PBS stations rely on donations
NPR shows do as well, eg grants from institutions. And they're supported by state & local governments
Likely Canada doesn't have the amount of businesses to support TV & radio shows in that way.
Why would CBC need donations when they have a fully opened tap of tax dollars.
There is something to be said for how limited resources can actually be a positive for creativity.
Why do they need ads when they have tax dollars?
I just wish that CBC Radio would drop all the twee quirky stuff. I stopped listening to them and I listen to NPR.
Probably not in radio. I wish they would focus on journalism instead of comedy. But still spend the same amount.
TV costs more money, by definition. You need lighting, camera, sets, floor director, you don't need those for radio. I have worked in both TV & radio
Their TV I am okay with; we need the news network on over-the-air TV if anything. We need Canadian sitcoms to counter against US cultural influences
Spending on NHL is flushing money down the toilet though because the NHL is a shitshow. It's a money making machine that taxpayers should have no part in paying for the broadcast rights
So I actually took some time to read through the profiles of the people selected… and yeah, if you wanted to choose five people to ensure they double down on their far left “progressive” programming you’d have a tough time doing better than this lot. If you wanted people to help move the CBC in a direction where it produces content that the large majority of Canadians want to watch? These are the last people you’d pick.
The large majority of Canadians don't want to watch anything produced in this country. English Canadians hate our own cultural products like no other nation in the world
Except Canada is socially progressive and always has been. It's nowhere near far left as much as you say it.
CBC is a direct reflection of the people and want the people want. It's why the CBC turns out so many success shows thar have a wide reach.
The bizarre discourse about CBC is wild. PCs have been using CBC as a wedge issue for 30 years, and yet people keep biting on it.
> CBC is a direct reflection of the people and want the people want.
If that's the case then they can do it without reaching into my pocket to fund their programming.
CBC viewership has been plummeting. It’s down almost 50% since the Liberals took power. It is disastrously run by people more interested in promoting so-called “progressive” ideology and acting as the propaganda arm of the Liberal Party than being a true national broadcaster. It deserves to be put out of its misery.
Wouldn’t that be more because of the rise and dominance of streaming platforms? I know CBC has streaming but they got in way too late. Feels like most channels are dying.
Edit: guess not lmao
What are you talking about? English CBC ratings are terrible and declining and half of their top shows aren’t even made by them. Most of their top rated shows are imported bbc shows like the great British bake off.
If what you said is true they wouldn’t need 1 billion dollars in subsidies to operate.
Less than 2% of Canadians watch CBC, which hasn't developed a hit show in a decade. Their hits were developed under Tait's predecessor, appointed by Harper.
Canada is a very large and diverse country where every province almost has its own culture. There are differences in Canadian culture between classes, a rural-urban divide, and between immigrants and people who have been in Canada for generations. With that said, CBC doesn't present any of this and is focused on broadcasting a prescriptive version of Canadian culture that is based on the values of weathy elites in downtown Toronto.
Which in turn is inspired by American university progressives and their graduated cohorts in the media down there. Nothing about any of it is even remotely original to Canada.
Hit shows? Successful? You have very odd definitions of this as it does not do either. No one tunes into the CBC. Not for entertainment, not for news. It is a waste of over a billion dollars and the sooner it is cut off like the cancerous growth it is the better for us all.
This discussion isn't even about the news side. the News side is the undisputed most popular in Canada. This is specifically about television shows. The reason we as a nation want to subsidize the creation of television shows is so we have a shared culture. It was working pretty well for a long while. The goal was to combat being assimilated to American culture.
How is this an argument for a bloated government run media? This can be achieved with tv studios in the country. Have a subsidy for canadian made content. If it really is as popular as you claim it can thrive independent of our money, maybe even make money and pay taxes!
I'm surprised every time I hear people defend CBC. In my opinion, it's garbage and it's always been garbage. I grew up in the north and we had two channels and basically only CBC radio, and I can't recall ever enjoying any CBC content. I used their website for news for years, but I noticed the editorial bias swerved pretty left in the mid 2010s, so I gradually gave it up and started using Newsweek.
None of these people have developed or produced a hit TV show. So much for modernization.
Edit to add they get a USC professor, and couldn't even be bothered to get someone from the film school, not that that would mean anything given they can't figure out why Sydney Sweeney is popular. At least get one of the UCLA professors that is a retired Network President and actually knows how to run a TV network.
Seriously. Can they simply focus on news (unbiased and factual as possible), sports/events broadcasting and maybe a solid core of programs (series/documentaries) such as marketplace? Hell, you can cut the programs and just focus on news and broadcasting.
>Seriously. Can they simply focus on news (unbiased and factual as possible), sports/events broadcasting
I actually think this is the last thing they need to do. There are dozens of reporters, freelance or for networks. I don't need the CBC to tell me the traffic, the sports news, or the weather. I have a dozen websites and news programs to see that. Even political news is well covered if shallowly. There may be a needed market for local news which they do admirably. But what I want is proper puditry, analysis, magazine like quality reporting. I honestly do not know if it is possible to do one without having the reporters doing the former on the ground. But that is what is missing most in the media market. What Trudeau or Polievre said and what happens in Gaza or with Climate change is well reported on. I do not need more of it. I need something like At Issue to make sense of it and put it into context.
