Funding the CBC

[Blue Mountain]

I had a conversation recently about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with a person who holds conservative opinions. He was quite opposed to the idea of the CBC as a whole. Part of this was his belief that the CBC is liberal media; for sure it's not Fox, which probably causes anyone with conservative opinions to label it "liberal". Another complaint he had is it's "elitist", because it doesn't completely pander to ratings and popularity. For example, it often offers programming that is of interest to only a small segment of the population, and many of its programs matter-of-factly acknowledge that there are gay people, lesbians, environmentalists, trade unionists and communists who work in Canada and are contributing to its social fabric.

But his harshest criticism is the fact the CBC is taxpayer funded to the tune of a billion dollars a year. That's right: this past year, Parliament gave them $1,052,608,000 (Canadian) toward its operations, fully two-thirds of its total budget. That's down $63,000,000 from the year before, even without accounting for inflation. On a straight-line basis that's $33 per Canadian per year. (The actual amount each Canadian citizen pays for the CBC is probably less, since the government has revenues other than direct personal taxation.)

Why, he argued, should he be paying for a media broadcaster that manifestly does not represent him or supply him with the programming he wants to see?

Why, indeed? If the CBC is so important to Canadians, as the manifestly pro-CBC organization Friends of Canadian Broadcasting says it is, maybe it's time we investigate changing the funding model.

My questions for discussion:

1. Would it be feasible for the CBC to rely on a funding model similar to PBS in the United States, where they encourage direct support from the public? According to this page, 63% believe that CBC provides value for taxpayers' money. Would those people be willing to ante up the actual funds required to keep the CBC going? Would the amounts pledged be enough?

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?

 

[Corsair 115]

IWhy, he argued, should he be paying for a media broadcaster that manifestly does not represent him or supply him with the programming he wants to see?

Perhaps you can ask him how far down that logical road he wishes to go. I'm sure there are lots more things he could think of that he doesn't want his dollars to go and support. At what point do we draw the line on that argument?

Heck, the story in recent days has been the demoting of the (Conservative) Minister of Travel and Tourism apparently because she approved federal dollars for the Toronto Gay Pride Parade (a major tourist event). The government, of course, denies the connection but the timing is suspicious at best.

 

[Cain]

Well, I can think of a good conservative argument. Public television uses poor people's tax dollars to pay for programming that appeals to the affluent. Ergo, muahahhahahhaha.

I had a professor who had parents from England, and he had an open question about the Beeb. He wondered if it could be justified as cultural paternalism. Not all programming is created equal, and the stuff people want -- television that is affective rather than challenging -- just leaves us circling the drain.

 

[Corsair 115]

Well, I can think of a good conservative argument. Public television uses poor people's tax dollars to pay for programming that appeals to the affluent. Ergo, muahahhahahhaha.

Seems to me it would use everyone's tax dollars... unless there is some sort of government accounting ledger which identifies the income strata from which the tax dollars originate and then allots them accordingly...

 

[theprestige]

Perhaps you can ask him how far down that logical road he wishes to go. I'm sure there are lots more things he could think of that he doesn't want his dollars to go and support. At what point do we draw the line on that argument?

Isn't this argument simply the public policy debate citizens have all the time, about what services government should provide how they should be funded?

 

[Blue Mountain]

Isn't this argument simply the public policy debate citizens have all the time, about what services government should provide how they should be funded?

In a way, yes. The CBC was started in an era when there weren't 400 TV channels. Canada is huge, and the government decided to set up a national public broadcaster to get radio and TV into all parts of the country.

Now, however, we're inundated with media, almost all of which is funded privately. So the right-wingers are annoyed that they are still being forced to pay for what they see as a liberal and elitist media company. (Some of that argument may be assuming is the liberal media can't make it on their own, and so are forced to pick the pockets of the good conservatives.)

IMHO, the CBC is good public policy; it's a strong believer in Canada and has played a tremendous role in bringing Canada not only to Canadians but to the world at large.. However, a few Canadian conservatives I've talked to don't seem to be too interested in the concept of a Canadian cultural identity--they seem to be quite happy with us taking on the American one. So giving the CBC a role in defining our identity at their expense is something they have difficulty with.

