaction is to not want to give the CBC a penny more than they already get.  Then again, I'll admit I do actually enjoy a lot of CBC's programming, (even Suzuki when he's not blathering the climate change/global warming mantra) $35/year is really pocket change.

To that effect, may I remind everyone of what happened in Waterloo then the UW student body voted to stop paying $5.50/term to provide 90% of the funding to CKMS.  Few people knew it existed let alone listened to it but it helped launch a number of careers, mine being one of them.

Ok, the CBC is a different kettle of fish, but the point is made.  If we could pick and choose where every tax dollar goes, someone might get left out. 

Notwithstanding $16 glasses of orange juice. 
 

Last edited by Peter the K (October 27, 2020 3:57 pm)

I'd pay $34 per year just to support CBC's Marketplace. The ONLY program to challenge cell phone rates (and other things) in this country.  You can guess why.  As for "open skies" be careful what you wish for....  if this was really true, most Canadian broadcast/wireless/internet companies would be gone and you would be subscribing to Verizon and AT&T and supporting PBS.   Although in the words of Mr. Allan Waters before the CRTC, "Canadians don't want more Canadian programming, they want more American programming".

geo wrote:

Staying with the numbers, Peter the K's snow shoveling levy in Waterloo is $54 per HOUSEHOLD.   

The CBC's argument works out to $34 per INDIVIDUAL, so the cost per household (Mom & Dad + 2 or 3 ankle-biters) could easily amount to $150 per annum

Am not a mathematician, so perhaps someone who is should grade the foregoing

You are correct sir.  I stand corrected. 

 

Bringing that over here,
$34 for the CBC?  Maybe. 
$223.40?  Not bloody likely.  

At what point does one draw the line?  I don't know.
 

6079 Smith W wrote:

The CBC does itself no favours whatsoever by providing a consistently extremely biased editorial slant to its news and current events coverage, across all formats, networks, platforms, languages and geographic locations nationwide.

I expect a great deal of the criticism (and critics) of the service are rooted in that downright laughable one-sidedness. It makes the "national broadcaster" argument very difficult to make when the entire oeuvre is directed at a distinct political segment of the country, to the almost complete ignorance of the rest.

I am not a big listener of CBC radio and I have heard that they are almost always left of centre on everything.  I don't find television to be that way but others seem to think that they are.  In defense of CBC news they do cover some stories and issues in more detail and occasionally from another point of view. 
When I don't agree with some of their reporting doesn't make them biased in my opinion, just a different take on the story.  I don't really mind this since I can then judge if a private network has another take on something.  But to be honest with you, generally I find CBC TV, CTV and Global to usually be singing more or less from the same song book on most stories.  CBC radio could be something else, but other than Cross Country Check Up, I don't listen that much to CBC radio which generally I find a little dull..

paterson1 wrote:

6079 Smith W wrote:

The CBC does itself no favours whatsoever by providing a consistently extremely biased editorial slant to its news and current events coverage, across all formats, networks, platforms, languages and geographic locations nationwide.

I expect a great deal of the criticism (and critics) of the service are rooted in that downright laughable one-sidedness. It makes the "national broadcaster" argument very difficult to make when the entire oeuvre is directed at a distinct political segment of the country, to the almost complete ignorance of the rest.

I am not a big listener of CBC radio and I have heard that they are almost always left of centre on everything.  I don't find television to be that way but others seem to think that they are.  In defense of CBC news they do cover some stories and issues in more detail and occasionally from another point of view. 
When I don't agree with some of their reporting doesn't make them biased in my opinion, just a different take on the story.  I don't really mind this since I can then judge if a private network has another take on something.  But to be honest with you, generally I find CBC TV, CTV and Global to usually be singing more or less from the same song book on most stories.  CBC radio could be something else, but other than Cross Country Check Up, I don't listen that much to CBC radio which generally I find a little dull..

It’s funny you would bring up Cross Country Check-up. Despite the fact I’m not a fan of the CBC, I always downplayed those reports that they deliberately leaned overly left – although they did seem to favour a Liberal Prime Minister more than a Conservative one. But for the most part, I always thought the coverage was mostly fair.
 
I know it was only a single show, because I rarely listen, but back before the last federal election, I tuned into 90 minutes of the two hour Cross Country Check-Up. The topic, of course, was who are you supporting in next week’s vote? Admittedly, I missed half an hour, but I heard the rest of it.
 
And frankly, it floored me. Every single caller they let on the air said they were voting Liberal. Even some callers from Alberta where they didn’t elect a single member of that party! I think there might have been one person who mentioned the NDP as their choice.
 
But in an hour and a half, not a single caller – not one – said they were voting for the Tories. The only exception was a caller supporting the ousted Jody Wilson-Raybould, who was running as an Independent in B.C. after being kicked out by Trudeau in the SNC-Lavalin affair. But even he said he was going to go to the riding “next door” to help drum up support for the Grit candidate running there. So even the one non-Liberal voter was sort of voting Liberal!
 
I know the CBC attracts a lot of left-leaning listeners. But you can’t tell me in a country of over 37 million people not a single caller on a national show phoned in to say they were supporting the Conservatives. Not. One. It’s simply not believable.
 
If I’m not mistaken, the way the show works is that the producer screens the callers, takes their names and phone numbers to confirm they are who they say they are, and then phones them back when it’s their time to go on air. It quickly became obvious in those 90 mins. that it was entirely being skewed one way. It was so blatant, there was just no other way to interpret it.
 
Since then, I’ve heard more balanced coverage on other shows on the rare occasions I listen. But that was a few years ago, and it’s always stayed with me and made me very suspicious of them.

And for good reason. Just yesterday, I tuned into the local CBC News at 6 (I often graze the dial during the majors.) They had a reporter assigned to do the Sam Oosterhoff-without-a-mask-in-a-restaurant story that's bringing grief to the Ontario Conservatives. 
 
On the same day, Federal Liberal Health Minister Patty Hajdu was pictured without a mask at Pearson International Airport, claiming she was eating, though there was no sign of food anywhere to be seen. Not only was there no reporter assigned to that story, it wasn’t even mentioned. Every other station at least showed the pic. But it didn’t exist as far as CBC Toronto News at 6 was concerned – and it happened in this city.
 
Those examples don’t necessarily prove outright bias. But they sure do make you stop and wonder.

paterson1 wrote:

When they interviewed Erin live various times and highlighted his proposals for government never did they or he mention his proposed defunding of CBC-TV. 

Only fair to point out that when O'Toole appeared on CBC Radio's "The House," which airs every Saturday morning, they did ask him about the de-funding proposal. 

It never got to air. 

The Conservatives made a big deal about it, of course, while the CBC claimed it was chopped out for "time." 

Either way, it didn't look especially good for the Corp. in this case, although they eventually did post the entire thing with the comments in it online. 

CBC says Erin O’Toole’s comments about defunding CBC were edited out “for time”