Funding the CBC

[D'rok]

My answer is the same: the CBC is irrelevant, since the national ratings indicate people are exercising their right of free speech NOT to watch the CBC. Thus, having a subsidized national broadcaster is of no benefit.

That's a non-sequitur. The fact that more people watch cable networks than watch the CBC does not mean that no one watches the CBC and that the CBC has no value.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound?

See above. There are plenty of people in the forest. It's a nicer forest than the one that Simon Cowell craps all over. I think you'll find that there are plenty of us who will chain ourselves to the trees in this forest before allowing in the bulldozers.

Similarly, if a tv show is broadcast on the CBC and nobody sees it, is it part of 'Canadian Culture'?

See above.

 

[Segnosaur]

That's a non-sequitur. The fact that more people watch cable networks than watch the CBC does not mean that no one watches the CBC and that the CBC has no value.

You're right... saying NOBODY watches/listens to the CBC is a little hyperbole. I could have said "So few people watch the CBC that to consider it representative of Canadian Culture is inaccurate". However, that's rather wordy, so its simpler to just say "nobody watches CBC".

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound?

See above. There are plenty of people in the forest.

Again, its a numbers game.... If you look at the latest television ratings, only one program on CBC placed in the top 30, and that was an American Import.

http://www.bbm.ca/en/nat06292009.pdf

It's a nicer forest than the one that Simon Cowell craps all over. I think you'll find that there are plenty of us who will chain ourselves to the trees in this forest before allowing in the bulldozers.

First of all, as I mentioned before, the issue about whether something is 'good' is pretty much a personal opinion. If you want to claim that American idol is cr*p, I'll agree. But there is no definitive way to tell if we're right or wrong.

Secondly, while I may agree that American Idol is cr*p, there are also many fine shows that are shown on our private channels... shows like House, Criminal Minds, Chuck, etc. In my opinion those shows are well written and acted, with good production values, and are better than stuff CBC broadcasts. (Plus, their ratings outdraw the CBC regularly.) It would be nice if Canadian shows can match U.S. shows in quality, but given our smaller market its not likely to happen.

Thirdly, when did we go from arguing about how the purpose of the CBC is to promote Canadian culture to arguing that it must protect Quality TV? Is it your argument that anything "Canadian" is automatically of high quality? Sorry, I may like this country, but that's not exactly an assumption I'm willing to make.

Lastly, if you're so willing to "chain yourself to the trees" to protect your quality shows, maybe you should be willing to fork over more of your OWN money to protect said shows, and take less from people who don't share your particular tastes. (You know, its comments like yours that give amunition to people who suggest the CBC is 'elitist' and out of touch.)

 

[D'rok]

Lastly, if you're so willing to "chain yourself to the trees" to protect your quality shows, maybe you should be willing to fork over more of your OWN money to protect said shows, and take less from people who don't share your particular tastes. (You know, its comments like yours that give amunition to people who suggest the CBC is 'elitist' and out of touch.)

Yes. That's why I proposed the TVO model and/or the BBC model in this thread. I personally prefer the BBC model. You would be able to opt-out of the "CBC tax" if we adopted something similar.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes. That's why I proposed the TVO model and/or the BBC model in this thread. I personally prefer the BBC model. You would be able to opt-out of the "CBC tax" if we adopted something similar.

How exactly woud you 'opt out' of the CBC tax if we adopted the BBC model? From what I understand, you have to pay a tax to have a TV capable of receiving broadcasts from ANY source. Unless I decided to stick to cable only, I'd still have to pay even if I kept my TV dial firmly on CTV.

 

[D'rok]

How exactly woud you 'opt out' of the CBC tax if we adopted the BBC model? From what I understand, you have to pay a tax to have a TV capable of receiving broadcasts from ANY source. Unless I decided to stick to cable only, I'd still have to pay even if I kept my TV dial firmly on CTV.

