Media Bias [Merged]

[SeaKingTacco]

Good- you can name 3.

Is that worth 1 billion tax dollars annually?

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a big CBC radio fan, which is completely non-commercial.  The TV division, I think, gets subsidized in the first place,  then sucks up ad revenue in the second place and finally, does not seem to be able to produce a consistently high quality lineup of Canadian programming, without resorting to US reruns.

In my world, we would either kill the TV division outright, or force the TV division to operate without ad revenues- much like PBS in the US.  Those who want it, will be more than happy to use their own money to keep it operating.

 

[Good2Golf]

Good- you can name 3.

Is that worth 1 billion tax dollars annually?

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a big CBC radio fan, which is completely non-commercial.  The TV division, I think, gets subsidized in the first place,  then sucks up ad revenue in the second place and finally, does not seem to be able to produce a consistently high quality lineup of Canadian programming, without resorting to US reruns.

In my world, we would either kill the TV division outright, or force the TV division to operate without ad revenues- much like PBS in the US.  Those who want it, will be more than happy to use their own money to keep it operating.

SKT, I fully agree with you.  Perhaps because I am now approaching the age I remember my father doing doing so, but I now occasionally listen to CBC Radio in the car*.

Cheers
G2G


* The exception being an immediate change of radio operating mode to the OFF-mode for when "Q" with Jean "I love me" Ghomeshi comes on...  :-X

 

[Edward Campbell]

If one reads the Broadcasting Act very narrowly then one might, reasonably, conclude that CBC TV is not necessary. There are some objectives (§3) that the CBC appears, to me, to do while the private broadcasters do not. But it also appears, to me, that CBC Radio does all those things, by itself.

Perhaps the proper target for budget cutters in CBC TV – English and French, over the air and cable. Get rid of that and the CBC budget might seem like money well spent.

CBC Radio has a bias, too – but so does CTV and Global and, and, and ... bias, of some sort, is human and broadcasting is a very human activity. Most of us, generally, oppose bias when it's not our bias – people who share our biases are thoughtful, well informed and so on.

Getting rid of the all of the CBC would require a major rethink of the Broadcasting Act which has served us well for nearly 80 years.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

CBC Radio, I have no quarrel with and will gladly let my tax dollars keep supporting that.

CBC TV has to get out of my pocket. I don't like them and, more importantly, don't agree with them. I shouldn't have to pay for them. If they can't exist on their own (ad revenues), they cease to exist.

Although I'm willing to let them try the PBS route that ST suggested, which sounds like a fair and workable compromise for those that want us to keep Mother Corp.

 

[Neill McKay]

In my world, we would either kill the TV division outright, or force the TV division to operate without ad revenues- much like PBS in the US.  Those who want it, will be more than happy to use their own money to keep it operating.

Why not keep it and allow it to operate on ad revenue, but without subsidy?  I'm not suggesting that that's the best course of action, but I was curious why you didn't include that option since it seems to be a middle ground between the two you did mention.

(PBS, by the way, does get public funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.)

 

[Monsoon]

(PBS, by the way, does get public funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.)

The difference being that the CPB provides funding mostly to independent PBS affiliate stations - PBS is actually a network of independent stations that share content and augment it with local programming. CBC TV used to run something like this, but because the organization was centralized, as the belt was tightened the central bureaucracy kept the cash and the local mandate was stripped down to a crummy 30-minute regional news broadcast a day.

What I'd propose:

- Spin off CBC Radio/Radio Canada as an independent non-profit corporation and bump up it's budget significantly;
- Restructure CBC TV as a a granting corporation along the lines of CPB and cut its federal subsidy from $1B to $400M (about what the CPB gets from the government of a country 10 times larger than Canada), with a mandate to produce, sponsor and distribute educational programming; and
- Spin off the individual CBC TV stations as non-profit corporations managed by a local board of directors and run on the understanding that whatever it can't earn in ad revenue and CBC grants, it will have to make up from donations.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I watch more "Canadian content" shows on channels other than CBC.... why did CTV come up with the idea for Flashpoint and not CBC? Seems like the perfect Canadian show for the CBC to develop but a private broadcaster grabbed the idea first. I guess $1.5 billion doesn't by much in the way of imagination and creativity.

