I never said I was angry. But it does seem unfair to have to pay for a product you have no intention of using. 

And by the way, I spent more than 30 years producing programming, but no one ever gave us taxpayer money to do it. It's long been a complaint of private broadcasters that they have to pay to fund their own competition. No matter how you analyze it, it doesn't make any sense. 

RadioActive wrote:

I never said I was angry. But it does seem unfair to have to pay for a product you have no intention of using. 

And by the way, I spent more than 30 years producing programming, but no one ever gave us taxpayer money to do it. It's long been a complaint of private broadcasters that they have to pay to fund their own competition. No matter how you analyze it, it doesn't make any sense. 

You also didn't have a mandate to serve every Canadian from coast to coast to coast in both official languages 365 days a year.  I have no problem paying $48 for the journalism alone.

CBC should not be commercial free.  It should have to do as much as it can to support itself.  Perhaps if we could just go with ONE television outlet...and 1 national radio station we could keep the thing alive FOR SIGNIFICANTLY LESS MONEY.  We deserve a clear and honest voice...a barometer of reality.  What we don't need are 'shows' and virtually ANY of the music they foist on the PAYING public.  THAT is, all too often, mere air pollution. 

whenever i see a story about the cbc wanting more money (from us taxpayers) i always think of their toronto headquarters, on front street. it could be the definition of being "over the top". that said, it's a very impressive structure... until you remember where the money came from to build the place. meanwhile, the folks at ctv can wave at the commuters on the 401... but then again, you would have to be in an office with a window.

RadioActive wrote:

And you're welcome to pay it. Just don't force me to shell out for a product I never use.

A tired old argument that can be made for just about any government expenditure - health care, CPP, social services, public transit, road construction, military spending, economic stimulus, education, subsidies for children's sports programs or child care just to name a few. Fact is, we elect government to help us manage our society for the betterment of all. It's not like this is a situation of  taxation without representation. You have a vote just like everyone else and if society as a whole doesn't like something, it will be reflected in their vote. Harper was in power for years and made no attempt to remove the CBC from the public teat. Why? Maybe because Canadians as a whole want it.

Does that mean there isn't room for better management within the CBC? No, but that's a different argument.
 

RadioActive wrote:

Prod Guy wrote:

You also didn't have a mandate to serve every Canadian from coast to coast to coast in both official languages 365 days a year.  I have no problem paying $48 for the journalism alone.

And you're welcome to pay it. Just don't force me to shell out for a product I never use.  

Your point about what's laid out in their mandate is true. But it could be said that's an argument that made more sense in the 60s, 70s or 80s. No private broadcaster would ever cover Iqaluit, and the CBC is there for that population. But technology has changed, and with satellites, cable, cell technology and most especially the Internet, that "mandate" may not be quite as urgent as it once was.

I think the CBC does news well overall, liberal bias accusations notwithstanding, but their TV entertainment programming output is and has been for many years, pretty abysmal. In fact, it's Pepto Abysmal - it leaves me with an upset stomach. My original contention is that the CBC may just have outlived its original purpose in a 5,000 channel universe and it's not worth the massive amounts of cash that gets endlessly poured into it every year for the results it gets.

And as someone who's worked extensively in both radio and TV, I know for a fact you don't need 10 producers on a single radio feature or a huge crew to shoot a news story. That, right there, may be a partial answer to their money woes. 

I also argued that it seems unfair that taxpayers - which includes private broadcasters - should have to help fund their own competition. I realize it's not quite the same thing, but can you imagine if say, Metro and Sobey's were forced to kick in money to help fund Loblaws, simply because that was the only grocery chain that went across Canada? The idea is ridiculous and indefensible. 

Finally, if you read its proposal, you might just come to believe that the CBC is somewhat delusional. Consider this, #3 in their list of recommendations:

3. Depoliticize CBC/Radio-Canada funding so that it is predictable and stable..."

Indexed to inflation, no less. Not sure what they were smoking when they wrote this, but that's an absolute impossibility. The Liberals will never de-fund the CBC and the Conservatives will always try to do just that, and given the Corp'.s well-known bent to the left, that's never going to change. You can't position your ask for more tax money based on a flawed premise everyone knows will never happen.

I don't object to those who want to fund the CBC from giving them their money. But as someone who never watches it, I think my money, as much as the government lets me keep of it, should go to something far more urgent than "Schitt's Creek."  Just my two cents - half of which has probably been given to the CBC. 

So what you're saying is that without public funding, the CBC is up "Schitt's Creek" without a paddle.

I'm here all week.
 

RadioActive wrote:

Justalistener wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

And you're welcome to pay it. Just don't force me to shell out for a product I never use.

A tired old argument that can be made for just about any government expenditure - health care, CPP, social services, public transit, road construction, military spending, economic stimulus, education, subsidies for children's sports programs or child care just to name a few. Fact is, we elect government to help us manage our society for the betterment of all. It's not like this is a situation of  taxation without representation. You have a vote just like everyone else and if society as a whole doesn't like something, it will be reflected in their vote. Harper was in power for years and made no attempt to remove the CBC from the public teat. Why? Maybe because Canadians as a whole want it.

Does that mean there isn't room for better management within the CBC? No, but that's a different argument.
 

With all due respect, I hardly think you can compare the CBC to necessities like health care or education. Those have proven societal benefits. I think I'd be able to survive just fine if the CBC went to black. Can't say the same for keeping people healthy, treating the sick or instructing kids in the basics of math or how to read. At the very least, if we have to have this ancient relic, don't up the tax money we pay for it. I honestly believe they get more than enough now and perhaps the real problem is they don't spend it properly.

As for better management, we can certainly agree on that. Bloated and overpaid are just a few descriptions that come to mind. And don't even go into the attitude that allowed the Jian Ghomeshi nightmare to flourish unchecked for so long.  

Have any studies been done on how the CBC would fare financially if they were listener supported, like National Public Radio and PBS? This has often been suggested as an alternative to government funding of the national broadcaster. Also, has an independent outside agency ever done an audit of the CBC? Maybe there are ways to cut operating costs, and divert the savings toward health care and education or other worthy programs. Just thinking out loud.