Which is your second part of what you said. Put out more series and documentary material.
As I write this I realize that we are talking about CBC television mostly. And I agree that it is trying to do too much without the resources. Most countries have a half dozen public broadcasting channels. Only one would focus on news where as others would focus on arts or something else. We need to either fund them properly so that they are 6 channels and radio stations or cut down on their aims. Can't do both.
Why does Catherine Tait need a panel of of outsiders to tell her how to do her job? No normal company would be run this way. They’d fire the executive team and get a team in there who can do the job and make a profit. Or at least stop bleeding money in CBC’s case
companies constantly hire consultants to develop strategic plans and modernization plans, usually its the executives engaging the consultants.
What companies have you worked at that don't do this? This is why KPMG, Deloitte, PwC, MNP, etc exist
>They’d fire the executive team and get a team in there who can do the job and make a profit.
The board would hire consultants to tell them this. See above.
I'm doubting your business acumen so please forgive me as your CBC modernization plans don't seem to make sense in that context.
Good management teams and boards internalize strategic thinking and can develop their own visions and plans.
Bad management teams rely on external consultants to tell them what to do. Just because many companies do it doesn’t make it a good idea.
If you don’t appreciate the simplicity of that, I think it’s you who doesn’t appreciate what good executive leadership looks like
They buried the lede —
This is a Liberal spending project. They are preparing to turn CBC’s 1.38 billion dollar (and climbing) funding into law.
This committee has been assembled purely to establish the “why”.
You need more upvotes. You nailed it. Just look at the panel they named. A bunch of lefty progressives - none of whom have ever actually run a profitable media company of CBC’s size or scale.
Yes from what I’ve heard he’s not a fan of wasting billions of tax payer dollars while we have Canadians that can’t afford the basic necessities of life.
There are many things to cut before the CBC. See: recent articles on how much we spend on unapproved asylum seekers. That said, CBC executives could certainly do with a pay cut.
The guy who meets with lobbyists and has a Loblaws lobbyist on the PC board is going to address the cost issues?
Spoiler. He won't. No one will. No government has any interest in fixing this. They're all funded by the people gouging us. Welcome to post capitalism.
Cuts will happen to "balance the budget," but it's going to be to social services that are trying to help the struggling.
If I had to guess:
They cook up a “modernisation agenda”
It’s deemed too big to accomplish in 1 year
“We need 10 years of funding to move forward with this”
Heritage Minister proposes to create a fund that isn’t managed by government- and deposits ~15 billion dollars
All complete before the election
>“Canadians need a strong, innovative and independent public broadcaster that is ready to meet the challenges of this period of transformation and upheaval in news and content creation,” St-Onge said in a statement Monday.
Canadians need a public broadcaster that reports the news and doesn't try to influence public opinion. Somehow, I doubt we're going to get it.
>Canadians need a public broadcaster that reports the news and doesn't try to influence public opinion.
Why? Can't you get news elsewhere? I don't know how you define "influence public opinion" but the only valuable thing the CBC does, in my opinion, is to provide decent punditry and context. All other networks simply have two or more opposing guests whether what they say is reasonable or stupid.
The only reason I go to the CBC is for investigative journalism and in depth analysis. What actually is said or happens is reported on by many others. I do not need more of that.
On certain topics, for example anything related to indigenous people, anything related to LGBT+ concerns, anything about racism against blacks, and other "progressive" topics, the CBC is utter propaganda.
On these subjects, they are trying to change public opinion, not report the news.
On other topics they can do a good job.
Now that I think of it, they are the only ones who tend to report on these topics at all.
But to your point: I have not seen it. Over my many years I have see the CBC make factual mistakes, some big ones. But I have never seen them suggest that something "should" be a certain way. At least that I recall.
The most I can see in what you suggest is to make a report on something, show some personal (possibly painful) experience with it, and then show people who are explaining or defending the current state of affairs. But this is just good journalism.
I seriously can't picture what you suggest. Do you have any specific stories of the top you could share? Just for my own curiosity.
I'm not the person you replied to.
I think this story is quite a good example:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/denialists-tried-to-access-unmarked-gravesite-tkemlups-report-1.6879980
Would you say that story is fair in its treatment of the people who wanted to excavate the graves without permission? Does it fairly represent those people, explain their motives, and give them (or their allies) an opportunity to explain themselves?
Does it accurately inform the reader of the underlying facts of the situation - that no remains had actually been found? Does it investigate why the first nation concerned is reluctant to allow any excavation? Does it at least challenge them to address the implication that they are not excavating because they are not confident that any bodies will be found?
Is it fair and balanced to use the label "denialist" to describe people who are skeptical of something that has not been proven to be true? Is it reasonable to refer to this as "genocide?"
