# Slow, Steady (And Welcome) Decline Of CBC TV



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And so it continues, just not fast enough.

CBC announces changes to local supper-hour newscasts - Canada - CBC News


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

15 minutes a show ought to just about do it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I remember Jimbo saying that if you don't like the CBC don't watch it. Budget cuts are working to make the CBC easier to avoid!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Well, Waldorf and Statler, there are many of us here in Canada who actually appreciate the CBC, its rich history, an everything it stands for. And we do not appreciate Stephen Harper's attempts to dismantle it and rebuild it in his own image. CBC Radio One is still my goto station for driving and I get annoyed by people who have nothing to do but bitch about the CBC. Get cultured, for f sakes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Well, Waldorf and Statler, there are many of us here in Canada who actually appreciate the CBC, its rich history, an everything it stands for. And we do not appreciate Stephen Harper's attempts to dismantle it and rebuild it in his own image. CBC Radio One is still my goto station for driving and I get annoyed by people who have nothing to do but bitch about the CBC. Get cultured, for f sakes.


Nice, real nice.

First let me point out that CBC radio is not mentioned, didja miss that? I am talking CBC TV with its jaded, leftist agenda.

What the hell is culture anyway? To some its ballet and opera and CBC drama. To others it’s paintings and pottery. To others it’s dance and musicals. And as in the case of the CBC, and government cultural grants, it costs others for ‘the cultured’ to enjoy their lifestyle.

But culture to me is a lifestyle free of costs to any others. It’s family and friends and neighbours. Its long walks picking up trash as I go. It’s camping in a remote spot devoid of people. It’s fishing on the banks of a river. It’s puttering in our garden. 

It’s playing music I bought on iTunes. It’s surfing the net for the weird and wonderful. It’s the smell of fresh mown hay. It’s visiting mother nature in her own back yard. It’s taking photographs to enjoy on a cold winter’s night when blooms and leaves and sparkling water are in short supply. It's tinkering with my antique car. It's going to car shows to see what others are doing.

It’s many more things to me and it does not cost taxpayers a damn dime. I pay my own way to indulge in my culture.

So don’t lecture me on the need for me to pay for your version of culture. Make CBC a paid private service. If you want it, buy it and get off the public teat.

I'm tired of paying the way for 'culture' bums.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Pay for it by Sirius. The fact that you enjoy it is no reason I should pay for it. I enjoy a lot of programming that likely falls off your radar--only difference is that I don't bitch and moan that I want someone in Alberta to pay for it.




fjnmusic said:


> CBC Radio One is still my goto station for driving and I get annoyed by people who have nothing to do but bitch about the CBC. Get cultured, for f sakes.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> 15 minutes a show ought to just about do it.


I thought this hour has 22 mins? LOL - pretty much what CBC is good for.



fjnmusic said:


> Well, Waldorf and Statler, there are many of us here in Canada who actually appreciate the CBC, its rich history, an everything it stands for. And we do not appreciate Stephen Harper's attempts to dismantle it and rebuild it in his own image. CBC Radio One is still my goto station for driving and I get annoyed by people who have nothing to do but bitch about the CBC. Get cultured, for f sakes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


CBC for years has been bloated by heavy union employees and costs to maintain them.. With an entitled work environment, why i am not surprised by Jihan taking so long to come out..

That said.. CBC should become private and let it fend for itself, like every other TV station.. CBC is just a glorified social welfare program that is finally being corrected for years of waste...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My ultimate goal: this network has $22.



macintosh doctor said:


> I thought this hour has 22 mins? LOL - pretty much what CBC is good for.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

SINC said:


> It’s camping in a remote spot devoid of people.


With the occasional unannounced dirtbag biker showing up every 5 years to help celebrate your birthday...


----------



## Fox (Oct 4, 2002)

SINC said:


> ....
> What the hell is culture anyway? To some its ballet and opera and CBC drama. To others it’s paintings and pottery. To others it’s dance and musicals. And as in the case of the CBC, and government cultural grants, it costs others for ‘the cultured’ to enjoy their lifestyle.
> 
> But culture to me is a lifestyle free of costs to any others. It’s family and friends and neighbours. Its long walks picking up trash as I go. It’s camping in a remote spot devoid of people. It’s fishing on the banks of a river. It’s puttering in our garden.
> ...


