I just love how Pierre-Karl Peladeau refers to the Quebec and Canadian media as if they are somehow separate. Quebec media is Canadian media. A small point, I know, but it does stick in my craw.
As for one point of the column, if the CBC is subsidized to the tune $1.5B+, then it should not be allowed to compete for advertising dollars. It is unfair to all the private sector broadcasters.
I would actually be more supportive of CBC getting funding if they were mandated to be "ad-free". Then they can be an actual public broadcaster again and not a company acting like a private business with a huge advantage. I do not think the CBC should be abolished, it can serve a purpose.... such as promoting Canadian content and giving a radio network that will never be shut off. Just take it out of competition with our private broadcasters and make it what it should be. I am also quite sure Carney knows this is not a good thing but he also took over a party that thinks more like JT , than him. There are things he has to do, like it or not, to keep the party together.
Defund the lot, CBC first. F........ leaches, make your own bread.
CBC is NOT a national broadcaster, it is a leftist activist truth-suppressing facts-suppressing population-brainwashing propagandist.
CBC should be funded entirely out of active personal non-taxable donations, not out of any form of taxes. Then we will see who wants this heap of crap.
CBC is NOT a national broadcaster, it is a leftist activist truth-suppressing facts-suppressing population-brainwashing propagandist.
END QUOTE
So, you don't like their news coverage? I mean, why be coy? Just come out and say that, instead of undermining your credibility with what seems to be little more than (inaccurate) dyspepsia.
Yes, the CBC does need "a house cleaning", as others here have pointed out. But to claim that they are "leftist activists" who suppress the truth" is ridiculous, plain and simple.
Paaahhh ....... I used to love the old CBC. I ditched it around 2010 over its increasingly overt and unfair coverage of several topics of which I had personal knowledge and also other sources of information. CBC has also been subtly but persistently disdainful of the said topics and some additional ones.
I do not mean to be coy. I have utter contempt for the trash heap that the CBC has become. I will though take note of your, in this context, youthful and inexperienced mind, and perhaps I should congratulate you on that.
Just seen shortly after I posted my response to you:
"Former CBC insider trashes its one-sided, 'thoughtless cheerleading'
Canada’s publicly funded broadcaster has exhausted itself and what the country desperately needs is dialogue, not a monologue, according to longtime CBC producer."
‘Yes, the CBC does need "a house cleaning", as others here have pointed out. But to claim that they are "leftist activists" who suppress the truth" is ridiculous, plain and simple.’
The same was said, by apologists, of the BBC for the past couple of decades and look how that one-time bastion of unbiased journalism has turned out.
A lot of the Justin Trudeau agenda was inspired by a nostalgic view of Canada when Pierre Trudeau was in government, and the current Liberals' approach to the CBC and Canadian news media appears to derive from similar sentiment. CBC funding has been cruising on pleasant memories of Hockey Night in Canada, The Beachcombers, and Mr. Dress-Up for decades; news media like big newspapers are regarded as Important because they used to be Important.
It's all out of touch with today's reality, where the top-rated CBC show is re-runs of "Schitt's Creek" (a series that ended 5 years ago) and newspaper circulation numbers that have been on a steady decline since the '90s. The fact is that both CBC and the legacy news media need to count themselves lucky that Mark Carney is focused on other problems and hasn't yet pursued any real efforts to curtail government spending. A rational appraisal of current realities would reveal media subsidies to be a pretty frivolous expenditure compared with almost anything else.
You could say the same for the whole country, or at least it's decision makers and chattering types. Stuck in the past while the world has moved on. CBC is but a microcosm.
Good column. Jen and Matt often talk about this issue and how Legacy Media has to face modern realities. It's a dilemma for all of us because good journalism is necessary to maintain that a healthy democracy but it requires a budget and it's difficult to hire investigators on a on what's generated by a podcast. All countries need a national broadcaster and, while the CBC's budget seems huge, it's per capita funding is a fraction of what other countries invest in their National broadcasters. CBC should have enough money that it doesn't need advertising. Oh, and yes, CBC does need a serious house cleaning and revamp.