It's a legitimate question, which is why I said "something similar" to the BBC model. I doubt it is possible to devise a funding system where everyone is happy. At best, I think a system could be devised that at least tries to take into account concerns like yours. Ironically, a levy-type system might stir up more opposition even if it was objectively fairer simply because it would be a more visible system.

I seem to remember that you are/were Albertan? Am I mis-remembering? If so, do you listen to (or are you aware of) CKUA radio? That is an example of a public broadcaster that was entirely privatized but still managed to thrive because Albertans valued it. I would prefer the CBC remained publicly funded. In fact, I would prefer that they dropped the commercials and got even more public funding. But I don't think it is entirely impossible that something similar could be done with the CBC.

I'll chain myself to the tree, but if you succeed in bulldozing the forest, there may be an opportunity to plant a new one with private donations.

 

[Patrick_R]

There should be no government subsidized media. Media is not a public good, there is no rational reason why the government should be paying for television broadcasts or shows.

 

[D'rok]

Natch.

 

[Segnosaur]

It's a legitimate question, which is why I said "something similar" to the BBC model. I doubt it is possible to devise a funding system where everyone is happy. At best, I think a system could be devised that at least tries to take into account concerns like yours. Ironically, a levy-type system might stir up more opposition even if it was objectively fairer simply because it would be a more visible system.

Actually, I can see any government proposing such a levy being strung up from the tallest tree. (Taxes work best when they're hidden and people don't realize when they're being gouged.)

I seem to remember that you are/were Albertan? Am I mis-remembering? If so, do you listen to (or are you aware of) CKUA radio? That is an example of a public broadcaster that was entirely privatized but still managed to thrive because Albertans valued it.

Actually I'm Ottawa, but I did some of my University study in Alberta. Never listened to CKUA though. (University radio isn't exactly of interest to me.)

I have no problem with CKUA obtaining its funding primarily though donations. The people who listen to it value it enough to support it. In my opinion its the way things should work.

I'll chain myself to the tree, but if you succeed in bulldozing the forest, there may be an opportunity to plant a new one with private donations.

I prefer napalm for all my deforesting needs.

 

[D'rok]

Actually I'm Ottawa, but I did some of my University study in Alberta. Never listened to CKUA though. (University radio isn't exactly of interest to me.)

CKUA was the province-wide provincial public radio network (CJSR is the University radio station). Essentially, it was the Alberta CBC. Klein privatized it in the mid-90's, but it lives on.

I prefer napalm for all my deforesting needs.

Ouch.

 

[Almo]

2. Can a good argument be made for continuing to fund the CBC through tax dollars, given that some Canadians see no use for it and would rather spend their money supporting media that reflects their point of view?

BBC. Argument done.

----

Details:

BBC programming is exellent, and I whole-heartedly endorse their funding scheme.

I don't remember the details as I was only there 4 years an only bought one TV. But people who buy TVs are logged, and everyone with a TV needs to pay into the pot.

BBC has no ads, and very high-quality programming. This helps keep the networks with ads in line. The BBC's presence has a knock-on effect on other TV programming in the UK.

CBC is halfway between the UK and US systems. I'll take UK TV programming over US programming any day. I think CBC should go to the UK's system of no ads and full funding from TV owners.

 

[Praktik]

Unlike the CBC (where people have alternatives such as private broadcasters, satelite radio/TV, cable, etc.), there is no reasonable alternative to having a military or public roads. Some form of national self defence is needed, and since most people can't afford their own army, we need a nationally funded one.

This is a solid point but I think a follow-up question would be, do we need the type of "national defense" we currently have now? Some see a positive connection between our national defense and our mission in Afghanistan, plenty of others see a negative connection.

Perhaps we don't need to be in foreign countries in confused missions with no-end date.

I think most Canadians would agree that Arctic Sovereignty is important, and keeping the military ready to dig Toronto out of a snowstorm is important - but beyond that?