I would have called these leisure activities, not culture. For what it's worth, we both like many of the same activities, but I really appreciate the cultural perspectives that CBC brings to the table (yes, more radio than TV). As a taxpayer, I'm willing to fund a lot of things that I don't directly benefit from, knowing that there are some things that the government funds that benefit me and not others.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Approaching 2015, what possible justification could there be for the federal government to operate a TV or radio network?



Fox said:


> As a taxpayer, I'm willing to fund a lot of things that I don't directly benefit from, knowing that there are some things that the government funds that benefit me and not others.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fox said:


> I would have called these leisure activities, not culture. For what it's worth, we both like many of the same activities, but I really appreciate the cultural perspectives that CBC brings to the table (yes, more radio than TV). As a taxpayer, I'm willing to fund a lot of things that I don't directly benefit from, knowing that there are some things that the government funds that benefit me and not others.


Culture is many things and most certainly applies to being like the examples I cited and not leisure activities. Consider what the culture of an unknown to man tribe in the jungles of the Amazon really is, when they do hardly any of the things associated with the standard definition of culture, *yet it is their culture*.



> *culture*
> [kuhl-cher] Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> noun
> ...


----------



## Fox (Oct 4, 2002)

Hi Sync:

The only definition of culture from that list that even comes close to what you talked about in your earlier post is #6: the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another. But even there, I would consider the leisure activities that you listed (and that I also enjoy), as just a small component of "total of ways of living ....". So my commentary still stands, to which you are totally free to disagree.

At any rate, I am very happy for you and Macfury to be helping to fund one of the things I enjoy, knowing that I am undoubtedly helping to fund, with my tax money, things which both of you no doubt enjoy and which I might consider a waste of my money, or more likely a lower priority item.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I really doubt you are funding much of anything I want the government to provide.



Fox said:


> At any rate, I am very happy for you and Macfury to be helping to fund one of the things I enjoy, knowing that I am undoubtedly helping to fund, with my tax money, things which both of you no doubt enjoy and which I might consider a waste of my money, or more likely a lower priority item.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fox said:


> Hi Sync:
> 
> The only definition of culture from that list that even comes close to what you talked about in your earlier post is #6: the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another. But even there, I would consider the leisure activities that you listed (and that I also enjoy), as just a small component of "total of ways of living ....". So my commentary still stands, to which you are totally free to disagree.
> 
> At any rate, I am very happy for you and Macfury to be helping to fund one of the things I enjoy, knowing that I am undoubtedly helping to fund, with my tax money, things which both of you no doubt enjoy and which I might consider a waste of my money, or more likely a lower priority item.


Hi Fox, all we have here is a difference of opinion, not a fight of any kind. 

For the record, in my seven decade run on this planet, I have never attended or watched dance, or opera or ballet, Nor have I ever bothered with paintings or pottery or sculpture. Ditto for live theatre or any form of it on TV, nor have I ever even considered symphony or anything remotely considered 'culture' by many folks. I just have zero interest in such things and frankly am tired of funding them for the minority who seem to think they are a necessary part of life.

I pay my own way for my own 'entertainment' which is what I consider culture to be, 'entertainment in disguise' or 'leisure activities' fits just as well, as surely as my examples are, and no more. I do not ask anyone to pay my way for what I find to be entertaining, as in collecting cars, writing, reading, watching documentaries, exploring nature, etc. Nor should anyone consider their love of the arts as deserving of picking my pockets.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Fox said:


> I would have called these leisure activities, not culture. For what it's worth, we both like many of the same activities, but I really appreciate the cultural perspectives that CBC brings to the table (yes, more radio than TV). As a taxpayer, I'm willing to fund a lot of things that I don't directly benefit from, knowing that there are some things that the government funds that benefit me and not others.