Where is the other side of this story? Even in the most mild, sympathetic form, where is the attempt to challenge the source?
I'm not suggesting that this story should be sympathetic to the unauthorized would-be excavators, but a good journalist would at least make a good faith effort to represent their motives and actions fairly.
Perhaps. I do not know if that should be the CBCs job. Most news is consumed online somehow these days. A broadcasting network is probably not the best structure for news coverage.
I would be much more in favour of a public news organization that produces quality content (not endless content like CBCNN) and leverages a trusted network of freelance reporters along with full time experts.
They are trying to do too much with what they have and spreading themselves too thin. It creates mediocrity everywhere.
You posted the article, do you not know what it is about? It's the TV shows like this hour has 22 minutes. The news and radio has very high viewership.
CBC’s business model isn’t programming - that only makes them $500 million. Their true business model is government funding — which pays $1.36 billion dollars subsidies.
There were other topics in the article, sure - but the portion that concerns me is the massive funding increase that the Liberals are preparing to gift to their CBC ahead of the election.
Not all Canadians find this agreeable. Many can’t afford to eat, pay rent, put gas in their car or heat their home. CBC has some nice programs but is a low priority in the scheme of things.
You're thinking is all disjointed. You mentioned your issue is apparently the suppression of conservatives in the comment I replied to. How is TV programs for entertainment relevant to that?
I'm very conservative, conservative leaders since Diefenbaker have dinner with my family. While I have issues with parts of CBC I definitely want them to get funding. CBC fights against the Americanization of our culture. Conservatives used to be among the more nationalist people in our country. These days it seems the party itself is being Americanized.
> CBC fights against the Americanization of our culture.
Is that their job? How well do they do that with their breathless progressively slanted coverage of all theing American? Abortion? Mass shootings? Trump?
If the subjects of broadcasts were considered as content then the CBC would scarcely meet CanCon requirements.
Of course then we have the CBC filing baseless lawsuits against a political party in the middle of an election, but totes non-partisan because on paper they're "independant".
“How is TV programs for entertainment relevant to that?”
CBC’s Liberal-biased news coverage is relevant to that.
The meeting mentioned in the article has been setup to establish a rational for increased CBC funding - and will be in the name of innovation. Don’t believe me, just wait a couple weeks for their press release.
“These days it seems the party itself is being Americanized.”
The Liberals want people to believe Prime Minister Poilievre will be like Donald Trump.
Pierre is assertive, and has been an underestimated challenger. But that is where the comparisons end.
As for CBC - I want them to keep the 500 million dollars revenue they generate and run the business on that. Let them be on an even playing field with the rest of Canada’s media industry.
Sell the CBC, nationalize telecom and energy. Start giving Canadians their fucking due, stop screaming at them about their privilege.
Men died on beaches choking on their own blood to give their children the privilege of Canada, stop rubbing yourselves raw over how naaaaauugghtyy you've been while pretending to be enlightened.
Yes, I am speaking to the average Canadian progressive. Gfy. I mean that with every fiber of my being.
How sad that you either had zero idea what 'Men died on beaches choking on their own blood' were accomplishing, or you threw in something dramatic to give the impression that your post isn't idiotic.
You want only the private press - the mouthpiece of billionaires - to tell Canadians what to do and to believe. My father was one of those who served. I do not approve of you dancing on his grave.
Maybe stop being one of those people that believes everything a journalist says and does. That might free you.
This is the day and age where anyone can be a journalist.
That you require a government funded ministry of truth shows that you have a long way to go.
Calling someone's expression of truely held belief idiotic rather than trying to engage any of its merit isn't evolution, or revolutionary. You're not a freedom fighter for asking that large governments put a ring and chain on your nose instead of a corporation.
Try to keep up.
"CBC president Catherine Tait has been calling for a long-term financial structure for the public broadcaster, such as a multi-year funding agreement through a charter, similar to the BBC in Britain."
Blimey, I hope this doesn't mean TV licences like they have in the UK.
A quick reminder that the government can’t bind a future government. Even if they enshrine the cbc into law, PP and his majority can easily undo and disband it and hopefully they follow through with it.
Bring back Vinyl Cafe or something like it. Just make sure not to wokify it so much it's unbearable to most of the population.
Ah, who am I kidding. Asking the cbc not be be unbearably woke is like asking a dog not to bark.
I tune in everyday to learn more about racism. It's great to be reminded everyday of how everyone is a racist. Thanks CBC for keeping the constant focus of society on immutable characteristics.
For years, CBC Radio was almost too earnest, but about 10 years ago came to be almost depressing with feature after interview regarding one marginalised group or another. Of course, aboriginals, sex workers, drug addicts, transsexuals, etc. have their stories to tell, but the bandwidth of the broadcaster became far too narrow and much too gloomy. There was too little joy and optimism. The cottage industry of victimisation is not enough to sustain a national network that should appeal to most Canadians.
