[JaredMilne]

jj2424 jj2424:

A whole 331 million in advertising revenue last year. For a national broadcaster that sucks . Producing biased left wing politically correct crap doesn't have much of a market for advertisers. How many stories filled with crappy FN actors do you think the public can stomach.

De-fund the LPC network.

That's it!

That's the truth about what the CBC really is!

People like Coyne, Flanagan, O'Leary and Murphy aren't true conservatives-they're Liberal double agents whose active participation in producing biased left-wing material merely projects the illusion that the CBC wants to show a diversity of voices, when in fact they're all part of the grand Liberal party conspiracy!

It doesn't matter that Stephen Harper is a vocal fan of Murdoch Mysteries, to the point where the show's producers openly thanked him at the end of one episode. No, our Prime Minister has been so bamboozled by Murdoch Mysteries' political correctness that he's forgotten that the show is a Liberal propaganda vehicle!

Nor does it matter that Rick Mercer was one of Stéphane Dion's biggest critics, or that the Royal Canadian Air Farce spent the '90s taking the piss out of Jean Chretien's Liberal government-no, all of that was just a subliminal way of making people feel sorry for the Liberals and be more inclined to support them!

And the decline in advertising revenues has nothing at all to do with the general market shift away from cable TV and the still-crappy economy. No, it's because we as Canadians are catching on to the CBC's Liberal bias-after all, it's not like Sun News Network's ad revenues have declined 7.2% on a year over year basis, or that their stock has sunk 5% in value since the start of the year. Something like that would reflect more general challenges for the Canadian TV broadcast market.

It's a brilliant feat of political legerdemain worthy of Mackenzie King himself!

[Goober911]

I think the CBC fills a need. Not their shows, but news, investigations, sports they have a purpose.
Perhaps more along the lines of PBS in the US.
Thoughts are?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Goober911 Goober911:

I think the CBC fills a need. Not their shows, but news, investigations, sports they have a purpose.
Perhaps more along the lines of PBS in the US.
Thoughts are?

If we're gonna go with a national broadcaster publicly funded by taxes, I'd rather see them take on something more of a TVO format.
Lot's of stuff for kids during the day. Some great family programming in the early evenings and some great history, geography, and documentary programs.
Throw in some news as well, and sports for those who have opted out of cable/satellite altogether.

[Jabberwalker]

Goober911 Goober911:

I think the CBC fills a need. Not their shows, but news, investigations, sports they have a purpose.
Perhaps more along the lines of PBS in the US.
Thoughts are?

I think that it's true of CBC radio but CBC TV is nothing special. I wouldn't miss the television service, myself but CBC radio is unique.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

Goober911 Goober911:

I think the CBC fills a need. Not their shows, but news, investigations, sports they have a purpose.
Perhaps more along the lines of PBS in the US.
Thoughts are?

Sports??? When they did have CFL coverage it was spotty at best, and aside from the Olympics, they don't cover nearly as much sports as they used to. The only good thing left is HNIC and even that might be in jeopardy.

It's sad really. When I was a kid, our house always tuned into CBC sports on the weekends.

-J.

[DrCaleb]

Goober911 Goober911:

I think the CBC fills a need. Not their shows, but news, investigations, sports they have a purpose.
Perhaps more along the lines of PBS in the US.
Thoughts are?

I've always admired the BBC, and wondered why the CBC isn't more like them. They get funded by a TV Licence fee in the UK. If you have a TV, you have to license it, and that money goes to pay for the BBC.

But the BBC runs in countries worldwide, usually as a pay service, like BBC Canada or BBC Australia.

CBC makes some (not many) good shows, and I don't know how I'd live now that I'm addicted to CBC Radio.

[saturn_656]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Goober911 Goober911:

I think the CBC fills a need. Not their shows, but news, investigations, sports they have a purpose.
Perhaps more along the lines of PBS in the US.
Thoughts are?

I've always admired the BBC, and wondered why the CBC isn't more like them. They get funded by a TV Licence fee in the UK. If you have a TV, you have to license it, and that money goes to pay for the BBC.

But the BBC runs in countries worldwide, usually as a pay service, like BBC Canada or BBC Australia.

CBC makes some (not many) good shows, and I don't know how I'd live now that I'm addicted to CBC Radio.

I find the idea of having to licence a television beyond ridiculous.