The problem is that the CBC knows its going to receive the subsidy no matter what. So, they have no incentive to go out and look for new ideas. The managers over at the CTV and Global on the other hand have to answer to their shareholders; no profit and you're out on the street.

 

 

[toyotatundra]

Getting rid of the all of the CBC would require a major rethink of the Broadcasting Act which has served us well for nearly 80 years.

I do not know if the problem is the CBC per se. Both the UK and the US have excellent public sector/non-profit broadcasters. In fact, I would argue that the BBC and PBS produce much better shows than commercial networks with their formulaic bubble gum. (Oh look, the 22 year old blonde, mini-skirt wearing police officer is going to apprehend the serial killer all by herself!)

The problem seems to be that CBC TV is not performing as well as its foreign cousins. And that would be an issue of management and organization, rather than funding.

 

[Neill McKay]

I do not know if the problem is the CBC per se. Both the UK and the US have excellent public sector/non-profit broadcasters. In fact, I would argue that the BBC and PBS produce much better shows than commercial networks with their formulaic bubble gum. (Oh look, the 22 year old blonde, mini-skirt wearing police officer is going to apprehend the serial killer all by herself!)

The problem seems to be that CBC TV is not performing as well as its foreign cousins. And that would be an issue of management and organization, rather than funding.

Could be that as well.  There's no question in my mind that some of the best television in the English-speaking world comes from the BBC and PBS.  CBC has its gems as well, but I don't have a sense of what fraction of the broadcast day they occupy.  My gut says something less than would be the case with PBS.

I remember someone floating the idea of a radio/TV licence fee in Canada a few years ago (similar to the one that funds the BBC) and, to nobody's surprise, getting little if any traction.

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't forget the Aussies.  I was just telling the missus last night - while watching an Aussie production - that the Aussies seem to be better at telling stories than Canadians.  I don't know why that is - I don't accept the explanation that the Yanks pull all our talent.  Canada is making up ground but Aussie acting seems more natural more of the time.

 

[a_majoor]

I do not know if the problem is the CBC per se. Both the UK and the US have excellent public sector/non-profit broadcasters. In fact, I would argue that the BBC and PBS produce much better shows than commercial networks with their formulaic bubble gum. (Oh look, the 22 year old blonde, mini-skirt wearing police officer is going to apprehend the serial killer all by herself!)

The problem seems to be that CBC TV is not performing as well as its foreign cousins. And that would be an issue of management and organization, rather than funding.

As pointed out, management has zero incentive to produce anything interesting or attractive to audiences, they get that huge subsidy even though the veiwing audience is only @ 7% of Canadian viewers. Now if the model was pay per view cable or getting donations like PBS needs to solicit, then they would have a direct incentive to get audience share or die. If the issue is to promote "Canadian content" or whatever, their licence can be written to specifically forbid the CBC from purchasing or broadcasting shows that were produced overseas, forcing management to find the best Canadian content money could buy, or die through lack of viewership.

If you think this is somehow unfair, consider that every private network on Earth needs to attract a viewing audience and has incentive to find shows viewers want to watch, why should CBC managment be paid to broadcast stuff nobody is willing to watch?

 

[toyotatundra]

As pointed out, management has zero incentive to produce anything interesting or attractive to audiences, they get that huge subsidy even though the veiwing audience is only @ 7% of Canadian viewers. Now if the model was pay per view cable or getting donations like PBS needs to solicit, then they would have a direct incentive to get audience share or die.

Well, that is certainly the conventional free market assumption. However, human behavior has a tendency of ignoring economic theory. After all, the BBC produces excellent programs, even though it receives a huge subsidy as well.