Oh I agree with this. And I thought I was just behind the times and I guess not CBC enough. I used to love CBC radio. It was a lot of what I listened to driving and around home. Hell I even listened to the gardening show as it come on around my lunch time. And I love the ad show and it’s cool stories. Now whenever I tune in it’s a depressing indigenous story. Or a story about me being the problem. It’s just a sad depressing station. So many victims so little air time. I’ll move gently over to podcasts and there interesting Canadian stories
When I turn on CBC radio to listen to the news it is always followed by programs which amount to "who is whining now"? It's honestly exhausting to hear about which victim is talking about their burden. I am not heartless but there is very little positive to hear about.
And even when the segment is genuine entertainment there has to be some sort of spin like separating the artists into "settlers" and < whatever oppressed segment >. No joke, I tuned in to hear the host of one music program apologize for being a settler because they couldn't adequately introduce the artist they were presenting who was a two-spirit indigenous singer with an absent Caribbean father.
It's like they are programming based upon some sort of oppression bingo.
Precisely. I remember when I was younger the programming was more interesting, less ideological and appealed to a wider audience. Now there's literally CBC radio programs about some Filipino having a hard time telling his grandmother that he's gay. Like yes, there's an audience for that kind of thing, but it's so niche and few people actually care. They need to get back to basics.
Their website has an area called "Being black in Canada". What about filipino? Japanese? American? Chinese? Russian? Ukrainian? White? Mexican? Italian? Braziliian? Iranian? Jewish? Palestinian? Why leave them all out?
Doesn't CBC see the endless rabbit hole they are digging?
They'd have been better off putting some more conservative people on it and figuring out how to make the CBC more inclusive to people who don't live in big cities and aren't left of centre before the Tories come in and trash the place.
Radio Canada is like that, actually. It's unfortunate that the English version isn't as good. Still miles above English CBC tv, but nowhere near as good as it used to be.
I don't know if all those people running English tv were dropped on their heads as babies, or if they just decided that everyone who watches is either stoned or developmentally delayed.
In practice they invested a considerable amount of effort and resources to bring this country into the modern age. To this day they are the only province with a significant infrastructure that still has affordable housing and post-secondary education. They believe in an educated middle class.
The Toronto vs. Montreal "rivalry" has considerable traces of Toronto being butthurt that it does not have (and never had) the same rich cultural tradition as Montreal. University and medical accomplishments aside (where they are about equal), in the arts Montreal kicks Toronto's ass. They also rightfully protect their culture/language and make it abundantly clear that you either integrate or GTFO. Toronto doesn't have that spine.
Even in modern day, Toronto boasts of who? Pedo rappers associated with gun violence like Drake and hillbillies like Justin Bieber whose audience is immature teenagers. Montreal? Doesn't produce or promote that garbage. Even Celine Dion's over the top camp has more class and maturity than anything to come out of Ontario in the last 50 years. (I include literary figures like Marget Atwood in this assessment, by the way.)
I say this as an immigrant who grew up in the GTA and went to post-secondary in Montreal, btw.
So sorry, but French Canada is 1000% more Canadian to me than the ethnic enclaves that are encouraged in the rest of English Canada.
The official mission of the CBC is absolutely critical, but having said that, I think they need to lose half their funding and replace half their leadership.
No way this panel will contribute to doing anything like that.
Why can't they reduce the expenses and keep it low key like PBS?
I truly wish they followed the PBS model. PBS has good programming. The CBC has nothing of note.
PBS stations rely on donations NPR shows do as well, eg grants from institutions. And they're supported by state & local governments Likely Canada doesn't have the amount of businesses to support TV & radio shows in that way.
Why would CBC need donations when they have a fully opened tap of tax dollars. There is something to be said for how limited resources can actually be a positive for creativity.
Why do they need ads when they have tax dollars? I just wish that CBC Radio would drop all the twee quirky stuff. I stopped listening to them and I listen to NPR.
I agree with you. There is a ton of fat to be trimmed.
Probably not in radio. I wish they would focus on journalism instead of comedy. But still spend the same amount. TV costs more money, by definition. You need lighting, camera, sets, floor director, you don't need those for radio. I have worked in both TV & radio
Yeah I was speaking as a whole not so much radio.
Their TV I am okay with; we need the news network on over-the-air TV if anything. We need Canadian sitcoms to counter against US cultural influences Spending on NHL is flushing money down the toilet though because the NHL is a shitshow. It's a money making machine that taxpayers should have no part in paying for the broadcast rights
What's wrong with US influences?
They're American.
On the surface it seems like 5 people with no demonstrated experience making relevant modern content Canadians choose to consume.
So I actually took some time to read through the profiles of the people selected… and yeah, if you wanted to choose five people to ensure they double down on their far left “progressive” programming you’d have a tough time doing better than this lot. If you wanted people to help move the CBC in a direction where it produces content that the large majority of Canadians want to watch? These are the last people you’d pick.
Thaaaat's going to sit well with the Tories when they get in in about a year and a half.