 

[Segnosaur]

IMHO, the CBC is good public policy; it's a strong believer in Canada...

What exactly does being a 'strong believer' in Canada mean?

And does that mean that other media outlets DON'T believe in Canada?

Yes, the CBC has higher Canadian content rules, but they still broadcast plenty of material that has nothing at all to do with Canada.

... and has played a tremendous role in bringing Canada not only to Canadians but to the world at large..

I think the operative word in that sentence above is has, i.e. as in the past tense. Whether the CBC was useful in the past does not mean that it is useful or necessary now or in the future.

Its great for a country to maintain at least some links to its past history, but is subsidizing a public broadcaster forever and ever something that needs to be done?

However, a few Canadian conservatives I've talked to don't seem to be too interested in the concept of a Canadian cultural identity--they seem to be quite happy with us taking on the American one. So giving the CBC a role in defining our identity at their expense is something they have difficulty with.

You're assuming that the CBC is somehow 'key' in defining our identity. The problems with that argument:

- As I pointed out before, the CBC contains a lot of foreign content. How is showing American movies and re-runs of the Simpsons actually defining Canadian identity?

- Much of the 'Canadian Content' that CBC DOES show could easily find a home on alternative networks. (I think CTV would LOVE the chance to broadcast Hockey Night in Canada)

- And of the stuff on CBC that is actually Canadian, but wouldn't be popular enough to show on other networks... can that even be considered "Canadian Culture"? After all, I would assume that if something is to be considered "culture" it should be of interest to at least a significant group of people. If the CBC is broadcasting stuff that ISN'T of interest to people (and their ratings for many things show that), then is it really defining or reflecting "Canadian culture"?

 

[Beerina]

Nobody should be forced to pay for opinions in which they do not share.

That 63% should have their taxes raised from $33 to $52 to cover the loss.


Somehow I think that 63% will plummet. Don't know why, must be the cynic in me.

 

[D'rok]

I agree with Segnosaur about the content of CBC TV. It's having a serious identity crisis these days. Is it a public broadcaster tasked with presenting Canadian stories and culture to Canadians? Or is it a commercial enterprise in competition with cable broadcasters? Is it presenting news and information about the wider world with an eye to Canadian sensibilities? Or is it just another vehicle for American commercial content like Adam Sandler movies?

Frankly, I think TVO does a better job than the CBC does at some core level.

ETA: See here for TVO funding model. (Crown corp funded partially through viewer donations):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVOntario#Governance.2C_funding_and_other_responsibilities

IMO, the real value of the CBC is CBC Radio. They still seem to have their mojo working for the most part. (And Jurgen Gothe has finally been put at least mostly out to pasture. Change I can believe in).

 

[Segnosaur]

Nobody should be forced to pay for opinions in which they do not share.

That 63% should have their taxes raised from $33 to $52 to cover the loss.


Somehow I think that 63% will plummet. Don't know why, must be the cynic in me.

Heck, I think that 63% would plummet even if they kept taxpayer subsidies at $33 and specifically came around to collect money from people for that purpose.

Its easy to say you "support the CBC" if you never see the money. But just like any other 'subsidized' program, once you actually have to make an effort to pay, or actually see the money in your had, many people will have second thoughts.

Maybe they can add a check box to our income tax forms... "Do you wish to donate to the CBC.... Yes/no".

 

[Corsair 115]

HMaybe they can add a check box to our income tax forms... "Do you wish to donate to the CBC.... Yes/no".

But why single out the CBC for such treatment? Might just as well ask if we wish to contribute to the salaries and pensions of the MPs in Ottawa...

 

[Blue Mountain]

But why single out the CBC for such treatment? Might just as well ask if we wish to contribute to the salaries and pensions of the MPs in Ottawa...

People with the mindset of paying as few taxes as possible to support as small a government as possible don't like any sort of spending on culture and arts. They can grudgingly see the usefulness of roads and schools (and some even argue those can be privatised), and in Canada they may even appreciate our health care system.

The CBC comes in for special criticism because it manifestly does not represent their point of view, and more often than not presents views that they hate. And they have to pay for that!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nobody should be forced to pay for opinions in which they do not share.

Cool I get to stop paying for the military budget? Or roads in other states? Or disaster releaf for areas I do not live?