 

[Neill McKay]

As pointed out, management has zero incentive to produce anything interesting or attractive to audiences, they get that huge subsidy even though the veiwing audience is only @ 7% of Canadian viewers. Now if the model was pay per view cable or getting donations like PBS needs to solicit, then they would have a direct incentive to get audience share or die.

[...]

If you think this is somehow unfair, consider that every private network on Earth needs to attract a viewing audience and has incentive to find shows viewers want to watch, why should CBC managment be paid to broadcast stuff nobody is willing to watch?

If it were all about market share then, in theory, advertising revenue would look after everything and we might well ask if there were any point to having public broadcasters at all.  But a public broadcaster presents programming that might not fit that economic model.  Seven per cent, if that's what it is, is not "nobody".  There is, presumably, some happy medium where a public broadcaster is meeting a need that is too small to be economical for a purely ad-driven private broadcaster to meet, but not presenting programming that is so unpopular as to generate a truly trivial audience.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>There is, presumably, some happy medium where a public broadcaster is meeting a need that is too small to be economical for a purely ad-driven private broadcaster to meet, but not presenting programming that is so unpopular as to generate a truly trivial audience.

Stipulated, but who if not the audience (consumers) should pay for it?  It is entertainment, not the Supreme Court or Canadian Forces.  If I like monster truck shows, why should I have to pay for my monster truck shows AND pay for someone else's broadcast programming?

 

[Redeye]

CBC TV has to get out of my pocket. I don't like them and, more importantly, don't agree with them. I shouldn't have to pay for them. If they can't exist on their own (ad revenues), they cease to exist.

I think SunTV is some sort of sick, pathetic joke.  Why do I have to pay for them?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think SunTV is some sort of sick, pathetic joke.  Why do I have to pay for them?

You have a choice. With Mother Corp, you don't.

 

[dapaterson]

On a related note:  A young CTV journalist (formerly of the CTV) has quit, and posted a 3000 word essay on why:

http://kainagata.com/2011/07/08/why-i-quit-my-job/

Lots to chew on.  My favourite bit, from the section titled "The problem with the CBC":

It’s a vicious cycle, and it creates things like the Kate and Will show. Wall-to-wall, breaking-news coverage of a stage-managed, spoon-fed celebrity visit, justified by the couple’s symbolic relationship to a former colony, codified in a document most Canadians have never read (and one province has never signed). On a weekend where there was real news happening in Bangkok, Misrata, Athens, Washington, and around the world, what we saw instead was a breathless gaggle of normally credible journalists, gushing in live hit after live hit about how the prince is young and his wife is pretty. And the public broadcaster led the charge.

And, of interest to the readership here, he identifies himself as a former member fo the infantry reserve.

 

[Kirkhill]

So this self-described "leftist" (as defined by his policy choices if not the assumption of the label) is concerned that the media is being tarred as being "leftist".....

Edit: and for someone who doesn't own a TV he seems to put an awful lot of stock in Jon Stewart - who, I would assert, is the Canadian Left's antidote to those right wing views that concern them so.    So many anti-American Canadians seem to find Stewart a useful support for their positions on both American and Canadian society.

 

[Neill McKay]

If I like monster truck shows, why should I have to pay for my monster truck shows AND pay for someone else's broadcast programming?

Because the role of government is to do things that can't be economically done by individuals (or other entities) acting alone.

 

[Strike]

On a related note:  A young CTV journalist (formerly of the CTV) has quit, and posted a 3000 word essay on why:

http://kainagata.com/2011/07/08/why-i-quit-my-job/

Lots to chew on.  My favourite bit, from the section titled "The problem with the CBC":


And, of interest to the readership here, he identifies himself as a former member fo the infantry reserve.

And here's a rebuttal to that:

http://www.vancourier.com/didn+quit/5085267/story.html