Generally speaking, I am a supporter of the CBC.  It is one of the things that differentiates us from the USA and as noted by Hansa, they promote Canadian production.

Politically speaking (but not necessarily supporting), it is a smart move by the Conservatives.  Move CBC to a model wherein they must ask for public support (a la PBS) and if they can't sustain themselves, they close down and the Conservatives get to say "it wasn't us".
 

Again, the conservatives are wasting their time with the whole defunding the CBC thing.  They are only talking about the English TV network and the news website which probably makes money.  This is only to satisfy the hard right in the party who have never liked CBC, and don't like the idea of a "state" broadcaster.   To the average Canadian voter this is not an important issue or topic.  This is not something that is going to win the election for the tories. The actual savings if all funding for CBC TV was cut off would be about $6-700 million.  

The whole thing about CBC competing with the private broadcasters and digital providers is kind of laughable.  How does CBC compete with private broadcasters?  They don't bid on any, or carry US programming.  The program schedule on CBC English TV is decidedly less mainstream and mass appeal than the private networks, so they shouldn't be a big threat in terms of ratings. Bell Media, Rogers and Corus have more billions of dollars at their disposal than CBC ever had.
 
Let's look at Bell Media with their 107 commercial  radio stations, three OTA networks with 35 TV stations, 36 pay and specialty channels, 6 Pay for View channels, Astral out of home advertising, controlling interest in Pinewood Studios, investments in sports teams etc.  Rogers and Bell are two of the biggest cable providers in the country with tens of millions of subscribers, who bring in hundreds of millions every month, and this isn't even counting the ad revenue.     

One reason that Post Media goes on endlessly about CBC is because they hate that the CBC's website outdraws the National Post's by a big margin.  The CBC has this "huge" unfair advantage over them they say, and this would be the reason why CBC.ca has so much more traffic, and therefore so much more ad revenue.  Post Media doesn't often bring up that their company owns more than 120 different brands, more big city daily papers than any other newspaper group, many small city/town newspapers and specialty publications that all have websites with advertising.

In my opinion. I think the public and media in Canada are both better served with the mix of a public broadcaster like CBC and private conglomerates such as Bell, Rogers and Corus. This in itself will give a more balance perspective.   But I do agree that the big 3 private companies should be pressed harder to make more domestic product with a mind of selling these shows worldwide.

The thing is, many of our most successful exported shows have been Canadian themed or at the least understood that this was a Canadian program, Schitt's Creek, SCTV, Flashpoint, Rookie Blue, Burden of Truth, Transplant, Letterkenny, Private Eyes, Heartland, Murdoch Mysteries, Corner Gas, Cardinal...etc.
Not every single production needs to have a Canadian theme or story but it is interesting that worldwide many of our most successful programs right now seem to be.          

One more thing about the CBC - they're the official Canadian broadcaster for the Beijing Olympics and they already have a site put up to attract advertisers. My question - what happens if Canada winds up boycotting the games in protest over the Communist government and the detention of the two Michaels? Does CBC still show the Games? And if not, how much will that cost taxpayers?

I was also going to mention that it is a bit premature to say the CBC has become an election issue.  Has anyone brought up the topic yet with O'Toole, or has he or any candidate spoken on this?  Has the news reported anything yet?  So if not,  how can this be an election issue?  And just because defunding or cutting back on CBC English services is in the party platform, does not mean it would happen anyway.  It is a bit of red meat for the CBC haters in the party and the minority of the population that will never like or watch CBC. But if the candidates and leader are not talking about it, can't be much of a priority.  I hope it does come up during the campaign and Mr. O'Toole can flesh out the answer and explain why this is important to Canadians and how it would work. 

The Toronto Sun and Post media no doubt will try and make this a big deal, just like they have every other federal campaign.  In reality they editorialize about getting rid of the CBC all the time.   They have been trying to get an anti CBC bandwagon going for years, and often with questionable and not always accurate information.  In addition to CBC, I guess it is only fair to question how unbiased this company is as well. 

The radio on TV has been on for years.  This is the first hour of Metro Morning from 6am to 7.  Likely in other provinces they show the first hour from Radio 1 in Calgary, Vancouver, Halifax etc.
 