 

[D'rok]

How about the BBC funding model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Finance

Only a majority government could actually implement this, mind you. It would probably be political suicide in a minority parliament.

 

[DC]

all i can say, most objective News i get from TV is from Public owned stations such as SFDRS or BBC and some German public TV Stations. they provide more and more detailed news than the 2 german private owned 24h News stations.

 

[Segnosaur]

Maybe they can add a check box to our income tax forms... "Do you wish to donate to the CBC.... Yes/no".

But why single out the CBC for such treatment? Might just as well ask if we wish to contribute to the salaries and pensions of the MPs in Ottawa...

Because, I'm not an anarchist, and as such, I DO see a need for elected individuals to represent the 'will of the people' in day-to-day government activities.

Cool I get to stop paying for the military budget? Or roads in other states? Or disaster releaf for areas I do not live?

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.

As for disaster relief, you're dealing with issues of life-and-death, areas where the government can and should react. I think its a bit more important if the government rescues someone from certain death than the ability for someone to watch the Royal Winnipeg Ballet on tv.

People with the mindset of paying as few taxes as possible to support as small a government as possible don't like any sort of spending on culture and arts. They can grudgingly see the usefulness of roads and schools (and some even argue those can be privatised), and in Canada they may even appreciate our health care system.

The CBC comes in for special criticism because it manifestly does not represent their point of view, and more often than not presents views that they hate. And they have to pay for that!

Actually, no... I'd feel the same way even if the CBC represented views that I "approved" of. (And its not just their 'viewpoints' I'm concerned about. I also don't see the need for the Canadian government to subsidize a public broadcaster to put on shows that are purely entertainment as well.)

 

[D'rok]

@Segnosaur

Does the near total saturation of American culture on Canadian airwaves concern you? How can we compete with the juggernaut if we don't carve out our own space? Would it be problematic for Canadian producers/writers/actors if their only professional option was to work in the American industry? Do you really want private enterprise to control everything that we hear/see on the airwaves, especially things like news and documentaries?

I'll partially answer my own question. A show like Corner Gas is evidence that a network entity other than CBC can succeed at being "Canadian". But I don't think even Corner Gas is a complete rebuttal.

 

[Segnosaur]

@Segnosaur

Does the near total saturation of American culture on Canadian airwaves concern you?

Not at all, for a couple of reasons:

- Is it REALLY that bad if much of our culture mirrors the Americans? After all, a culture isn't a living being. If people stop listening to Ann Murray and switch to Britney spears, nobody will die as a result. I don't see the need to promote a "canadian culture" just for the sake of being different

- Its a matter of freedom of speech. People have the right to listen to whatever they want. Dumping huge amounts of money into a public broadcaster like the CBC does nothing of people are still going to tune into American Idol instead of The Nature of Things. (It goes back to an issue I identified before... I don't think it should be considered "canadian culture" if its something that is basically unpopular. Some may mourn the demise of something that makes us "unique" but our freedoms should take precidence.

- Most importanly, I DO have confidence that many aspects of Canadian culture will survive, despite the onslaught of American TV and music. Hockey, Curling, the RCMP, and our sense of wit are not likely going to go anywhere for a long long time. There's enough there to make us unique, even if we still watch American Idol and listen to Britney Spears.

How can we compete with the juggernaut if we don't carve out our own space? Would it be problematic for Canadian producers/writers/actors if their only professional option was to work in the American industry? Do you really want private enterprise to control everything that we hear/see on the airwaves, especially things like news and documentaries?

Well, actually in a way private enterprise DOESN'T control everything. Viewers/Listeners do. Companies ARE out to make money, but if they show something that viewers don't like, they will loose ratings. So, it makes sense that

I'll partially answer my own question. A show like Corner Gas is evidence that a network entity other than CBC can succeed at being "Canadian". But I don't think even Corner Gas is a complete rebuttal.

You are right in that Corner gas isn't a "complete" rebuttal (after all, they do get some governmnemt subsidies.) However, many american Movies/TV shows also get subsidies from cities/states they film in, so there is a little bit of 'leveling the playing field' going on.

Of course, as I mentioned before, shows that are relatively successful on the CBC could find viewers if they were moved to private broadcasters.