This is what I'm saying. 👍


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fox (Oct 4, 2002)

Hi Sync,

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I used to live in Alberta and I go back quite frequently. The places where I usually do my walking andcross country skiing there are in the mountain parks, including Kananaskis. I Don't know if you use these places as well, but you do realize that a lot of your, and my, tax money went into the development and management of these parks. I don't resent that any more than I do the use of my money for CBC. And if you're like many Albertans (at least the ones I know), you make a lot more use of those government-funded parks than I can, living in Peterborough. But it's ok with me. 

Cheers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fox said:


> Hi Sync,
> 
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, I used to live in Alberta and I go back quite frequently. The places where I usually do my walking andcross country skiing there are in the mountain parks, including Kananaskis. I Don't know if you use these places as well, but you do realize that a lot of your, and my, tax money went into the development and management of these parks. I don't resent that any more than I do the use of my money for CBC. And if you're like many Albertans (at least the ones I know), you make a lot more use of those government-funded parks than I can, living in Peterborough. But it's ok with me.
> 
> Cheers.


Fair question. Answer is no. Don't use mountain parks. Too crowded, too much commercialism. Fav is Elk Island National Park. Not much there but nature itself. No power or water in campgrounds either. Am member of Friends of Elk Island. Donate time and $ to help maintain that place. Does not get big crowds and needs support.

Again not only do I buy Nat Park family pass good anywhere in Canada, i only use it in two parks. Other is Grasslands in SW Sask. not much there either which is why I love both parks.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Must be rough, going through life, as a contrarian. 

Is it SINC? The majority of *your tribe* disagrees with your view of the CBC.

Even a Majority of Conservatives like the CBC



Edmonton Journal said:


> "Among federal Conservative supporters 51 per cent would like CBC funding to be maintained, 25 per cent would like to see CBC funding increased and 21 per cent would like to see funding decreased (three per cent were unsure),” the Nanos analysis notes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That poll is hilarious. If I were a self-described Liberal and wanted CBC funding increased, I would claim to the pollster that I was Conservative.

Even if the poll were accurate, then most Canadians are happy with the current level of funding--that is, following the last round of cuts.

The part about trusting the CBC was polled prior to the Ghomeshi scandal that placed much of the responsibility at CBC's doors.



BigDL said:


> Must be rough, going through life, as a contrarian.
> 
> Is it SINC? The majority of *your tribe* disagrees with your view of the CBC.
> 
> Even a Majority of Conservatives like the CBC


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

If I may .... The last time CBC TV had any programmes worth watching was in the 60s. So those who are ardent CBC TV fans, I ask a simple question ..... Are there any programmes on the CBC that you would buy the boxed set of .............. And for clarification, I am talking about the CBC's created programmes. Let's look at the list of shows that I have boxed sets of or would like to own: Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Carnivale, Deadwood, Mad Men ..... hmmmmmmmm let's see ..... any CBC here .......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Also note how few people actually watch the CBC. It's nice to say you want it to be there, like a mom and pop greasy spoon restaurant that you like to see on the street, but never patronize.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> *If I may ...*. The last time CBC TV had any programmes worth watching was in the 60s. So those who are ardent CBC TV fans, I ask a simple question .....* Are there any programmes on the CBC that you would buy the boxed set *of .............. And for clarification, I am talking about the CBC's created programmes. Let's look at the list of shows that I have boxed sets of or would like to own: Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Carnivale, Deadwood, Mad Men ..... hmmmmmmmm let's see ..... any CBC here .......


Good post!

Of course you may and I wish that you would post more often. I always appreciate hearing your point of view.

But I disagree with your time line.

Beachcombers and Being Erica are decades apart and they are both very good. Both made after the 60s.

But I do agree with you that the overall original content production coming from the CBC has declined sine the 60s.

I would love to have a boxed set of the Beachcomers!

I would be willing to pay good money for that.


----------



## BReligion (Jun 21, 2006)

Why not put it back to the people and truely see if it should kept.
Have PBS style donation telethons and commercials looking for donations and have the government match dollar for dollar that which is donated by the public. If enough donate and it stays a float then he public has spoken, if not shut her down. 

Don't know if that's overly simple but hey..