In this sense I do not see too much of a difference between someone objecting to CBC funding on political grounds ("I am not a lefty and CBC is lefty") and military funding ("I am not an interventionist and our military is interventionist").

In my eyes, you gotta take the good with the bad when it comes to your tax dollars and realize that there are plenty of things you're going to like/dislike about where your taxes go: its nice to have good roads and a place to get care for a broken arm, you may not be all that interested in the piece of art produced by an artist who got a grant.

If we adopt a line-item veto on taxes I think its a slippery slope and we're likely all better off without it.

 

[D'rok]

BBC. Argument done.

----

Details:

BBC programming is exellent, and I whole-heartedly endorse their funding scheme.

I don't remember the details as I was only there 4 years an only bought one TV. But people who buy TVs are logged, and everyone with a TV needs to pay into the pot.

BBC has no ads, and very high-quality programming. This helps keep the networks with ads in line. The BBC's presence has a knock-on effect on other TV programming in the UK.

CBC is halfway between the UK and US systems. I'll take UK TV programming over US programming any day. I think CBC should go to the UK's system of no ads and full funding from TV owners.

I agree. But I also agree with Seg that such a scheme would be politically impossible. The CBC survives such as it is in part because funding from general tax revenue is abstract. Personalizing it by putting levies on individual consumers' TVs will be a political minefield.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There should be no government subsidized media.

Assertion.

Media is not a public good.

OK, I'll bite. Give me an example of a public good, like one you would support the existence of.

There is no rational reason why the government should be paying for television broadcasts or shows.

False. The rational reasons begin with public service announcements and safety bulletins, and continue on to a rational process having been gone through that established public radio and TV in the first place.

You may not agree with the outcome, but the reasoning andprocess behind this situation was a rational one.

I find that American NPR has the habit of being urbanocentric, and they all sort of talk through their nose. But I still listen to NPR news now and again. Not a bad news show.

About the CBC: my exposure to CBC is mostly news, and that is now and agian.

I trend right of center. I don't find CBC to be "liberal" or of little use due to being "too liberal," as your conservative friend does. I am an American.

However, since I only see CBC news shows now and again, I don't have much more to bring to your concern on how CBC ought to be funded, other than nod at the earlier observation of "how is anything funded out of tax dollars" and how is that agreed upon?

DR

 

[Segnosaur]

This is a solid point but I think a follow-up question would be, do we need the type of "national defense" we currently have now? Some see a positive connection between our national defense and our mission in Afghanistan, plenty of others see a negative connection.

Perhaps we don't need to be in foreign countries in confused missions with no-end date.

I think most Canadians would agree that Arctic Sovereignty is important, and keeping the military ready to dig Toronto out of a snowstorm is important - but beyond that?

In this sense I do not see too much of a difference between someone objecting to CBC funding on political grounds ("I am not a lefty and CBC is lefty") and military funding ("I am not an interventionist and our military is interventionist").

Well, some of the differences between CBC funding and military funding:

- Even if Canada does get involved in "foreign" activities (even ones that you might consider "interventionalist"), it often results in a significant improvement in the lives of people in the countries we intervene in. For example, eliminating the Taliban means that women don't get oppressed in Afghanistan, and their soccer stadiums are used for actual sports rather than executions. (In the past, I've already pointed out that activites that actually save lives are valid government expenditures.) The CBC however, does not have the same benefit. No lives are saved by having publicly funded broadcasts of "This Hour has 22 minutes". (You might LIKE the show, but it ain't saving lives.)

- It is my belief that Canada benefits from such activities... being willing to get involved militarily improves our country's political stature on the world stage, and I believe that benefits all Canadians (even those opposed to military activies). However, I've never heard anyone give a valid reason how the CBC benefits anyone who isn't actually a viewer/listener.

In my eyes, you gotta take the good with the bad when it comes to your tax dollars and realize that there are plenty of things you're going to like/dislike about where your taxes go: its nice to have good roads and a place to get care for a broken arm, you may not be all that interested in the piece of art produced by an artist who got a grant.