It's a cultural centrepoint. The private sector cannot be relied on to reflect the country. Obviously, new talent needs nurturing and even spotting in the first place. That's always been a problem in Canada because the industry is so small and because of our cultural trait of making ourselves small. Hype doesn't come naturally to Canadians. In the late 50s and 60s CBC in the NFB were world-renowned cultural forces. Yes, the market is incredibly fragmented thanks to the internet / streaming but there is always a need for a public broadcaster in some, hopefully technically relevant, form.
The private sector is more diverse because it has more players. By default, it will better reflect the reality of the country. CBC seeks to reflect a narrow ideal of a country.
The only market failure I see is local news coverage. For CBC to fill that gap, it would need to abandon the big cities and original programming. Of course that wouldn't sit well with the Toronto cultural elite.
Given that universal healthcare in Canada was originally designed to be funded on a 50/50 basis between Ottawa and each province, and that today Ottawa has shrunk their funding down to around 22%, it only highlights the egregious waste of money going to the CBC that should be going into healthcare. Shame on all federal politicians who have failed the Canadian people in this matter.
Health care is a provincial responsibility, as we all know, and therefore, federal funding of healthcare is an intrusion in provincial affairs. At the time of this intrusion, the quality of health care one received was wholly dependent on one's province of residence. Thinking that this was unfair, since we are all Canadians and Canada is a country, not a loose coalition of provincial fiefdoms, the federal government tried to get the provinces to adopt a set of minimum healthcare standards. The only way that the provinces would agree is if the federal government ponied-up some cash.
We see this province-first attitude to this day. The only way that we will see interprovincial trade barriers dismantled is if the federal government takes action. We cannot now, and never have been able to, rely on the provinces acting in any way other than serving their blinkered self-interest.
Rob, you conclude by saying, "... We cannot now, and never have been able to, rely on the provinces acting in any way other than serving their blinkered self-interest."
I, for one, am quite pleased that my government (Alberta) is willing to stick up for our own "parochial" interests given that the damned feds (and some other provinces) are incredibly hostile to us in so many ways. My point is that whereas you argue that "... we are all Canadians ..." what I see is that we are all Canadians as long as we are willing to be ruled by the elites of Vancouver, Montreal and the GTA. You know, folks who don't understand and absolutely don't give a damn about anyone who lives elsewhere.
So, yes, Danielle Smith, please do act in Alberta's own interest.
John, I deliberately left out Ottawa simply because Ottawa is principally elected by Vancouver, Montreal and the GTA. I also omitted the Atlantic simply because they vote whichever party is in power to get cash (no different than Quebec in some ways except Quebec is not nearly as reliably LPC).
OK I see where you’re coming from. Looking at vote concentration. My view is different. The candidates that the voters get to elect are not usually chosen by the people but selected by the elites regardless of the riding association shams. (Sometimes directly aka “parachuting” or Doug Ford nominating a bunch of candidates in his last election. Which is why the voters get no real choice it’s generally bland interchangeable sycophants regardless of party label. The parties want their candidates unsullied root and stem. Look up “unsullied” in Game of Thrones.
I see no difference between the Canadian candidate selection process and that of the communist party in the former Soviet Union. I prefer the Primary process used in the constitutional republic to the South. I realize money has a big role to play but at least anybody can play.
The Americans also run their primaries in a much more professional way. Our nominations are purposefully filled with loopholes and backdoors, at the behest of party insider "political consultants." The more loopholes, the more money to be made in taking advantage of said loopholes.
At least the Americans treat their primaries like a proper election, our are crooked.
I have no issue with a province acting in its own self-interest except when it comes at the expense of the people of Canada. My example of the health care system is a perfect. You could never get the provinces to agree on the time of day, let alone something as momentous as health care, unless you bribe them.
Rob, as you point out, healthcare is a provincial responsibility. You also state that "... [y]ou could never get the provinces to agree on the time of day, let alone something as momentous as health care ..."
