How we can save journalism in Canada: Rein in the CBC

[Bar Sinister]

If you don't want Canada "Americanized" then stop gobbling up the culture, no law prevents what people want.

Your Canadian Content laws are pathetic. Why says you? If you need a law to preserve entertainment then maybe it's not entertainment worth preserving?



Oh get off your imaginary high horse, American TV shows are constantly rated top ten around the world, including your own country. Which Canadian parallel universe do you live in?

You are probably too stupid to realize that many of the top-rated TV shows in the US are produced in Canada. I thought I made that clear in my post, but apparently you didn't bother to read it. I also suspect from your comment that you have no idea how the Canadian Content Laws work or how successful they have been. You might actually want to research the topic a bit before embarrassing yourself with a completely uninformed comment.

BTW - what the hell is this supposed to mean? "Your Canadian Content laws are pathetic. Why says you?"

 

[Sons of Liberty]

You are probably too stupid to realize that many of the top-rated TV shows in the US are produced in Canada. I thought I made that clear in my post, but apparently you didn't bother to read it.

I read it, I scoffed at the seriousness of your statement. Apparently you're too stupid to realize there is a difference between filming in Canada and producing in Canada. You have a world wide reputation of producing b rated shows and movies, they go from silver screen to DVD in a week, all this simply because you do not put any money into it. God knows you have plenty of talented people, but as usual the good ones head south, real fast, because they know how the real world works. It's something comparable with claiming Alexander Graham Bell was Canadian because he visited Nova Scotia, trying to take credit for nothing you have done. Your talent heads south because of these protectionist policies you have.

I also suspect from your comment that you have no idea how the Canadian Content Laws work or how successful they have been. You might actually want to research the topic a bit before embarrassing yourself with a completely uninformed comment.

Oh I know how your protectionist policies work very well thank you, just have a look at your inter-provincial trade barriers, they have worked wonders for you.

 

[Murphy]

You are right about there being numerous Canadian TV and film productions, but what you don't mention is that many of them are produced in Canada due to government tax breaks and subsidies. In other words the same mechanisms that apply to the CBC have also been applied to private film and TV productions. If you really want a free enterprise film and TV industry in Canada then you should be willing to say goodbye to all government subsidies - of course, you would also be saying goodbye to the Canadian film and TV industry.

Anybody bother to check to see how many nations have state owned TV networks similar to the CBC? Guess what, almost every nation has one. This is just another attempt to Americanize Canada even more than it already is.

Absolutely, there are government tax breaks and subsidies, but there are two differences: The private companies have to apply for financial aid for every project. As well, these businesses apply because it is smarter to use someone else's money to finance production/projects. If they are making funds available - grab them. It's a business opportunity, but not a funds guarantee.

Should the money dry up (others call it handouts), these companies will not generate the same workload, but they will continue.

The government would be better off scrapping the old CBC broadcast model completely and put that part of Canada's budget to better use - education, healthcare, medical care for seniors and children come to mind. The taxpayer money that presently funds private production companies can be left intact.

 

[Machjo]

If we're not going to scrap public funding altogether, then at least convert it to media vouchers.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Absolutely, there are government tax breaks and subsidies, but there are two differences: The private companies have to apply for financial aid for every project. As well, these businesses apply because it is smarter to use someone else's money to finance production/projects. If they are making funds available - grab them. It's a business opportunity, but not a funds guarantee.

Should the money dry up (others call it handouts), these companies will not generate the same workload, but they will continue.

The government would be better off scrapping the old CBC broadcast model completely and put that part of Canada's budget to better use - education, healthcare, medical care for seniors and children come to mind. The taxpayer money that presently funds private production companies can be left intact.

Nothing in your post refutes my position and that is that no government involvement means no Canadian film and TV industry.

 

[Murphy]

They are private companies. Should the subsidies dry up - only part of their financial stream - they are not going to close their doors. Good businesses carry on. Bad ones fold. To spell it out, their cash flow might slow, but income from sales will continue, and they will continue.

Your suggestion that businesses require government funding or they will cease to exist is without merit.

 

[darkbeaver]

Saving journalism is like reanimating dynosaurs. Information must be controled to optimize returns, it's jno good telling them stuff they can't incorporate into profit. Just enough to meet or excede quota.

Artificialy sweetened of course.

 

[Bar Sinister]

They are private companies. Should the subsidies dry up - only part of their financial stream - they are not going to close their doors. Good businesses carry on. Bad ones fold. To spell it out, their cash flow might slow, but income from sales will continue, and they will continue.

Your suggestion that businesses require government funding or they will cease to exist is without merit.

I find your position quite naive or perhaps just uninformed. We have ample evidence in Canada of what happens when subsides to the film and TV industries disappear - the companies also disappear. This happened during the Klein administration in Alberta, forcing the PC government to reinstate the subsides and it is happening now in New Brunswick due to a reduction in tax breaks and subsides in that province. The film and TV industries are in the business for profit and if they can make more money operating in the US instead of Canada, that is where they will be.

Here is a little article explaining film subsidies in Canada. You might want to read it. Film subsidies | Financial Post


In any case this discussion is moving away from the original topic and that is keeping the CBC.

 

[Machjo]

What's the point of subsidising Canadian media?
I've watched nothing on TV in years. Radio? Not in over a year.

In the last six months, news aside, I've watched only Chinese films online. As for programmes other than news and films, I'd watched Just for Laughs on a 12-hour trans-Pacific Air Canada flight. Talk about a "captive audience."