As a child of the late 70s and 80s the cbc aired Mr. Dress up, the friendly giant, and started Mr. Rogers. Between CBC and PBS is where most of my early exposure to television came from.. there is no such programming now that has me putting the TV on for my son. If the TV goes on its pretty much to Treehouse for children's programming.

BReligion


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CBC Radio is responsible for delaying the establishment of a Canadian television industry by 13 years as it routinely vetoed television licenses to private broadcasters, because it was not ready to establish it own television presence. That's hardly a stellar historical record.

The years of Mr. Dressup are long behind the CBC. Then the network was seen as a public service--today it serves its management.

In a world served by the Internet and cable television, why is anything short of a net presence or a PAY-TV model necessary for the CBC? Let's start from the bottom up--which services supplied by the CBC are essential for a government-owned broadcaster to supply?



BReligion said:


> Why not put it back to the people and truely see if it should kept.
> Have PBS style donation telethons and commercials looking for donations and have the government match dollar for dollar that which is donated by the public. If enough donate and it stays a float then he public has spoken, if not shut her down.
> 
> Don't know if that's overly simple but hey..
> ...


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Rps said:


> If I may .... The last time CBC TV had any programmes worth watching was in the 60s. So those who are ardent CBC TV fans, I ask a simple question ..... Are there any programmes on the CBC that you would buy the boxed set of .............. And for clarification, I am talking about the CBC's created programmes. Let's look at the list of shows that I have boxed sets of or would like to own: Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Carnivale, Deadwood, Mad Men ..... hmmmmmmmm let's see ..... any CBC here .......


You do realize that all of the shows mentioned are cable channel shows, not shows that are first broadcast on any traditional network channel. Most of them would not be suitable for the public airwaves (i.e. adult content). 

I don't watch a lot of CBC but when I do it tends to be shows like Rick Mercer, Marketplace, etc. Shows that you wouldn't appreciate in boxed set form. 

As for the funding that CBC receives, how much is it really per person? One article that was talking about PBS funding reported this:

"How large is the federal subsidy to public broadcasting?

It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutory formula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent.

This amounts to roughly .012 percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget – or about $1.35 per person per year. (Some global perspective: elsewhere in the world, Canada spends $22.48 per citizen, Japan $58.86 per citizen, the United Kingdom $80.36 per citizen, and Denmark, $101 per citizen.)"

I've seen other reports that put it at around $35 per person per year. Those reports also put Norway's spending at $164 per person per year. The average amongst western nations is $84 per person per year. 

If that is accurate, are you really going to miss less 10¢ a day?

And how would you feel about eliminating the BBC? I would think that you'd say that the quality of programming that comes from the 'Beeb' is exceptional. It makes you wonder what the CBC might be able to produce if it had the financial budget that the BBC gets from taxpayers. 

I'm not in favour of the reported waste of monies that many report happen at the CBC. I'm in favour of having it run more efficiently. But I'm not in favour of eliminating it completely. 

Just because you don't see a need for it, doesn't mean that there aren't millions of Canadians who rely on it for their news, entertainment, and sports.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If someone came to my door offering everything provided by the CBC for a dime, I'd kick their asses down the steps and call them thieves. The "Beeb" should also be privatized.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oakbridge said:


> Just because you don't see a need for it, doesn't mean that there aren't millions of Canadians who rely on it for their *news, entertainment, and sports*.


I take no issue with those who find viewing pleasure with the CBC, but am mystified as to what that pleasure really is.

I have Bell satellite service and the viewership of CBC Edmonton is so poor that it is not even carried in any of their packages, therefore I have not seen CBC TV news of any kind for over 20 years now. I can get CBC Vancouver or Toronto, but what point is there in watching the news from those cities? Ditto for entertainment. I am curious about sports though. Just what sports does the CBC carry anymore? They lost CFL football, they lost Hockey Night in Canada and they even lost the Brier. What sport is left to watch?


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Pay for it by Sirius. The fact that you enjoy it is no reason I should pay for it. I enjoy a lot of programming that likely falls off your radar--only difference is that I don't bitch and moan that I want someone in Alberta to pay for it.