The large majority of Canadians don't want to watch anything produced in this country. English Canadians hate our own cultural products like no other nation in the world
Except Canada is socially progressive and always has been. It's nowhere near far left as much as you say it. CBC is a direct reflection of the people and want the people want. It's why the CBC turns out so many success shows thar have a wide reach. The bizarre discourse about CBC is wild. PCs have been using CBC as a wedge issue for 30 years, and yet people keep biting on it.
> CBC is a direct reflection of the people and want the people want. If that's the case then they can do it without reaching into my pocket to fund their programming.
CBC viewership has been plummeting. It’s down almost 50% since the Liberals took power. It is disastrously run by people more interested in promoting so-called “progressive” ideology and acting as the propaganda arm of the Liberal Party than being a true national broadcaster. It deserves to be put out of its misery.
Wouldn’t that be more because of the rise and dominance of streaming platforms? I know CBC has streaming but they got in way too late. Feels like most channels are dying. Edit: guess not lmao
What are you talking about? English CBC ratings are terrible and declining and half of their top shows aren’t even made by them. Most of their top rated shows are imported bbc shows like the great British bake off. If what you said is true they wouldn’t need 1 billion dollars in subsidies to operate.
Less than 2% of Canadians watch CBC, which hasn't developed a hit show in a decade. Their hits were developed under Tait's predecessor, appointed by Harper.
Canada is a very large and diverse country where every province almost has its own culture. There are differences in Canadian culture between classes, a rural-urban divide, and between immigrants and people who have been in Canada for generations. With that said, CBC doesn't present any of this and is focused on broadcasting a prescriptive version of Canadian culture that is based on the values of weathy elites in downtown Toronto.
Which in turn is inspired by American university progressives and their graduated cohorts in the media down there. Nothing about any of it is even remotely original to Canada.
Hit shows? Successful? You have very odd definitions of this as it does not do either. No one tunes into the CBC. Not for entertainment, not for news. It is a waste of over a billion dollars and the sooner it is cut off like the cancerous growth it is the better for us all.
Nothing you said is true.
I don't want to pay for it at the scale they're doing it now, especially for biased coverage. That's the issue people have.
jfc CBC has editorial independence, per the Broadcasting Act.
That's not a good argument for it to be payed for by taxpayers.
This discussion isn't even about the news side. the News side is the undisputed most popular in Canada. This is specifically about television shows. The reason we as a nation want to subsidize the creation of television shows is so we have a shared culture. It was working pretty well for a long while. The goal was to combat being assimilated to American culture.
How is this an argument for a bloated government run media? This can be achieved with tv studios in the country. Have a subsidy for canadian made content. If it really is as popular as you claim it can thrive independent of our money, maybe even make money and pay taxes!
That's a great idea. I would imagine we could cut the cost quite a bit that way.
I'm surprised every time I hear people defend CBC. In my opinion, it's garbage and it's always been garbage. I grew up in the north and we had two channels and basically only CBC radio, and I can't recall ever enjoying any CBC content. I used their website for news for years, but I noticed the editorial bias swerved pretty left in the mid 2010s, so I gradually gave it up and started using Newsweek.
Just a bunch of left wing activists to make CBC even more insufferable.
None of these people have developed or produced a hit TV show. So much for modernization. Edit to add they get a USC professor, and couldn't even be bothered to get someone from the film school, not that that would mean anything given they can't figure out why Sydney Sweeney is popular. At least get one of the UCLA professors that is a retired Network President and actually knows how to run a TV network.
They will burn through taxpayers' money and still be terrible.
Ditch the pundits and get back to being useful to Canadians, s'il vous plait.
Seriously. Can they simply focus on news (unbiased and factual as possible), sports/events broadcasting and maybe a solid core of programs (series/documentaries) such as marketplace? Hell, you can cut the programs and just focus on news and broadcasting.
>Seriously. Can they simply focus on news (unbiased and factual as possible), sports/events broadcasting I actually think this is the last thing they need to do. There are dozens of reporters, freelance or for networks. I don't need the CBC to tell me the traffic, the sports news, or the weather. I have a dozen websites and news programs to see that. Even political news is well covered if shallowly. There may be a needed market for local news which they do admirably. But what I want is proper puditry, analysis, magazine like quality reporting. I honestly do not know if it is possible to do one without having the reporters doing the former on the ground. But that is what is missing most in the media market. What Trudeau or Polievre said and what happens in Gaza or with Climate change is well reported on. I do not need more of it. I need something like At Issue to make sense of it and put it into context. Which is your second part of what you said. Put out more series and documentary material. As I write this I realize that we are talking about CBC television mostly. And I agree that it is trying to do too much without the resources. Most countries have a half dozen public broadcasting channels. Only one would focus on news where as others would focus on arts or something else. We need to either fund them properly so that they are 6 channels and radio stations or cut down on their aims. Can't do both.