Since countries including Canada have pulled participation in the Olympics before, there may be a clause or stipulation in the contract regarding the coverage for official broadcasters from those countries.  I guess technically CBC could still cover the games if Canada wasn't participating, although that would be very unlikely and not a good move.  I would think it is kind of doubtful that Canada would boycott the winter games alone.  Other countries have citizens in detention in China as well, or have major grievances with the country.  So if others agree to take part, the chances of Canada not going to Beijing would  become more probable. 

Facebook using CBC as a fact checker for the election doesn't really have anything to do with the conservative election platform, or making CBC more like PBS.  Are you now saying getting rid of or defunding CBC is not an election issue?  The election issue is in fact facebook using CBC/RC as a fact checker?  Not really sure what you are getting at here...

This Federal Conservative fact should ALSO be noted:

 •End Trudeau’s $600 million media bailout. While we support Canadian media outlets, they should not be directly receiving tax dollars. Government funding of “approved” media undermines press freedom, a vital part of a free society.• 

RadioActive wrote:

As Sigmund Freud supposedly noted, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

As the Admin of the Oldies Music Board, I often post news items there that I think may be of interest to others there. I do tend to avoid anything that is in some way political, because I don't want anyone thinking that I have any kind of political agenda -- especially given some unpleasant political arguments that I saw break out on the predecessor to this board. But the nature of the SOWNY forum is different, and sometimes items that have a political aspect are very relevant here. The bottom line is that I see where you're coming in posting items like this, and I think it's good for the forum that you do so. 

RadioActive wrote:

Not saying anything in particular. Just offering the article, which unlike the aforementioned Blacklock's, is not behind a paywall, as a point of interest. It's certain to upset die-hard Conservatives, who already believe the CBC (and Facebook) are biased against them. This won't do much to change their minds. 

As for it being an election issue, perhaps you've never written headlines, which are designed to attract the reader's curiosity and interest. I've composed thousands of them over the years and you clicked on this story, so it obviously intrigued you, which means it did its job.

The CBC/PBS plan is part of the Conservatives' announced platform. Though it may not be the most important thing they're unveiled, that in itself makes it a potential election issue by default. And since it's really the only one any of the parties I checked on that deals with broadcasting - the point of this board - it seemed legit to mention it as a topic of potential significance to SOWNY readers. No hidden agenda. It's really that simple. Broadcasters generally cover election campaigns. They rarely become part of one. That's what made it interesting to me and I believe you're reading way too much into the point of the post.

As Sigmund Freud supposedly noted, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

That said, I don't expect it will ever come to pass. But it's certainly a controversial proposal worth noting here. 

True that headlines are written to attract interest and curiosity, but they also should be accurate and not misleading.  We all have seen headlines on this site and in other media that didn't have a lot to do with the story that followed or terribly exaggerated what the story was actually about. 

Interesting that the Post/Sun Media seem to be trying to make an issue out of facebook supposedly using CBC as a fact checker.  I don't see this coming up on other mainstream media.  Are we sure it is CBC that is the fact checker and not just Radio-Canada?  The release from facebook only mentions Radio- Canada as the new partner, with no reference to CBC.  

Facebook deciding to have less political coverage and the CBC reporting this is not really related.  As we know facebook has not done a very good job covering politics here and in many countries.  They have been criticized from all sides with lack of vetting, a lot disinformation and inaccurate stories getting on and staying on their platform.  This is why they have decided to bring in third party fact checkers.  But ultimately it is still up to facebook and not the fact checkers what does and doesn't stay on their service, and how many political stories they will carry.

RadioActive wrote:

Thanks for your support, Lorne. You probably know more than anyone how something you think is simple can cause an explosion of controversy on a message board. But it happens. And you're right. Because broadcasting is regulated federally, sometimes politics inevitably gets into the mix, as much as I often hate bringing it up.

But then even the Oldies Board is not always exempt - I remember a thread about Van Morrison and his anti-vax stance and another about Eric Clapton that generated some raised eyebrows. Sadly, politics is too often everywhere, especially in these polarized times. 

I miss the days when there were differences of opinion, but in the end, everyone was working together to make the country better overall. Sadly, social media, among other things, has helped destroy that! I can't wait for Sept. 21st, when the election rhetoric is finally over. 