I already pointed out how roads and health care may be valid areas for government expenditures. (Those situations involve either life and death issues, or areas that form a "natural monopoly")

As for your other example (not liking art produced by an artist who got a public grant)... I'd be all for cutting his funding too. The fact that we may be wasting money in one area doesn't mean we should be wasting money in ANOTHER area.

Frankly, I find the whole "you gotta accept things" logic completely flawed. We elect people to govern us wisely (if they can), and to hopefully spend our money without wasting any. We have the right (in fact, I think its also a duty) to point out areas where we think our money is not being spent well. Throwing up our hands and saying "Well we can't change anything" is a mistake.

 

[Segnosaur]

BBC. Argument done.

----

Details:

BBC programming is exellent, and I whole-heartedly endorse their funding scheme.

BBC has no ads, and very high-quality programming.

Your assertion that the BBC has "high-quality programming" is nothing but personal opinion.

I also think a certain amount of selection bias comes into play... After all, just like a fortune teller doing a cold reading, you're more likey to remember the 'hits' and forget the 'misses'. So, you'll remember some drama or comedy on BBC that you really really liked, but you'll forget the drec that they broadcast right after it.

Also, if the programming was of such 'high quality', why exactly do you think that public funding is needed? Yes, garbage gets shown on U.S. network TV, but they also show some pretty high-quality shows (not to mention private cable networks). Do you think that all the writers and actors who produce that 'high quality' television for the BBC are going to get lobotomized if they have to work for a private proadcaster?

CBC is halfway between the UK and US systems. I'll take UK TV programming over US programming any day. I think CBC should go to the UK's system of no ads and full funding from TV owners.

Better yet, how about full funding from TV owners who actually want to watch what's on the CBC. Why should I fund your entertainment choices?

 

[Praktik]

- It is my belief that Canada benefits from such activities... being willing to get involved militarily improves our country's political stature on the world stage, and I believe that benefits all Canadians (even those opposed to military activies). However, I've never heard anyone give a valid reason how the CBC benefits anyone who isn't actually a viewer/listener..

Right, my point was though that many others don't think this improves are political stature, costs a lot in blood and treasure, and perhaps even tarnishes our previous image of being a neutral country.

The objection to tax dollars going to these operations, on these grounds here, don't strike me as that much different than political objections to funding the CBC

Frankly, I find the whole "you gotta accept things" logic completely flawed. We elect people to govern us wisely (if they can), and to hopefully spend our money without wasting any. We have the right (in fact, I think its also a duty) to point out areas where we think our money is not being spent well. Throwing up our hands and saying "Well we can't change anything" is a mistake.

Well perhaps I didn't elucidate clearly enough - my point was that you can't just withold taxes because its going some place you don't like. (ie, using a "line-item veto" type thing to withold the % that goes to CBC, or the military).

You're perfectly welcome, however, to lobby your governments for a change in policy.

I do think however, that its unlikely a "kill the CBC funding" lobbying effort will be all that successful.

Until those policy changes are fought for and won however, we all have to live with the fact that we are not going to see all destinations of our tax dollars as legitimate or worthy.

 

[Praktik]

As for your other example (not liking art produced by an artist who got a public grant)... I'd be all for cutting his funding too. The fact that we may be wasting money in one area doesn't mean we should be wasting money in ANOTHER area.

Art is a subjective thing. You are not going to like all art produced by all artists who got grants. We can't put a "taste" litmus test on it. I'm sure there are plenty of projects out there you'd think are worthy productions of art - but in order to see the pieces you think are great, to make them more accessible to the public and promote them - you're going to have to accept that some artists will be producing art you won't like along with the ones producing art you like.

 

[Segnosaur]

It is my belief that Canada benefits from such activities... being willing to get involved militarily improves our country's political stature on the world stage, and I believe that benefits all Canadians (even those opposed to military activies). However, I've never heard anyone give a valid reason how the CBC benefits anyone who isn't actually a viewer/listener.