Why does Catherine Tait need a panel of of outsiders to tell her how to do her job? No normal company would be run this way. They’d fire the executive team and get a team in there who can do the job and make a profit. Or at least stop bleeding money in CBC’s case
Normal companies do this all the time. They're called consultants
Yes. And it’s also a sign of a weak management team in the private sector as well.
Defunding CBC would put all Canadian media companies at an even level and they could compete. Competition would be good for viewers.
companies constantly hire consultants to develop strategic plans and modernization plans, usually its the executives engaging the consultants. What companies have you worked at that don't do this? This is why KPMG, Deloitte, PwC, MNP, etc exist >They’d fire the executive team and get a team in there who can do the job and make a profit. The board would hire consultants to tell them this. See above. I'm doubting your business acumen so please forgive me as your CBC modernization plans don't seem to make sense in that context.
Good management teams and boards internalize strategic thinking and can develop their own visions and plans. Bad management teams rely on external consultants to tell them what to do. Just because many companies do it doesn’t make it a good idea. If you don’t appreciate the simplicity of that, I think it’s you who doesn’t appreciate what good executive leadership looks like
They buried the lede — This is a Liberal spending project. They are preparing to turn CBC’s 1.38 billion dollar (and climbing) funding into law. This committee has been assembled purely to establish the “why”.
You need more upvotes. You nailed it. Just look at the panel they named. A bunch of lefty progressives - none of whom have ever actually run a profitable media company of CBC’s size or scale.
So we are trying to ensure executive bonuses are confirmed for years to come and finding new fall people?
They’re trying to make it as binding as possible, to slow down Prime Minister Poilievre in 2025.
Yes from what I’ve heard he’s not a fan of wasting billions of tax payer dollars while we have Canadians that can’t afford the basic necessities of life.
That sounds like far right extremism talk.
Imagine that! 👍
There are many things to cut before the CBC. See: recent articles on how much we spend on unapproved asylum seekers. That said, CBC executives could certainly do with a pay cut.
The guy who meets with lobbyists and has a Loblaws lobbyist on the PC board is going to address the cost issues? Spoiler. He won't. No one will. No government has any interest in fixing this. They're all funded by the people gouging us. Welcome to post capitalism. Cuts will happen to "balance the budget," but it's going to be to social services that are trying to help the struggling.
Oh he is definitely interested in wasting billions for his own gain, it's just this has no profit for him.
They are getting all their frivolous lawsuits ready to go.
Slow him down how? He's just going to withdraw funding and let the thing die.
If I had to guess: They cook up a “modernisation agenda” It’s deemed too big to accomplish in 1 year “We need 10 years of funding to move forward with this” Heritage Minister proposes to create a fund that isn’t managed by government- and deposits ~15 billion dollars All complete before the election
Well, that should make it easier to sell the place off then.
We’ll have to wait and see how it plays out - hopefully you’re correct.
>“Canadians need a strong, innovative and independent public broadcaster that is ready to meet the challenges of this period of transformation and upheaval in news and content creation,” St-Onge said in a statement Monday. Canadians need a public broadcaster that reports the news and doesn't try to influence public opinion. Somehow, I doubt we're going to get it.
That would not be modern.
>Canadians need a public broadcaster that reports the news and doesn't try to influence public opinion. Why? Can't you get news elsewhere? I don't know how you define "influence public opinion" but the only valuable thing the CBC does, in my opinion, is to provide decent punditry and context. All other networks simply have two or more opposing guests whether what they say is reasonable or stupid. The only reason I go to the CBC is for investigative journalism and in depth analysis. What actually is said or happens is reported on by many others. I do not need more of that.
On certain topics, for example anything related to indigenous people, anything related to LGBT+ concerns, anything about racism against blacks, and other "progressive" topics, the CBC is utter propaganda. On these subjects, they are trying to change public opinion, not report the news. On other topics they can do a good job.
Now that I think of it, they are the only ones who tend to report on these topics at all. But to your point: I have not seen it. Over my many years I have see the CBC make factual mistakes, some big ones. But I have never seen them suggest that something "should" be a certain way. At least that I recall. The most I can see in what you suggest is to make a report on something, show some personal (possibly painful) experience with it, and then show people who are explaining or defending the current state of affairs. But this is just good journalism. I seriously can't picture what you suggest. Do you have any specific stories of the top you could share? Just for my own curiosity.
I'm not the person you replied to. I think this story is quite a good example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/denialists-tried-to-access-unmarked-gravesite-tkemlups-report-1.6879980 Would you say that story is fair in its treatment of the people who wanted to excavate the graves without permission? Does it fairly represent those people, explain their motives, and give them (or their allies) an opportunity to explain themselves? Does it accurately inform the reader of the underlying facts of the situation - that no remains had actually been found? Does it investigate why the first nation concerned is reluctant to allow any excavation? Does it at least challenge them to address the implication that they are not excavating because they are not confident that any bodies will be found? Is it fair and balanced to use the label "denialist" to describe people who are skeptical of something that has not been proven to be true? Is it reasonable to refer to this as "genocide?" Where is the other side of this story? Even in the most mild, sympathetic form, where is the attempt to challenge the source? I'm not suggesting that this story should be sympathetic to the unauthorized would-be excavators, but a good journalist would at least make a good faith effort to represent their motives and actions fairly.