Not everyone in this country has the means to pay for something "by Sirius". Many don't even have any form of satellite radio. 

Personally I like the fact that a kid in a small rural town (or someone of any age anywhere in the country) can flip around and watch a variety of programming including the arts. Perhaps they become exposed to something that they might never have an opportunity to see live. They might be able to discover something that they develop an interest in. 

And they might not have the means to "pay for it". Your suggestion sounds incredibly cold and harsh and selfish. I wonder if your parents or grandparents had the same attitude. I know that mine didn't. They appreciated the value of something and were willing to pay for it but they also appreciated things that were just there for them to enjoy with their kids. Like parks and zoos and gardens and community centres and roads and hospitals and yes even the CBC. (and my Mom was a staunch Conservative!)

If you think about it, we'd be a pretty boring country if after the French and original English settlers landed they then turned around and closed off the borders to anyone else. Or even before that the Native Canadians. Can you just imagine life if someone had decided to make the country 'pay as you go'. Want to look at Niagara Falls? Pay here. Want to swim in that lake? There's the turnstile. This park path is for the premier subscribers only. Oh that's a nice canoe, have you got your canoe license? Son don't touch the leaves on the ground, they cost Daddy for each one you pick up. Honey the kids want to go out and play in the snow and build a snowman, do we have enough money in the snowman building budget?

We live in one of the greatest countries in the world. Without a question. There is a reason why it is so great. We have a diversified population and we are offered a wide variety of things that make us happy and better individuals. 

Some of it should be free so that everyone can enjoy it whether they choose to or not. And some of it should cost money to enjoy.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

SINC said:


> I have Bell satellite service...


And what about anyone who can't afford satellite or cable?

I'm happy that you can afford Bell. Stop thinking about yourself for just a second. Think about the person who is just barely putting a roof over their heads and food on their table. A satellite or cable service might be the very last things that they think about.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oakbridge said:


> And what about anyone who can't afford satellite or cable?
> 
> I'm happy that you can afford Bell. Stop thinking about yourself for just a second. Think about the person who is just barely putting a roof over their heads and food on their table. A satellite or cable service might be the very last things that they think about.


Not real sure why you chose to launch a personal attack without provocation. I fully understand there are those who may not be able to afford cable or satellite, but that has nothing to do with my question. I asked what is left on CBC sports to watch? I gather from your response it is precious little.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

SINC said:


> I take no issue with those who find viewing pleasure with the CBC, but am mystified as to what that pleasure really is.
> 
> I have Bell satellite service and the viewership of CBC Edmonton is so poor that it is not even carried in any of their packages, therefore I have not seen CBC TV news of any kind for over 20 years now. I can get CBC Vancouver or Toronto, but what point is there in watching the news from those cities? Ditto for entertainment. I am curious about sports though. Just what sports does the CBC carry anymore? They lost CFL football, they lost Hockey Night in Canada and they even lost the Brier. What sport is left to watch?


Turn your TV on right now (4:31 pm EST): Live alpine skiing. 

I agree 100% with the lack of sporting events on the CBC. I believe that it is a shame that the Grey Cup game is only available for a fee (i.e. cable/satellite). 

It is truly a chicken/egg problem. If you give the proper funding to the CBC, people are going to complain that it is wasted money. If you don't give proper funding to the CBC, what can they afford? Which means that they have lousy programming and everyone starts to ask why bother?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oakbridge said:


> Turn your TV on right now (4:31 pm EST): Live alpine skiing.
> 
> I agree 100% with the lack of sporting events on the CBC. I believe that it is a shame that the Grey Cup game is only available for a fee (i.e. cable/satellite).
> 
> It is truly a chicken/egg problem. If you give the proper funding to the CBC, people are going to complain that it is wasted money. If you don't give proper funding to the CBC, what can they afford? Which means that they have lousy programming and everyone starts to ask why bother?


I concur that the Grey Cup should be available to all Canadians, but whose fault is it that it's not? It's the league and that's because it is all about the money, just like every other pro sport.