So, why, oh why, should my province not be allowed to try it's own experimentation without being financially beaten up through the mechanism of the Canada Health Act? All the feds have to do is to allow the transfer of tax points and then those same feds can simply step back and allow each province to find their own way to provide healthcare. If the residents of a province don't like what their government does, there is an ability to get even in the next election.
The idea behind the Canada Health Act is to provide broadly comparable health services across the country. To transfer tax points to the provinces would be to decide that this is no longer a goal of public policy because, as we seem to agree, it will not happen without the bribe. I have my opinion on that, as do you, but it is up to the people of Canada to decide. It is also up to the residents of each province to accept the will of the people of Canada should it come to that.
Ah, you want, oh, Ontario to tell me in Alberta what I MUST want for services; after all, you in Ontario know better than I what is good for me.
You are not content for we in Alberta to determine what we want and to hold our politicians to account. The point is that we in Alberta can decide how to spend the money (a lot of which we in Alberta paid into the federal treasury in the first damned place!) and do not need the feds to tell us what we can and cannot do. The constitution says that it is up to the people of Alberta to decide about healthcare. The residents of each province DO NOT have to accept the dictates of the mandarins in Otterwer.
Yes, and how about the blinkered self-interest of the increasingly power-concentrating and the increasingly dictatorial Ottawa, which in practice a political front of the Laurentian oligarchy ? Corrupt oligarchy.
Fair enough. Though we must not forget that Ottawer is the nexus that collects and enables the ... insert several bad words here .... ideological pestilence from Vancouver, Montreal and the GTA and a few other regions.
My comment ties to RR's, you mentioned "blinkered self-interest" in quote, also responding to RR.
All big places of harbouring lunacy destroying Canada should be often listed.
The MSM lost its way a long time ago. Almost all articles are opinion pieces with facts provided selectively. As the BBC has come to learn, this is a dangerous game.
No tax payer dollars should go to the MSM. The CBC, a media wing of the LPC, should be weaned off the public teat as their biases parallel those of the BBC.
We need statistics, I think. How many people ditched cable TV and now watch mostly YouTube and streaming are there in Canada? What are the statistics for, say, The National or Hockey Night in, oops, CBC blew that one. The only reason I watched CBC was for the hockey games. I believe CBC and the government are trying to preserve votes in Toronto and Ottawa. It's all about getting re-elected.
Haven't had cable in a decade and, like you, watched hockey on CBC. Now get it on Prime. CBC appeared on my Roku uninvited one day, so can only guess was coerced.
The natural governing party knows how to get reelected.
Giving the CBC more money is a slap in the face to tax payers. It needs to be cut loose from government purse strings and allowed to sink or float on its own merit. To those who are ardent supporters perhaps they can contribute directly through some form of subscription thus relieving the rest of us of the onerous task of paying for a service we do not want nor have any intention of using.
CBC's funding, per capita, is a fraction of what other countries spend on their public broadcasters. CBC's budget is about the same as the Toronto police budget. It costs Canadians about a 2-4 a year. Not exactly a slap in the face. Should it be better and should it provide something you would be interested in? Absolutely! And perhaps with a healthier budget (and a revamped, more efficient more intelligent management) you would be happy to forgo one or even two cases of beer a year for it.
I guess I just don’t think that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize a broadcaster and even more so when it’s one based ideology and mediocrity. For those who want that fine pay for it but don’t expect us all to support it. Not sure what the Toronto police budget has to do with this.
When private broadcasters can demonstrate they will cater to and represent listeners, readers and watchers across the entirety of our country, from sea to sea to shining sea, (and not those in the lower latitudes), then they will be deserving of subsidies. And don’t suggest the internet gives everyone equal accessibility. It is not true for many underpopulated areas of our vast country. And there in lies the reason why public broadcasting deserves to exist. Sharing facts, news and entertainment that speak to the identity of our country are more important than ever.
Fair point but I would ask you to consider if a broadcaster that must by its mandate represent such a vast array of interests across the whole country is really at an advantage as compared to one focussed on the narrow or singular issues of its subscribers. You assume the CBC is liberal leaning because the conservatives are not in power very often. That’s not the CBCs fault. It’s a burden to serve the entire country and it means they can and do hold a wider perspective on national identity than media who is only critical of government.