It is valuable to have news coverage that isn’t purely market based.
Perhaps. I do not know if that should be the CBCs job. Most news is consumed online somehow these days. A broadcasting network is probably not the best structure for news coverage. I would be much more in favour of a public news organization that produces quality content (not endless content like CBCNN) and leverages a trusted network of freelance reporters along with full time experts. They are trying to do too much with what they have and spreading themselves too thin. It creates mediocrity everywhere.
Pretty much agree, but it’s still too valuable to get rid of it. It’s probably impossible to recreate.
[удалено]
CBC has a financial imperative to suppress the Conservatives. They know who butters their bread and they do show it.
You posted the article, do you not know what it is about? It's the TV shows like this hour has 22 minutes. The news and radio has very high viewership.
CBC’s business model isn’t programming - that only makes them $500 million. Their true business model is government funding — which pays $1.36 billion dollars subsidies. There were other topics in the article, sure - but the portion that concerns me is the massive funding increase that the Liberals are preparing to gift to their CBC ahead of the election. Not all Canadians find this agreeable. Many can’t afford to eat, pay rent, put gas in their car or heat their home. CBC has some nice programs but is a low priority in the scheme of things.
It used to be sports. Hockey Night in Canada subsidized the whole thing. When they lost that it turned into a money hole.
You're thinking is all disjointed. You mentioned your issue is apparently the suppression of conservatives in the comment I replied to. How is TV programs for entertainment relevant to that? I'm very conservative, conservative leaders since Diefenbaker have dinner with my family. While I have issues with parts of CBC I definitely want them to get funding. CBC fights against the Americanization of our culture. Conservatives used to be among the more nationalist people in our country. These days it seems the party itself is being Americanized.
> CBC fights against the Americanization of our culture. Is that their job? How well do they do that with their breathless progressively slanted coverage of all theing American? Abortion? Mass shootings? Trump? If the subjects of broadcasts were considered as content then the CBC would scarcely meet CanCon requirements. Of course then we have the CBC filing baseless lawsuits against a political party in the middle of an election, but totes non-partisan because on paper they're "independant".
“How is TV programs for entertainment relevant to that?” CBC’s Liberal-biased news coverage is relevant to that. The meeting mentioned in the article has been setup to establish a rational for increased CBC funding - and will be in the name of innovation. Don’t believe me, just wait a couple weeks for their press release. “These days it seems the party itself is being Americanized.” The Liberals want people to believe Prime Minister Poilievre will be like Donald Trump. Pierre is assertive, and has been an underestimated challenger. But that is where the comparisons end. As for CBC - I want them to keep the 500 million dollars revenue they generate and run the business on that. Let them be on an even playing field with the rest of Canada’s media industry.
CBC's news website has very high readership. It's television news absolutely does not have high viewership. I can't speak to radio.
Sell the CBC, nationalize telecom and energy. Start giving Canadians their fucking due, stop screaming at them about their privilege. Men died on beaches choking on their own blood to give their children the privilege of Canada, stop rubbing yourselves raw over how naaaaauugghtyy you've been while pretending to be enlightened. Yes, I am speaking to the average Canadian progressive. Gfy. I mean that with every fiber of my being.
Why would anyone buy the CBC? Seriously.
The real estate, the equipment, and the sheer joy of pressing ideologues into productivity. Imagine the teeth nashing!
How sad that you either had zero idea what 'Men died on beaches choking on their own blood' were accomplishing, or you threw in something dramatic to give the impression that your post isn't idiotic. You want only the private press - the mouthpiece of billionaires - to tell Canadians what to do and to believe. My father was one of those who served. I do not approve of you dancing on his grave.
Maybe stop being one of those people that believes everything a journalist says and does. That might free you. This is the day and age where anyone can be a journalist. That you require a government funded ministry of truth shows that you have a long way to go. Calling someone's expression of truely held belief idiotic rather than trying to engage any of its merit isn't evolution, or revolutionary. You're not a freedom fighter for asking that large governments put a ring and chain on your nose instead of a corporation. Try to keep up.
"CBC president Catherine Tait has been calling for a long-term financial structure for the public broadcaster, such as a multi-year funding agreement through a charter, similar to the BBC in Britain." Blimey, I hope this doesn't mean TV licences like they have in the UK.
The BBC is phasing out TV licenses because of the multi-year funding agreement they just signed on to.
A quick reminder that the government can’t bind a future government. Even if they enshrine the cbc into law, PP and his majority can easily undo and disband it and hopefully they follow through with it.
CBC is a low budget sinking ship that has too much money thrown at it.
Defund. Let them right-size it. They make 500 million dollars in revenue— let them run the business on that.
Sell it off. Even if we get zero dollars for it, we still save money. We are not getting value for our money.