The league should insist that the feed is made available to the CBC, CTV or Global network to fill that gap. It would harm no one and benefit all Canadians.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

SINC said:


> Not real sure why you chose to launch a personal attack without provocation. I fully understand there are those who may not be able to afford cable or satellite, but that has nothing to do with my question. I asked what is left on CBC sports to watch? I gather from your response it is precious little.


Our posts were crossed. 

My earlier post was in response to the posts that suggested that viewing the CBC should be something that is paid for.

I responded to your what sports is left question in another post.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

SINC said:


> I concur that the Grey Cup should be available to all Canadians, but whose fault is it that it's not? It's the league and that's because it is all about the money, just like every other pro sport.
> 
> The league should insist that the feed is made available to the CBC, CTV or Global network to fill that gap. It would harm no one and benefit all Canadians.


I love this attitude...

Don't fund the CBC but make them show programming that is of national interest. 

One of the reasons why the CBC lost much of it's sports (which was incredibly well produced) was the funding cutbacks that started in the Mulroney years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Listen to yourself. If a person doesn't have enough money to watch a football game, do you think that the appropriate government response is to build a network so they can see it for free? That person has far more fundamental problems than missing the game.




Oakbridge said:


> And what about anyone who can't afford satellite or cable?
> 
> I'm happy that you can afford Bell. Stop thinking about yourself for just a second. Think about the person who is just barely putting a roof over their heads and food on their table. A satellite or cable service might be the very last things that they think about.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Rps said:


> If I may .... The last time CBC TV had any programmes worth watching was in the 60s. So those who are ardent CBC TV fans, I ask a simple question ..... Are there any programmes on the CBC that you would buy the boxed set of .............. And for clarification, I am talking about the CBC's created programmes. Let's look at the list of shows that I have boxed sets of or would like to own: Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Carnivale, Deadwood, Mad Men ..... hmmmmmmmm let's see ..... any CBC here .......



I did buy the first season of Little Mosque in the Prairie. Loved that show, and has come in very handy in teaching Religion courses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> You do realize that all of the shows mentioned are cable channel shows, not shows that are first broadcast on any traditional network channel. Most of them would not be suitable for the public airwaves (i.e. adult content).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



👍

Not to mention that when the kids were little, it was the one station I could rely on to have quality Canadian children's programming on every morning without me sitting in front of the TV with my kids all the time. Great programs in my day, great programs I n theirs, and more great programs in the future if the knuckle walker PC's don't kill it with their self-interest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> I take no issue with those who find viewing pleasure with the CBC, but am mystified as to what that pleasure really is.
> 
> 
> 
> I have Bell satellite service and the viewership of CBC Edmonton is so poor that it is not even carried in any of their packages, therefore I have not seen CBC TV news of any kind for over 20 years now. I can get CBC Vancouver or Toronto, but what point is there in watching the news from those cities? Ditto for entertainment. I am curious about sports though. Just what sports does the CBC carry anymore? They lost CFL football, they lost Hockey Night in Canada and they even lost the Brier. What sport is left to watch?



They do have this thing called the Olympics every four years, which is good viewing especially for those who can't afford cable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> 👍
> 
> Not to mention that when the kids were little, it was the one station I could rely on to have quality Canadian children's programming on every morning without me sitting in front of the TV with my kids all the time.


What are their current great kid programs, fjn?



fjnmusic said:


> ... and more great programs in the future if the knuckle walker PC's don't kill it with their self-interest.


Because your self-interest in getting free programs for your kids is more important than theirs?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> They do have this thing called the Olympics every four years, which is good viewing especially for those who can't afford cable.


The only thing the Olympics has done in the past couple of decades is bankrupt cities and sometimes entire countries with demands for venues. The Olympics is all about money and nothing else. I have not watched it in years, which explains why the CBC continues to glorify the games and the almighty dollar.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> The only thing the Olympics has done in the past couple of decades is bankrupt cities and sometimes entire countries with demands for venues. The Olympics is all about money and nothing else. I have not watched it in years, which explains why the CBC continues to glorify the games and the almighty dollar.


