Share at least two prefered public media funding reform ideas here.


Machjo
#1
For me,

First choice:

Cut public media funding altogether: its present content is too similar to that provided by the available private media, making it too redundant.

Second choice:

If the government refuses to cut public media funding altogether, then convert it to media vouchers that Canadian residents could use to subscribe to participating public media of their choice in any language (including sign languages and indigenous languages) and in any form (including Braille) so as to reduce redundancy in the coverage between public and private media.

Third choice:

Should the Government refuse to eliminate funding and also refuse to let us choose how to spend it, then limit it to essential services (e.g. weather reports and emergency broadcasts in remote areas).

Fourth choice:

Should the Government refuse to eliminate funding, let us decide how to spend it, or at least limit it to essential services, then direct all funding above and beyond that required to provide essential services towards sign-language, indigenous-language and other media in languages not generally covered by the private sector so as to reduce private-public redundancy in broadcasting.

Fifth choice:

Maintain the present status quo: I'm out of any other general reform ideas beyond this.
 
Walter
+2 / -1
#2  Top Rated Post
1. CBC gets no gubmint funding.
2. Cut all gubmint funds to the CBC.
 
Machjo
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

1. CBC gets no gubmint funding.
2. Cut all gubmint funds to the CBC.

So if the gubmint refused option 1 but went with option 2, how would you propose it spend that money? Give it all to Rebel media?
 
Walter
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

So if the gubmint refused option 1 but went with option 2, how would you propose it spend that money? Give it all to Rebel media?

Return it to me and all other tax-payers. You lefties always want to spend my money, spend yer own and leave me to spend mine.
 
Machjo
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Return it to me and all other tax-payers. You lefties always want to spend my money, spend yer own and leave me to spend mine.

Correct me if I misunderstand, but it appears that your options 1 and 2 are more or less the same as mine in the OP (i.e. either cut it altogether or at least let us choose the media to subscribe to). Do I have that right?

I'll take Walter's greenie as an affirmative. I'd actually gotten the idea of media vouchers from the book Lament for a Notion written by Scott Reid (Federal incumbent for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox). Though I don't agree with everything in it, I still think it's a book worth reading.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#6
1- It is not within the constitutional mandate of govt to fund any media of any kind therefore my reform would be follow the constitution and not fund anything saving us $1,000,000,000/year

2- See reform #1
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

1. CBC gets no gubmint funding.
2. Cut all gubmint funds to the CBC.

A couple more to add

3. CBC to be allowed to hold periodic bake sales to raise funds
4. Bottle picking and panhandling
 
Machjo
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick View Post

1- It is not within the constitutional mandate of govt to fund any media of any kind therefore my reform would be follow the constitution and not fund anything saving us $1,000,000,000/year

2- See reform #1

Can you quote the specific Constitutional article that states this?

Thanks.
 
AnnaG
+1
#9
1. Private donations.
2. Corporate grants.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Can you quote the specific Constitutional article that states this?

Thanks.

Maybe you should show me the clause that says the govt will fund a media corporation. Maybe you haven't learned it yet but the govt is actually restricted by what the constitution says it can do, not what it cannot do. In simple terms if it isn't specifically allowed by a constitutional clause then it is beyond the scope and purview of their mandate. Once you and most other Canadians come to understand this fact the govt will stop running over our freedoms and robbing us blind.
 
Machjo
-1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick View Post

Maybe you should show me the clause that says the govt will fund a media corporation. Maybe you haven't learned it yet but the govt is actually restricted by what the constitution says it can do, not what it cannot do. In simple terms if it isn't specifically allowed by a constitutional clause then it is beyond the scope and purview of their mandate. Once you and most other Canadians come to understand this fact the govt will stop running over our freedoms and robbing us blind.

So if I understand correctly, Harper could have eliminated the CBC by simply having the Supreme Court rule on the matter.

Harper is more incompetent than I thought then if he couldn't have thought of that.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

So if I understand correctly, Harper could have eliminated the CBC by simply having the Supreme Court rule on the matter.

Harper is more incompetent than I thought then if he couldn't have thought of that.


It appears that you didn't understand him correctly
 
Machjo
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

It appears that you didn't understand him correctly

So how did you understand him? If funding the CBC is unconstitutional, someone would have challenged in court by now.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#14
Nick asked you to provide the clause in the Charter that deems that gvt will fund a media corporation.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#15
CBC can be like PBS. PBS works just fine in the states.
 