Hoo-boy this is a good opinion piece. Let's give CBC even more money. Make sure, of course, the ratings for CBC remain hidden and take-em to court to prevent those numbers coming out. CBC needs a mandate change to reflect the fact that Canada exists west of Kenora.
I think the thing that would really fix the legacy media would be taking away the new media's super-power: targeted advertising. We need strict, and I mean STRICT, limits on the information that digital media companies are allowed to collect and share about us.
When a person watches a YouTube video, the one and only thing YouTube's advertisers should be allowed to know about that person is that they are the kind of person who would be watching this video. They're welcome to infer what they can from that fact.
That would put new media and legacy media on a level playing field in the battle for advertising dollars. And it would also take away the incentives for media companies to build their vast, privacy-invading, error-ridden databases about us.
If the CBC moved to Winnipeg you would see far better and more balanced reporting because CBC is out of Toronto. CNN is or was out of Atlanta, etc. Maybe something like this would be great
If Peladeau et al want the CBC to stop being the oxygen consuming sludgy behemoth in the room, they have a simple option: start directly reporting on the CBC’s errors, shortcomings and biases. Prove one lack of value in the CBC.
I just love how Pierre-Karl Peladeau refers to the Quebec and Canadian media as if they are somehow separate. Quebec media is Canadian media. A small point, I know, but it does stick in my craw.
As for one point of the column, if the CBC is subsidized to the tune $1.5B+, then it should not be allowed to compete for advertising dollars. It is unfair to all the private sector broadcasters.
I would actually be more supportive of CBC getting funding if they were mandated to be "ad-free". Then they can be an actual public broadcaster again and not a company acting like a private business with a huge advantage. I do not think the CBC should be abolished, it can serve a purpose.... such as promoting Canadian content and giving a radio network that will never be shut off. Just take it out of competition with our private broadcasters and make it what it should be. I am also quite sure Carney knows this is not a good thing but he also took over a party that thinks more like JT , than him. There are things he has to do, like it or not, to keep the party together.
Defund the lot, CBC first. F........ leaches, make your own bread.
CBC is NOT a national broadcaster, it is a leftist activist truth-suppressing facts-suppressing population-brainwashing propagandist.
CBC should be funded entirely out of active personal non-taxable donations, not out of any form of taxes. Then we will see who wants this heap of crap.
QUOTE
CBC is NOT a national broadcaster, it is a leftist activist truth-suppressing facts-suppressing population-brainwashing propagandist.
END QUOTE
So, you don't like their news coverage? I mean, why be coy? Just come out and say that, instead of undermining your credibility with what seems to be little more than (inaccurate) dyspepsia.
Yes, the CBC does need "a house cleaning", as others here have pointed out. But to claim that they are "leftist activists" who suppress the truth" is ridiculous, plain and simple.
Paaahhh ....... I used to love the old CBC. I ditched it around 2010 over its increasingly overt and unfair coverage of several topics of which I had personal knowledge and also other sources of information. CBC has also been subtly but persistently disdainful of the said topics and some additional ones.
I do not mean to be coy. I have utter contempt for the trash heap that the CBC has become. I will though take note of your, in this context, youthful and inexperienced mind, and perhaps I should congratulate you on that.
Just seen shortly after I posted my response to you:
"Former CBC insider trashes its one-sided, 'thoughtless cheerleading'
Canada’s publicly funded broadcaster has exhausted itself and what the country desperately needs is dialogue, not a monologue, according to longtime CBC producer."
‘Yes, the CBC does need "a house cleaning", as others here have pointed out. But to claim that they are "leftist activists" who suppress the truth" is ridiculous, plain and simple.’
The same was said, by apologists, of the BBC for the past couple of decades and look how that one-time bastion of unbiased journalism has turned out.
Please don't be coy. How has the BBC turned out? Leaving aside Donald Trump's ridiculous threat to sue them for USD 1 billion in damages.
