Arrogance Inc.

[Cloud Cover]

Well, nobody here should be surprised at this:


PUBLICATION:  Times Colonist (Victoria)
DATE:  2005.08.31
EDITION:  Final
SECTION:  Comment
PAGE:  A10
SOURCE:  Times Colonist
WORD COUNT:  394

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBC's insulting cash grab

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To most Canadians, Ernest "Smokey" Smith was a true war hero. As the country's last Victoria Cross recipient, he certainly deserved the tributes paid to him after he died Aug. 3.

To the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Ernest "Smokey" Smith was nothing more than a chance to make a buck.

Soon after Smith died, the Department of National Defence assigned to the CBC the broadcast rights to his military funeral. Then, the CBC demanded payments from other broadcasters for access to the service.

The other broadcasters had no choice but to go along with the sleazy arrangement. To boycott the funeral would have been a tremendous show of disrespect to Smith and to all veterans. To make a fuss over the cash demand before the funeral would have taken attention away from the story at hand, namely Smith's remarkable, selfless contribution to the peace that we enjoy today.

Now, the broadcasters -- Global Television (part of the corporation that owns the Times Colonist), CTV, CPAC and CITY-TV -- are asking for a refund. They should get it.

We can understand that people planning a funeral service don't want it to turn into a media circus, so it might seem that limiting access would make sense. There are ways, however, to ensure that the media presence is not disruptive while still ensuring that the principles of fairness are followed.

The media are supposed to provide access, in electronic or printed form, to an event for all those people who can't attend in person. We cover an event such as Smith's funeral because it is our job to provide that service -- not because it will sell more newspapers (it won't) or attract more viewers (it won't).

More Canadians get their news from private broadcasters than from the CBC. In British Columbia, Global is the dominant station, with the CBC's television station barely registering in the ratings. That the government would choose to award exclusive rights to one broadcaster is bad enough; that it would choose the one that is arguably the least relevant is confirmation of how stupid a decision this was.

Fans of the CBC maintain that it operates at a higher standard than the private broadcasters,* but its efforts to profit from Smith's death show that, in this case at least, it is down there with the likes of the supermarket tabloids.

The CBC owes the other broadcasters a refund. And to all Canadians, it owes an apology.

Ends



*And... we all know what groups of people make up those "fans of the CBC" ...

 

[Monsoon]

*And... we all know what groups of people make up those "fans of the CBC" ...

Do tell.

This just in: CanWest newspaper says Global should get free service from CBC.  Up next: Leonard Asper - god or demi-god?

 

[Thirstyson]

It would be nice if the CBC's funding was restored to proper levels so that it wouldn't have to stoop to using these tactics and advertisments etc.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

It would be nice if the CBC's funding was restored to proper levels so that it wouldn't have to stoop to using these tactics and advertisments etc.

Ever heard of private enterprise?  If CBC wants our money, maybe they should show stuff we actually want to see.  Then advertisers will pay them money and they will have all the funding they want.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Do tell.

This just in: CanWest newspaper says Global should get free service from CBC.   Up next: Leonard Asper - god or demi-god?

You missed part of the the point- DND should not have assigned broadcasting rights to a single entity- and a public funeral is a public funeral- all of the networks carry Remembrance day ceremonies licenced by the state- why only one in this instance, and why, pray tell, the CBC? Global would not be asking for 'free service" from CBC if they had an opportunity to acquire a licence as well.  What did CBC pay for the licence?

 

[larry Strong]

Ever heard of private enterprise?   If CBC wants our money, maybe they should show stuff we actually want to see.   Then advertisers will pay them money and they will have all the funding they want.

What a novel concept!

 

[Thirstyson]

Ever heard of private enterprise?  If CBC wants our money, maybe they should show stuff we actually want to see.  Then advertisers will pay them money and they will have all the funding they want.

Which is a better service to its public, the BBC or the CBC? The BBC is better funded and has way more stuff people are interested in.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The government shouldn't be using our tax dollars to support CBC, VIA rail, PetroCan or any other organization where private industry can provide the service. It creates an unfair playing field and slaves to the sitting party who provide the funding. If CBC can't stand alone as a private enterprise, they deserve to fade into oblivion.