[DrCaleb]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I've always admired the BBC, and wondered why the CBC isn't more like them. They get funded by a TV Licence fee in the UK. If you have a TV, you have to license it, and that money goes to pay for the BBC.

But the BBC runs in countries worldwide, usually as a pay service, like BBC Canada or BBC Australia.

CBC makes some (not many) good shows, and I don't know how I'd live now that I'm addicted to CBC Radio.

I find the idea of having to licence a television beyond ridiculous.

And yet, we licence our cars.

It's just another method of paying for a public broadcaster. People who don't own TVs don't have to pay the 'tax'. We pay out of general revenues for the CBC, whether we own a TV or not. I think the other way is a little more democratic.

[saturn_656]

A car isn't a TV.

I don't have any of my three televisions wired into a dish or cable. Why should I pay a "CBC tax" on them when I can't even watch it?

Paying for it through your cable or dish bill makes more sense.

[DrCaleb]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

A car isn't a TV.

I don't have any of my three televisions wired into a dish or cable. Why should I pay a "CBC tax" on them when I can't even watch it?

Paying for it through your cable or dish bill makes more sense.

No, a car isn't a TV, but the vehicle licence fees still go toward things car related, like road maintenance. If you don't have a car, you don't use the roads and you don't have to pay the fees.

What if you were like many people in Canada still are, and you get CBC over the air? How does the CBC generate revenue with that model? Why shouldn't the users of the service pay for the service?

And I'm not lobbying for a TV license fee. Just saying it's a more democratic way to pay for a public broadcaster - to charge the people who could use the service rather than use General Revenue and everyone pays. We already are paying a "CBC Tax", whether you have cable/sat or not.

[saturn_656]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, a car isn't a TV, but the vehicle licence fees still go toward things car related, like road maintenance. If you don't have a car, you don't use the roads and you don't have to pay the fees.

True.

$1:

What if you were like many people in Canada still are, and you get CBC over the air? How does the CBC generate revenue with that model? Why shouldn't the users of the service pay for the service?

Ad sales. Attach their CBC fee to OTA antennas?

$1:

And I'm not lobbying for a TV license fee. Just saying it's a more democratic way to pay for a public broadcaster - to charge the people who could use the service rather than use General Revenue and everyone pays. We already are paying a "CBC Tax", whether you have cable/sat or not.

I'm very much not in favour of subsidizing the CBC with taxpayer monies. I've said this many times.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

What if you were like many people in Canada still are, and you get CBC over the air? How does the CBC generate revenue with that model? Why shouldn't the users of the service pay for the service?

How does any radio station in Canada generate revenue when it broadcasts it's signals for free?

Why is the loudest voice coming from the CBC who gets a public handout and not from the other stations that also broadcast OTA signals for free and who stand on their own two financial feet? (CTV, Global, etc).

[DrCaleb]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

What if you were like many people in Canada still are, and you get CBC over the air? How does the CBC generate revenue with that model? Why shouldn't the users of the service pay for the service?

Ad sales. Attach their CBC fee to OTA antennas?

I can make a digital OTA antenna with a couple coat hangers and some bits of wire and screws. How are they going to tax me for that? And they already sell all sorts of advertising. Pretty much the same as every other network.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And I'm not lobbying for a TV license fee. Just saying it's a more democratic way to pay for a public broadcaster - to charge the people who could use the service rather than use General Revenue and everyone pays. We already are paying a "CBC Tax", whether you have cable/sat or not.

I'm very much not in favour of subsidizing the CBC with taxpayer monies. I've said this many times.

Nor am I. How about we ether release them from their responsibility to service markets that are unprofitable and generate programming that is unprofitable, or just suck it up and pay for them to service those markets?

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Why is the loudest voice coming from the CBC who gets a public handout and not from the other stations that also broadcast OTA signals for free and who stand on their own two financial feet? (CTV, Global, etc).

Because every other network has a choice in which markets it serves.

[saturn_656]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I can make a digital OTA antenna with a couple coat hangers and some bits of wire and screws. How are they going to tax me for that? And they already sell all sorts of advertising. Pretty much the same as every other network.

I can make alcoholic beverages. Government hasn't given up on taxing them.

$1:

Nor am I. How about we ether release them from their responsibility to service markets that are unprofitable and generate programming that is unprofitable

Ok, let's do that.