Machjo
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Nick asked you to provide the clause in the Charter that deems that gvt will fund a media corporation.

No, the Government is not Constitutionally required to fund a media corporation.

My question is, where does the Constitution prohibit such; and if it does, why it hasn't been challenged yet?
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#17
The answer to your first question is that there is no such prohibition and as such, there would be no 'challenge' required.

You will also note that the recent gvts of all stripes have all reigned-in the budgets of the CBC... That said, dumping everything on Harper solely because you don't like his Party is disingenuous
 
Machjo
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The answer to your first question is that there is no such prohibition and as such, there would be no 'challenge' required.

You will also note that the recent gvts of all stripes have all reigned-in the budgets of the CBC... That said, dumping everything on Harper solely because you don't like his Party is disingenuous

How was I dumping on Harper? I was just challenging the notion that the Government was Constitutionally prohibited from funding public media. If that were true, the CBC would never have come into existence.

As for dumping on Harper, you couldn't be more wrong: I applaud his cuts to the CBC. Just look at my preferred option in the OP. If anything, I just think he hasn't gone far enough in the matter and the next Government should cut some more.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#19
Machjo - you. like so many others, misunderstand the constitutionality of any particular thing. The constitution does not say what a govt cannot do, it says what the govt can do. Anything not mentioned or covered by the constitution is therefore not part of the constitutional mandate. In a legal sense MOST of what govts do today is outside the constitutional mandate but because of many decades of misleading information, ignorance and apathy the general public as a whole believes the govt has basically unlimited power as long as what they are trying to do passes a vote in the legislature.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

How was I dumping on Harper?

See below

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Harper is more incompetent than I thought then if he couldn't have thought of that.

As for your position on Harper or any other politician or Party, that is entirely your business... Perhaps I misconstrued some of your comments that lead me to my statement
 
Machjo
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

See below



As for your position on Harper or any other politician or Party, that is entirely your business... Perhaps I misconstrued some of your comments that lead me to my statement

My comment on Harper above was meant tongue in cheek in that if public media funding were unconstitutional, all Harper would have had to do is present a case to the Supreme Court to have it cut immediately, then turn to the public saying that his hands are now tied by the Constitution.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

My comment on Harper above was meant tongue in cheek in that if public media funding were unconstitutional, all Harper would have had to do is present a case to the Supreme Court to have it cut immediately, then turn to the public saying that his hands are now tied by the Constitution.

He could if he wanted. He won't simply because it would point out that so much other legislation is unconstitutional and NO politician wants that to happen.
 
Machjo
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick View Post

He could if he wanted. He won't simply because it would point out that so much other legislation is unconstitutional and NO politician wants that to happen.

I'm no legal expert and have my doubts on this, but if yiu're right, then why hasn't anyone challenged it in court yet after all these decades?

I can imagine the Canadian Taxpayers Federation would have been all over it a long time ago if your interpretation of the Constitution is correct.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#24
I have no problem with funding the CBC and increasing funding
 
Machjo
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

I have no problem with funding the CBC and increasing funding

So if I understand correctly, your option 1 is increase CBC funding. And if you don't get that, what's your option 2?
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick View Post

Maybe you should show me the clause that says the govt will fund a media corporation. Maybe you haven't learned it yet but the govt is actually restricted by what the constitution says it can do, not what it cannot do. In simple terms if it isn't specifically allowed by a constitutional clause then it is beyond the scope and purview of their mandate. Once you and most other Canadians come to understand this fact the govt will stop running over our freedoms and robbing us blind.

Good Gawd you're silly.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

I have no problem with funding the CBC and increasing funding

You also admitted to voting for the dippers proving no economic sense.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

You also admitted to voting for the dippers proving no economic sense.

The Conservatives and done nothing significant in terms of cutting back the CBC so it looks like their supporters have some issue with economic sense
 
personal touch
Bloc Québécois
#29
t.v media is for old people,i bet the average 18-30 year old cannot even tell you who Peter manbridge is,and further yet they would not even care,or placed simply would find the cbc news boring and old school.

who needs cbc when you have excellent coverage by information groups like anonymous
 
Machjo
#30
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/topstories/...-1x1-1.3273832

If we are to continue to provide public media funding, then requiring it to include closed captioning is one thing that could be done to make it worthwhile.