Re the Oldies Board, I thought about mentioning that I am fine with others starting threads that have a political aspect as long as they're relevant to the board ... and then I am willing to weigh in, as I did in both of the threads that you mention. In the second case I did post an article, but in that case it was a Reuters item that I figured provided some neutral info about the situation.
And there may sometimes be a bit of a political aspect to an article I post as well, as long as I don't think it will get people thinking that I'm posting it because I have some sort of political agenda -- or alternatively, that an artist's political views might provoke an overly negative response from someone that could then lead to further negativity in response. It's an ongoing judgement call on my part, and it's largely based on what I saw from certain regulars on the previous board. In both cases that you cite, people discussed the issues in a responsible way and without criticizing each other for what they posted -- which is perfectly fine. It was actually good for me to see that people could do this, and that I could make comments myself without anyone questioning my motivation, political leanings, etc.

From the Toronto Star:

The future of CBC/Radio-Canada is at stake in this election

Commercial broadcasters' main complaint with the CBC these days is that they sell ads on their website. According to their reasoning (and you may agree or disagree) they're siphoning off commercials that could be going to private radio and TV stations that don't get a ton of government money to help subsidize them. 

It's an understandable gripe and it's one of the divisions between the for-profits and the CBC. Their logic: if you're getting funded by the public, why do you need to take other money away from those who don't? 

By the way, this is the one time of year you may actually hear ads on CBC Radio. Under the law, they're required to accept and air political ads during the election period. Wonder how many Erin O'Toole spots are airing there?

Good points Hansa and RA.  CBC's websites are pretty much self sufficient as is CBC News Network.  Yes they have the resources of CBC TV and radio which would be there anyway.  But the actual day to day operation is paid for by advertising and for CBCNN ads and cable fees, not the taxpayer. 

The groups that complain the most and loudest about CBC would be Post/Sun Media and Quebecor, who don't like the idea of CBC.ca taking revenue out of the marketplace. And it galls them that CBC.ca has much higher traffic/audience than their websites. Would CBC.ca ad revenue go to the private sites?  Maybe, this wouldn't necessarily be a windfall or slam dunk for them, since they don't have the numbers of CBC.ca. 

From July 2021 top 50 website rankings in Canada from Similarweb for all categories had CBC.ca at 15th, CTV.ca at 18th, MSN #27, CNN #38 and BBC #46.  These were the only news sites in the top 50 in Canada.

I agree with Hansa, critics of CBC can't suck and blow at the same time. On one hand the anti CBC folks say that nobody watches the TV network so get rid of it, and then on the other complain about CBC.ca because it is popular and it hurts the private websites.  I thought all of these free enterprise folks loved competition?  At least CTV.ca seems to have got the message. Their website has vastly improved in the last year. Wonder if the competition from CBC.ca had anything to do with that?  And CTV.ca is closing in on CBC.ca in traffic numbers. 

Finally, all of the parties would be smart to spend a bit of money advertising on CBC radio...they have the ratings and the right demographics.  

 

RadioActive wrote:

Speaking of politics and controversy, you may remember two years ago when the Government announced it was giving multi-million dollars to broadcasters, newspapers and the media hard hit by COVID, to help keep them afloat. It raised a lot of eyebrows here, with some arguing it was needed in an emergency while others insisted they would never be able to trust the coverage from those outlets that took the government handouts. 

Fast forward to this month. It's been revealed (but didn't get much publicity) that the feds handed out an eye-popping $60 million in additional aid to media companies. Regardless of whether you think this is a good idea, here's the problem - they adamantly refuse to reveal who got that money. 

It's taxpayer funds, paid for by all of us. At the very least, we should know where those big bucks went. But they refuse to say. And I would be against this if it were the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Greens or Communist Party in charge. The public has the right to know who got our dough! Instead, it's just the Sounds of Silence. And it's pretty outrageous you may never know where all that money went. (And by the way, shame on those same media outlets for not coming clean on this. It's the one story they refuse to cover.  No wonder trust in media has fallen exponentially.)

Liberals won't reveal names of media companies given $61 million in subsidies

Some might proffer that the CBC got the largess...(just stirring it up with my bias)
 

echomaster wrote:

 
Some might proffer that the CBC got the largess...(just stirring it up with my bias)
 

And those who profferer that would be wrong. The CBC wasn't eligible for that funding.