A lot of the Justin Trudeau agenda was inspired by a nostalgic view of Canada when Pierre Trudeau was in government, and the current Liberals' approach to the CBC and Canadian news media appears to derive from similar sentiment. CBC funding has been cruising on pleasant memories of Hockey Night in Canada, The Beachcombers, and Mr. Dress-Up for decades; news media like big newspapers are regarded as Important because they used to be Important.
It's all out of touch with today's reality, where the top-rated CBC show is re-runs of "Schitt's Creek" (a series that ended 5 years ago) and newspaper circulation numbers that have been on a steady decline since the '90s. The fact is that both CBC and the legacy news media need to count themselves lucky that Mark Carney is focused on other problems and hasn't yet pursued any real efforts to curtail government spending. A rational appraisal of current realities would reveal media subsidies to be a pretty frivolous expenditure compared with almost anything else.
You could say the same for the whole country, or at least it's decision makers and chattering types. Stuck in the past while the world has moved on. CBC is but a microcosm.
Unpopular opinion: I hate Schitt’s Creek. It was sort of interesting in the beginning but made a swift turn into the Lefty DEI Lovefest cul-de-sac.
That small town was conspicuously and suspiciously diverse.
Good column. Jen and Matt often talk about this issue and how Legacy Media has to face modern realities. It's a dilemma for all of us because good journalism is necessary to maintain that a healthy democracy but it requires a budget and it's difficult to hire investigators on a on what's generated by a podcast. All countries need a national broadcaster and, while the CBC's budget seems huge, it's per capita funding is a fraction of what other countries invest in their National broadcasters. CBC should have enough money that it doesn't need advertising. Oh, and yes, CBC does need a serious house cleaning and revamp.
CBC really does need a serious house cleaning and revamp.
What problem does a national broadcaster solve?
I would argue thst broadcasting is dead in an age of infinite bandwidth and low cost content creation
It's a cultural centrepoint. The private sector cannot be relied on to reflect the country. Obviously, new talent needs nurturing and even spotting in the first place. That's always been a problem in Canada because the industry is so small and because of our cultural trait of making ourselves small. Hype doesn't come naturally to Canadians. In the late 50s and 60s CBC in the NFB were world-renowned cultural forces. Yes, the market is incredibly fragmented thanks to the internet / streaming but there is always a need for a public broadcaster in some, hopefully technically relevant, form.
How does CBC represent the country?
The private sector is more diverse because it has more players. By default, it will better reflect the reality of the country. CBC seeks to reflect a narrow ideal of a country.
The only market failure I see is local news coverage. For CBC to fill that gap, it would need to abandon the big cities and original programming. Of course that wouldn't sit well with the Toronto cultural elite.
Given that universal healthcare in Canada was originally designed to be funded on a 50/50 basis between Ottawa and each province, and that today Ottawa has shrunk their funding down to around 22%, it only highlights the egregious waste of money going to the CBC that should be going into healthcare. Shame on all federal politicians who have failed the Canadian people in this matter.
Health care is a provincial responsibility, as we all know, and therefore, federal funding of healthcare is an intrusion in provincial affairs. At the time of this intrusion, the quality of health care one received was wholly dependent on one's province of residence. Thinking that this was unfair, since we are all Canadians and Canada is a country, not a loose coalition of provincial fiefdoms, the federal government tried to get the provinces to adopt a set of minimum healthcare standards. The only way that the provinces would agree is if the federal government ponied-up some cash.
We see this province-first attitude to this day. The only way that we will see interprovincial trade barriers dismantled is if the federal government takes action. We cannot now, and never have been able to, rely on the provinces acting in any way other than serving their blinkered self-interest.
Rob, you conclude by saying, "... We cannot now, and never have been able to, rely on the provinces acting in any way other than serving their blinkered self-interest."
I, for one, am quite pleased that my government (Alberta) is willing to stick up for our own "parochial" interests given that the damned feds (and some other provinces) are incredibly hostile to us in so many ways. My point is that whereas you argue that "... we are all Canadians ..." what I see is that we are all Canadians as long as we are willing to be ruled by the elites of Vancouver, Montreal and the GTA. You know, folks who don't understand and absolutely don't give a damn about anyone who lives elsewhere.