As for news, I've relied on various online sources, turning to the CBC site only for Canadian news.

Beyond that, I've read books from various countries including Canada. Interestingly enough, the Canadian books that I've read have usually been of a political nature, some poetic, and some critical of public media funding.

So it would seem that my only access to public media funding is when I'm reading the CBC news website, and even that is just one of several alternatives. If it stopped existing, I'd just switch to CTV or something else. The CBC might be good, bit not worth the public funds spent on it.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

CBC has become a group of Pro Liberal, Pro JT and they don't even try to show a tiny bit of bias anymore. They are loosing viewers, and will be loosing much more. Sell it now, so it can be saved.

It would help your credibility if you knew the difference between loose and lose. Once is understandable as a typo, twice in one sentence is a display of ignorance. And "...they don't even try to show a tiny bit of bias..." What? Wouldn't that be a good thing, to not show bias? And "...a group of Pro Liberal, Pro JT..." what? There's a noun missing there. And "Sell it now, so it can be saved." What? Selling it would mean it would cease to exist as the CBC, how is that saving it?

Is this what passes for thought in your world?

What's the point of subsidising Canadian media?
I've watched nothing on TV in years. Radio? Not in over a year.

Just because it has no value to you doesn't mean it has no value to anyone.

 

[Curious Cdn]

You can always make Ezra Levant a CRTC Commissioner. That would be ... interesting.

 

[pgs]

They are private companies. Should the subsidies dry up - only part of their financial stream - they are not going to close their doors. Good businesses carry on. Bad ones fold. To spell it out, their cash flow might slow, but income from sales will continue, and they will continue.

Your suggestion that businesses require government funding or they will cease to exist is without merit.

Unless of course the business is Bombardier .

 

[Bar Sinister]

You can always make Ezra Levant a CRTC Commissioner. That would be ... interesting.

I suspect that would be the equivalent of making a radical Islamist head of CSIS.

 

[Murphy]

I find your position quite naive or perhaps just uninformed. We have ample evidence in Canada of what happens when subsides to the film and TV industries disappear - the companies also disappear. This happened during the Klein administration in Alberta, forcing the PC government to reinstate the subsides and it is happening now in New Brunswick due to a reduction in tax breaks and subsides in that province. The film and TV industries are in the business for profit and if they can make more money operating in the US instead of Canada, that is where they will be.

Here is a little article explaining film subsidies in Canada. You might want to read it. Film subsidies | Financial Post

In any case this discussion is moving away from the original topic and that is keeping the CBC.

This thread is about ridding ourselves of the CBC. I started it, and am not naive. I am well aware that you cannot yank funding away quickly and completely. Subsidies, grants or whatever you wish to call them are tangled up in other legislation. Tax and labour laws are affected, for example.

CBC should be sold first. The private sector funding should be left untouched until the divestiture is complete. Then, the tax situation with private enterprise should be examined.

Unless of course the business is Bombardier .

I suppose there are always exceptions to every rule. :lol:

 

[Bar Sinister]

This thread is about ridding ourselves of the CBC. I started it, and am not naive. I am well aware that you cannot yank funding away quickly and completely. Subsidies, grants or whatever you wish to call them are tangled up in other legislation. Tax and labour laws are affected, for example.

CBC should be sold first. The private sector funding should be left untouched until the divestiture is complete. Then, the tax situation with private enterprise should be examined.

Well, you can write your MP about the CBC. I am going to write mine praising the increase in its funding.

 

[Machjo]

It would help your credibility if you knew the difference between loose and lose. Once is understandable as a typo, twice in one sentence is a display of ignorance. And "...they don't even try to show a tiny bit of bias..." What? Wouldn't that be a good thing, to not show bias? And "...a group of Pro Liberal, Pro JT..." what? There's a noun missing there. And "Sell it now, so it can be saved." What? Selling it would mean it would cease to exist as the CBC, how is that saving it?

Is this what passes for thought in your world?

Just because it has no value to you doesn't mean it has no value to anyone.

So let those who use it oay for it?

Like I said, I've watched more Chinese than any other film in the last six months. You fund that, I'll fund yours. Deal?

Well, you can write your MP about the CBC. I am going to write mine praising the increase in its funding.

Scott Reid in his book had recommended media vouchers. That way, we can subscribe to media of our choice.

To me that makes sense. Canada is much more than just English and French. The present system is a leftover of the 1960's idea of promoting equality between the "two founding races."

News aside, I watch more Chinese than English or French combined.

 

[Curious Cdn]

I suspect that would be the equivalent of making a radical Islamist head of CSIS.

Well, they WOULD find the terrorists ...

 

[Liberalman]

I am glad the Canadian federal government is investing $280,000 into the CBC the only one that will give Canadians a steady stream of Canadian content.

 

[Johnnny]

I am glad the Canadian federal government is investing $280,000 into the CBC the only one that will give Canadians a steady stream of Canadian content.

Like sons of Liberty said. If it requires a crutch to survive then it's not worth saving. In the private industry, canadian shows will have to become more creative to become A listed which is good in my opinion

 

[Liberalman]

. In the private industry, canadian shows will have to become more creative to become A listed

In the private industry there would be no Canadian shows because all shows produced for TV would be in L.A. USA. Trudeau Sr. created a Canadian music industry when he brought in 50% Canadian content rules for radio broadcasters in the mid 1970s. because if a Canadian musician wanted to make it in this country they would have to make it in America first.