Right, my point was though that many others don't think this improves are political stature, costs a lot in blood and treasure, and perhaps even tarnishes our previous image of being a neutral country.

When exactly did Canada become a 'neutral country'? We may be less interventionalist than the U.S., but we still vote in the U.N., condem coutries when they do wrong, etc. And what does it say about our morality if we really were a "neutral country"? Country X engagining in genocide? Sorry, can't complain about them because we're neutral...

And if you think that the stature of being willing and able to be involved in military operations is of no value that's fine. (I did state that it was a belief of mine, since political stature isn't exactly something that can be quantified.) However, there is still the issue that military actions can provide a situation that ultimately saves lives by eliminating oppression. (An issue I mentioned before but that you didn't address in your response.)

 

[Praktik]

When exactly did Canada become a 'neutral country'? We may be less interventionalist than the U.S., but we still vote in the U.N., condem coutries when they do wrong, etc. And what does it say about our morality if we really were a "neutral country"? Country X engagining in genocide? Sorry, can't complain about them because we're neutral...

And if you think that the stature of being willing and able to be involved in military operations is of no value that's fine. (I did state that it was a belief of mine, since political stature isn't exactly something that can be quantified.) However, there is still the issue that military actions can provide a situation that ultimately saves lives by eliminating oppression. (An issue I mentioned before but that you didn't address in your response.)

I didn't address it because this isn't a thread about Canadian defense policy. This is a thread about objections to where our taxes go, and regardless of whether or not you think there is merit to arguments against our current defense policy many Canadians think there is - and I don't see what's so different about objections to taxes going to military spending beyond a basic defense and objections to taxes going to fund the CBC.

I think you're calling one legitimate and one illegitimate because you personally don't like your taxes funding the CBC and because you support Canada's current defense posture and see the arguments against it as invalid.

I personally support the CBC and am happy we have it and am happy my tax dollars are going to it - that doesn't mean I begrudge you the right to say different, or think that your objections to CBC funding are any more/less valid than objections to military spending. It's a policy debate. You dismissed objections to military spending on the grounds that self-defense is a "necessity" - I wanted to point out that basic self-defense is one thing, interventionist spending is another.

What I think is dangerous though is people witholding taxes without the political arguments having been won through legislation.

 

[Segnosaur]

I didn't address it because this isn't a thread about Canadian defense policy.

I know its not a thread about Canadian defense policy. But you tried to make objection to fundcing the CBC equivalent to funding the Canadian military.

I pointed out that military intervention can save lives and makes it something worthwhile to spend money on, whereas funding the CBC gives no such potention benefit.

You were the one that brought the military into it, so you shouldn't be suprised when people actually respond to your queries.

This is a thread about objections to where our taxes go, and regardless of whether or not you think there is merit to arguments against our current defense policy many Canadians think there is - and I don't see what's so different about objections to taxes going to military spending beyond a basic defense and objections to taxes going to fund the CBC.

Ummmm... I've already explained that multiple times...

- Military interventionalism CAN save lives
- Funding the CBC CANNOT save lives

Should be simple enough to realize that the 2 situations should be treated differently because of that factor.

I personally support the CBC and am happy we have it and am happy my tax dollars are going to it...

Good for you.

Considering you like it so much, why don't you go ahead an pay for the portion of MY taxes that goes and funds the CBC?

- that doesn't mean I begrudge you the right to say different, or think that your objections to CBC funding are any more/less valid than objections to military spending. It's a policy debate. You dismissed objections to military spending on the grounds that self-defense is a "necessity" - I wanted to point out that basic self-defense is one thing, interventionist spending is another.

I also pointed out that 'interventionalist' actions can actually result in saving lives.

What I think is dangerous though is people witholding taxes without the political arguments having been won through legislation.

At what point have I (or anyone else in this thread) actually suggested we should withold taxes?