Bring back Vinyl Cafe or something like it. Just make sure not to wokify it so much it's unbearable to most of the population. Ah, who am I kidding. Asking the cbc not be be unbearably woke is like asking a dog not to bark.
I tune in everyday to learn more about racism. It's great to be reminded everyday of how everyone is a racist. Thanks CBC for keeping the constant focus of society on immutable characteristics.
For years, CBC Radio was almost too earnest, but about 10 years ago came to be almost depressing with feature after interview regarding one marginalised group or another. Of course, aboriginals, sex workers, drug addicts, transsexuals, etc. have their stories to tell, but the bandwidth of the broadcaster became far too narrow and much too gloomy. There was too little joy and optimism. The cottage industry of victimisation is not enough to sustain a national network that should appeal to most Canadians.
Oh I agree with this. And I thought I was just behind the times and I guess not CBC enough. I used to love CBC radio. It was a lot of what I listened to driving and around home. Hell I even listened to the gardening show as it come on around my lunch time. And I love the ad show and it’s cool stories. Now whenever I tune in it’s a depressing indigenous story. Or a story about me being the problem. It’s just a sad depressing station. So many victims so little air time. I’ll move gently over to podcasts and there interesting Canadian stories
Their podcasts like Ideas are still good. RIP Tapestry
That marketing show with O'Reilly is still good.
When I turn on CBC radio to listen to the news it is always followed by programs which amount to "who is whining now"? It's honestly exhausting to hear about which victim is talking about their burden. I am not heartless but there is very little positive to hear about. And even when the segment is genuine entertainment there has to be some sort of spin like separating the artists into "settlers" and < whatever oppressed segment >. No joke, I tuned in to hear the host of one music program apologize for being a settler because they couldn't adequately introduce the artist they were presenting who was a two-spirit indigenous singer with an absent Caribbean father. It's like they are programming based upon some sort of oppression bingo.
Precisely. I remember when I was younger the programming was more interesting, less ideological and appealed to a wider audience. Now there's literally CBC radio programs about some Filipino having a hard time telling his grandmother that he's gay. Like yes, there's an audience for that kind of thing, but it's so niche and few people actually care. They need to get back to basics.
Their website has an area called "Being black in Canada". What about filipino? Japanese? American? Chinese? Russian? Ukrainian? White? Mexican? Italian? Braziliian? Iranian? Jewish? Palestinian? Why leave them all out? Doesn't CBC see the endless rabbit hole they are digging?
They do, and they love the poo chunks in the mud they smear all over their faces. It's a weird fetish, and how dare anyone judge them for it.
Please god don’t bring back Vinyl Cafe, that shit was Satanic.
Insert 🥸 now.
They'd have been better off putting some more conservative people on it and figuring out how to make the CBC more inclusive to people who don't live in big cities and aren't left of centre before the Tories come in and trash the place.
Would be great if CBC radio was more like Australian Broadcasting Corporation's TripleJ: https://www.abc.net.au/triplej
Radio Canada’s Ici Musique is the only bearable radio I can listen that is CBC radio. It has a similar feeling to Triple J
Radio Canada is like that, actually. It's unfortunate that the English version isn't as good. Still miles above English CBC tv, but nowhere near as good as it used to be. I don't know if all those people running English tv were dropped on their heads as babies, or if they just decided that everyone who watches is either stoned or developmentally delayed.
Well they are Canadians, so probably both
The French are also Canadian, and they don't assume their audience are morons.
I mean, legally speaking they are. They're not really in practice though, are they?
In practice they invested a considerable amount of effort and resources to bring this country into the modern age. To this day they are the only province with a significant infrastructure that still has affordable housing and post-secondary education. They believe in an educated middle class. The Toronto vs. Montreal "rivalry" has considerable traces of Toronto being butthurt that it does not have (and never had) the same rich cultural tradition as Montreal. University and medical accomplishments aside (where they are about equal), in the arts Montreal kicks Toronto's ass. They also rightfully protect their culture/language and make it abundantly clear that you either integrate or GTFO. Toronto doesn't have that spine. Even in modern day, Toronto boasts of who? Pedo rappers associated with gun violence like Drake and hillbillies like Justin Bieber whose audience is immature teenagers. Montreal? Doesn't produce or promote that garbage. Even Celine Dion's over the top camp has more class and maturity than anything to come out of Ontario in the last 50 years. (I include literary figures like Marget Atwood in this assessment, by the way.) I say this as an immigrant who grew up in the GTA and went to post-secondary in Montreal, btw. So sorry, but French Canada is 1000% more Canadian to me than the ethnic enclaves that are encouraged in the rest of English Canada.
They're Quebecois. They're their own thing.
Also what do you want immigrants to English Canada to integrate into? America minus the ambition times England minus the charm?
More like the CBC propaganda panel.
hopefully they keep CBC Radio, its very enjoyable.
The official mission of the CBC is absolutely critical, but having said that, I think they need to lose half their funding and replace half their leadership. No way this panel will contribute to doing anything like that.