 

[D'rok]

- Is it REALLY that bad if much of our culture mirrors the Americans?

Yes. Yes it is.

After all, a culture isn't a living being. If people stop listening to Ann Murray and switch to Britney spears, nobody will die as a result. I don't see the need to promote a "canadian culture" just for the sake of being different.

It isn't for the sake of being different. It is for the sake of preserving something better. And I don't mean "preserving" as in pickling something and putting it on the shelf to preserve it. I mean preserving the opportunity for that something to thrive and to grow. Culture isn't a living being, but it most certainly is living. The CBC is supposed to keep it alive.

- Its a matter of freedom of speech. People have the right to listen to whatever they want. Dumping huge amounts of money into a public broadcaster like the CBC does nothing of people are still going to tune into American Idol instead of The Nature of Things. (It goes back to an issue I identified before... I don't think it should be considered "canadian culture" if its something that is basically unpopular. Some may mourn the demise of something that makes us "unique" but our freedoms should take precidence.

This is a really big stretch. There is no freedom of speech issue here. The CBC does not dictate people's viewing choices; it merely provides yet another choice on the menu. The Nature of Things has value that would be swept aside if the CBC is killed. The presence of The Nature of Things does not affect the freedom of those who want to watch American Idol instead. They can still go ahead and do that.

- Most importanly, I DO have confidence that many aspects of Canadian culture will survive, despite the onslaught of American TV and music. Hockey, Curling, the RCMP, and our sense of wit are not likely going to go anywhere for a long long time. There's enough there to make us unique, even if we still watch American Idol and listen to Britney Spears.

True enough. (Except for the RCMP. The RCMP's cultural icons are marketed in part by Disney these days). I'm not claiming Canadian identity will disappear. I'm claiming that Canadian identity will disappear from broadcast TV. (Or, more accurately, it will be greatly diminished).

Well, actually in a way private enterprise DOESN'T control everything. Viewers/Listeners do. Companies ARE out to make money, but if they show something that viewers don't like, they will loose ratings. So, it makes sense that

And if they lose ratings, we have American Idol instead of The National? Programming based entirely on ratings is what the CBC is (supposed to be) the antidote for.

 

[Segnosaur]

After all, a culture isn't a living being. If people stop listening to Ann Murray and switch to Britney spears, nobody will die as a result. I don't see the need to promote a "canadian culture" just for the sake of being different.[/quiote]
Yes. Yes it is.It isn't for the sake of being different. It is for the sake of preserving something better.

But being considered "better" is more or less a personal opinion. How do you know that what the CBC is trying to preserve is actually better than what we're exposed to on American media?

Granted, I think Britney Spears sucks, and I've never watched an episode of American idol. But if other Canadians think such material is worthy of their attention (more so than something like Nature of Things), then to them American Idol and Britney Spears are 'better' than what they on the CBC.

Its a matter of freedom of speech. People have the right to listen to whatever they want. Dumping huge amounts of money into a public broadcaster like the CBC does nothing of people are still going to tune into American Idol instead of The Nature of Things. (It goes back to an issue I identified before... I don't think it should be considered "canadian culture" if its something that is basically unpopular. Some may mourn the demise of something that makes us "unique" but our freedoms should take precidence.

This is a really big stretch. There is no freedom of speech issue here. The CBC does not dictate people's viewing choices; it merely provides yet another choice on the menu.

I never claimed that the CBC DID dictate people's viewing choices. I was dealing only with the question you raised: am I worried about the effects of American media in Canada.

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.

The Nature of Things has value that would be swept aside if the CBC is killed. The presence of The Nature of Things does not affect the freedom of those who want to watch American Idol instead. They can still go ahead and do that.

True enough. (Except for the RCMP. The RCMP's cultural icons are marketed in part by Disney these days). I'm not claiming Canadian identity will disappear. I'm claiming that Canadian identity will disappear from broadcast TV. (Or, more accurately, it will be greatly diminished).

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

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

And if they lose ratings, we have American Idol instead of The National? Programming based entirely on ratings is what the CBC is (supposed to be) the antidote for.

But then, why exactly do we need an "antidote" if we don't actually have a disease?