 

[Thirstyson]

Sorry but I disagree. The CBC, like the BBC, should provide a service to the public that a private organization would find unprofitable. I don't expect the same content from private and public broadcasters.

 

[larry Strong]

Does the BBC operate under the same kind of "Canada content" rules as the CBC does?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sorry but I disagree. The CBC, like the BBC, should provide a service to the public that a private organization would find unprofitable. I don't expect the same content from private and public broadcasters.

In a utopian world, void of political largesse, possibly. Unfortunately, being on the dole, the CBC is not impartial. It bends to the will of the guy who gives them the paycheck, and while the headwaters of those funds start at our pockets, it is not us that CBC provides the service to. It is the Liberal gov't. They are to Martin what Pravda was to Nikita Khrushchev.

 

[Infanteer]

Sorry but I disagree. The CBC, like the BBC, should provide a service to the public that a private organization would find unprofitable. I don't expect the same content from private and public broadcasters.

That's what we have PBS and viewers like you for.  Personally, I'm not interested in seeing my tax dollars go towards propping up Nip/Tuck, the Passionate Eye, and all the other programming that one can find anywhere else.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Put Corry St on another channel, I would never turn CBC on again. ;D

 

[dutchie]

The only thing tax dollars do for the CBC is allow it to broadcast sub-par, boring, irrelevant, and poorly produced programs and films that the other broadcasters won't touch, and that no one watches. It is essentially the Western equivalent of the State run TV you see from North Korea, the old Soviet Union, and the banana republics of Central America and Africa. The best think about our new GG? I don't have to listen to her pontificate about the latest 'eye-opening' account from some dirt hole down and to the right of us.

Turn CBC to the private sector, and euthanize this tripe. The only thing worth watching on Channel 3 is CBC Sports and Hockey Night on Canada.

 

[48Highlander]

Sorry but I disagree. The CBC, like the BBC, should provide a service to the public that a private organization would find unprofitable. I don't expect the same content from private and public broadcasters.

Really?  What sort of service might that be?  Anything that's worth doing can be made to generate a profit.  I assume what you mean is that thanks to public funding the CBC can broadcast crap that very few people have any interest in.  That's only a "service" to a small portion of Canadians, and our tax dollars shouldn't be funding pet projects that only benefit a small segment of the population - ESPECIALLY when the same material could instead be offered as part of a paid subscription service.

 

[S McKee]

I resent the fact that my tax dollars go to support a politically bias state run entity like the CBC. I love their feature "news reports" complete with ominous sounding music playing in the background; particularly when reporting on the US war in Iraq. The inflection and tone of the reporters voice while "objectively" covering a news event invariably puts a left of centre spin on the story.

 

[squealiox]

Really?   What sort of service might that be?   Anything that's worth doing can be made to generate a profit.

does that mean having an army is not "worth doing" then?

 

[1feral1]

Which is a better service to its public, the BBC or the CBC? The BBC is better funded and has way more stuff people are interested in.

The BBC is crap, and have become nothing but a voice of the far left. A great change of what they used to be. They have been spanked many times for their sympathetic view on radical islam (pre 11-7 attacks) and critical aspects towards their own troops in Iraq, which I find totally disgusting. Imagine if they had this attitude back in 1940!

Remember in the UK you have to have a TV licence, if not you will be fined and have your set confiscated. They actually have TV police wandering thru neighbourhoods with special vehicles which detect TVs. How bloody insane, but considering its a country in which fisherman and rods have to be registered, and be a member of a club and only so many fisherman can be in one place at a time. Total retardation!

My 2 cents on the BBC.

 

[Glorified Ape]

does that mean having an army is not "worth doing" then?

Great point. There are certain areas where profit should not be the underlying motive of the actors.

 

[Infanteer]

You're right, and a commercial TV station isn't one of them.

Like I said, we have PBS for all the public's needs (and PBS has much better programming to boot).