So, yes, Danielle Smith, please do act in Alberta's own interest.
You missed Ottawa and the Western Quebec Laurentians where the government elites / silk stocking socialists live…
John, I deliberately left out Ottawa simply because Ottawa is principally elected by Vancouver, Montreal and the GTA. I also omitted the Atlantic simply because they vote whichever party is in power to get cash (no different than Quebec in some ways except Quebec is not nearly as reliably LPC).
OK I see where you’re coming from. Looking at vote concentration. My view is different. The candidates that the voters get to elect are not usually chosen by the people but selected by the elites regardless of the riding association shams. (Sometimes directly aka “parachuting” or Doug Ford nominating a bunch of candidates in his last election. Which is why the voters get no real choice it’s generally bland interchangeable sycophants regardless of party label. The parties want their candidates unsullied root and stem. Look up “unsullied” in Game of Thrones.
I see no difference between the Canadian candidate selection process and that of the communist party in the former Soviet Union. I prefer the Primary process used in the constitutional republic to the South. I realize money has a big role to play but at least anybody can play.
The Americans also run their primaries in a much more professional way. Our nominations are purposefully filled with loopholes and backdoors, at the behest of party insider "political consultants." The more loopholes, the more money to be made in taking advantage of said loopholes.
At least the Americans treat their primaries like a proper election, our are crooked.
Yep. Total sham.
Whenever I read someone claiming that Canada is like the USSR, I know to stop reading. That level of hyperbole has no place in a proper discussion.
I have no issue with a province acting in its own self-interest except when it comes at the expense of the people of Canada. My example of the health care system is a perfect. You could never get the provinces to agree on the time of day, let alone something as momentous as health care, unless you bribe them.
Rob, as you point out, healthcare is a provincial responsibility. You also state that "... [y]ou could never get the provinces to agree on the time of day, let alone something as momentous as health care ..."
So, why, oh why, should my province not be allowed to try it's own experimentation without being financially beaten up through the mechanism of the Canada Health Act? All the feds have to do is to allow the transfer of tax points and then those same feds can simply step back and allow each province to find their own way to provide healthcare. If the residents of a province don't like what their government does, there is an ability to get even in the next election.
The idea behind the Canada Health Act is to provide broadly comparable health services across the country. To transfer tax points to the provinces would be to decide that this is no longer a goal of public policy because, as we seem to agree, it will not happen without the bribe. I have my opinion on that, as do you, but it is up to the people of Canada to decide. It is also up to the residents of each province to accept the will of the people of Canada should it come to that.
Ah, you want, oh, Ontario to tell me in Alberta what I MUST want for services; after all, you in Ontario know better than I what is good for me.
You are not content for we in Alberta to determine what we want and to hold our politicians to account. The point is that we in Alberta can decide how to spend the money (a lot of which we in Alberta paid into the federal treasury in the first damned place!) and do not need the feds to tell us what we can and cannot do. The constitution says that it is up to the people of Alberta to decide about healthcare. The residents of each province DO NOT have to accept the dictates of the mandarins in Otterwer.
Yes, and how about the blinkered self-interest of the increasingly power-concentrating and the increasingly dictatorial Ottawa, which in practice a political front of the Laurentian oligarchy ? Corrupt oligarchy.
NS, I deliberately left out Ottawer because Ottawer is principally elected by Vancouver, Montreal and the GTA.
Fair enough. Though we must not forget that Ottawer is the nexus that collects and enables the ... insert several bad words here .... ideological pestilence from Vancouver, Montreal and the GTA and a few other regions.
My comment ties to RR's, you mentioned "blinkered self-interest" in quote, also responding to RR.
All big places of harbouring lunacy destroying Canada should be often listed.
The MSM lost its way a long time ago. Almost all articles are opinion pieces with facts provided selectively. As the BBC has come to learn, this is a dangerous game.
No tax payer dollars should go to the MSM. The CBC, a media wing of the LPC, should be weaned off the public teat as their biases parallel those of the BBC.
We need statistics, I think. How many people ditched cable TV and now watch mostly YouTube and streaming are there in Canada? What are the statistics for, say, The National or Hockey Night in, oops, CBC blew that one. The only reason I watched CBC was for the hockey games. I believe CBC and the government are trying to preserve votes in Toronto and Ottawa. It's all about getting re-elected.
Haven't had cable in a decade and, like you, watched hockey on CBC. Now get it on Prime. CBC appeared on my Roku uninvited one day, so can only guess was coerced.
The natural governing party knows how to get reelected.
Giving the CBC more money is a slap in the face to tax payers. It needs to be cut loose from government purse strings and allowed to sink or float on its own merit. To those who are ardent supporters perhaps they can contribute directly through some form of subscription thus relieving the rest of us of the onerous task of paying for a service we do not want nor have any intention of using.
CBC's funding, per capita, is a fraction of what other countries spend on their public broadcasters. CBC's budget is about the same as the Toronto police budget. It costs Canadians about a 2-4 a year. Not exactly a slap in the face. Should it be better and should it provide something you would be interested in? Absolutely! And perhaps with a healthier budget (and a revamped, more efficient more intelligent management) you would be happy to forgo one or even two cases of beer a year for it.
I guess I just don’t think that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize a broadcaster and even more so when it’s one based ideology and mediocrity. For those who want that fine pay for it but don’t expect us all to support it. Not sure what the Toronto police budget has to do with this.
When private broadcasters can demonstrate they will cater to and represent listeners, readers and watchers across the entirety of our country, from sea to sea to shining sea, (and not those in the lower latitudes), then they will be deserving of subsidies. And don’t suggest the internet gives everyone equal accessibility. It is not true for many underpopulated areas of our vast country. And there in lies the reason why public broadcasting deserves to exist. Sharing facts, news and entertainment that speak to the identity of our country are more important than ever.
Who de ides what identity to project?
CBC projects its identity and has an unfair advantage in doing so.
Fair point but I would ask you to consider if a broadcaster that must by its mandate represent such a vast array of interests across the whole country is really at an advantage as compared to one focussed on the narrow or singular issues of its subscribers. You assume the CBC is liberal leaning because the conservatives are not in power very often. That’s not the CBCs fault. It’s a burden to serve the entire country and it means they can and do hold a wider perspective on national identity than media who is only critical of government.
Hoo-boy this is a good opinion piece. Let's give CBC even more money. Make sure, of course, the ratings for CBC remain hidden and take-em to court to prevent those numbers coming out. CBC needs a mandate change to reflect the fact that Canada exists west of Kenora.
I think the thing that would really fix the legacy media would be taking away the new media's super-power: targeted advertising. We need strict, and I mean STRICT, limits on the information that digital media companies are allowed to collect and share about us.
When a person watches a YouTube video, the one and only thing YouTube's advertisers should be allowed to know about that person is that they are the kind of person who would be watching this video. They're welcome to infer what they can from that fact.
That would put new media and legacy media on a level playing field in the battle for advertising dollars. And it would also take away the incentives for media companies to build their vast, privacy-invading, error-ridden databases about us.
Move CBC to Winnipeg and out of Toronto.
But the real Canada is the part in between Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto. Would it even be properly Canadian if it was based in Winnipeg?
If the CBC moved to Winnipeg you would see far better and more balanced reporting because CBC is out of Toronto. CNN is or was out of Atlanta, etc. Maybe something like this would be great
Oh I agree. I'm just remarking on the thinking at CBC HQ
With the loss of private news around the country, CBC should be focusing on news, especially local news in small and medium areas.
CBC could drop (external) advertising from their podcasts. Let that go to the private industry.
If Peladeau et al want the CBC to stop being the oxygen consuming sludgy behemoth in the room, they have a simple option: start directly reporting on the CBC’s errors, shortcomings and biases. Prove one lack of value in the CBC.