Not to mention the ludicrous bids made by the CBC to secure Olympic broadcast rights.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

My kids are in their teens now, so I'm not familiar with their current lineup. I'm sure someone else's kids are. I grew up watching Sesame Street on CBC, right from episode 1, as well as Mr Dressup, Friendly Giant and many more. My issue with your view is that if some tax-payer funded thing is not useful to you, then nobody should have it. We live in a mixed economy, my friend—socialism and capitalism—the best of both worlds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It isn't the best of both worlds at all--and the only thing you're making a case for is to have other people pay for what you want.

I remember Margaret Thatcher's quote regarding the near collapse of the British economy--"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."



fjnmusic said:


> My kids are in their teens now, so I'm not familiar with their current lineup. I'm sure someone else's kids are. I grew up watching Sesame Street on CBC, right from episode 1, as well as Mr Dressup, Friendly Giant and many more. My issue with your view is that if some tax-payer funded thing is not useful to you, then nobody should have it. We live in a mixed economy, my friend—socialism and capitalism—the best of both worlds.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Oakbridge said:


> You do realize that all of the shows mentioned are cable channel shows, not shows that are first broadcast on any traditional network channel. Most of them would not be suitable for the public airwaves (i.e. adult content).


And your point is.......... 

Funding is not so much the issue as content ( yes I do realize they are related ). Maybe if we bought one less F35 we would satisfy budget constraints .... Theory being taking money we don't really need to spend from one place and put it to another place that we really don't need to spend.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It isn't the best of both worlds at all--and the only thing you're making a case for is to have other people pay for what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember Margaret Thatcher's quote regarding the near collapse of the British economy--"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."



Boy, people sure do have find memories if Margaret Thatcher. The only thing you're making a case for is you really don't like having to pay for things that might make other people happy. I'll bet you don't believe you should have to pay taxes to fund education for other people either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Pay for what makes you happy yourself, cheapskate!



fjnmusic said:


> Boy, people sure do have find memories if Margaret Thatcher. The only thing you're making a case for is you really don't like having to pay for things that might make other people happy.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I do, and I'm pretty sure I pay for what makes you happy as well, ingrate, not to mention the things you require whether they make you happy or not. Like your medical costs, for example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Haven't visited a doctor in year--another bad deal for me. If I could opt out legally, I certainly would. If you believe the government bring happiness I feel sorry for you.



fjnmusic said:


> I do, and I'm pretty sure I pay for what makes you happy as well, ingrate, not to mention the things you require whether they make you happy or not. Like your medical costs, for example.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Oakbridge said:


> And what about anyone who can't afford satellite or cable?
> 
> I'm happy that you can afford Bell. Stop thinking about yourself for just a second. Think about the person who is just barely putting a roof over their heads and food on their table. A satellite or cable service might be the very last things that they think about.





Macfury said:


> Listen to yourself. If a person doesn't have enough money to watch a football game, do you think that the appropriate government response is to build a network so they can see it for free? That person has far more fundamental problems than missing the game.


Listen to myself?

Wow, your attitude towards those who don't have extra disposable income to spare is amazing. What's next: "Are there no cable equipped televisions in the poor houses?"

It's nice that you can afford cable or satellite, good for you. And you've made the decision that it is something that is worth the money you spend on it. Not everyone sees the value in paying money for cable. I know a few people who don't watch enough (pay attention to that word) television to justify spending hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on cable or satellite fees. If they only want to watch the news and maybe an hour or so each day, makes it difficult to justify even some of the basic cable packages. I know others with small children who would prefer not to have that many channels available. They prefer the CBC especially for the morning programming. 

While I don't personally know anyone who can't really afford it, there are people in this country who can't. Not all of them are to blame for their circumstances. 

And the big difference in your argument is that they government is NOT building a network for them. The network already exists. It's existed in one form or another since before you were born.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You misunderstand entirely. I'm saying, that you're suggesting that a billion-dollar-a-year network is the answer to that guy;s problems--so he can watch the Grey Cup for free. Don't you think that billion dollars could be better spent to lift up the poorest Canadians to where they could afford a game?




Oakbridge said:


> Listen to myself?
> 
> Wow, your attitude towards those who don't have extra disposable income to spare is amazing. What's next: "Are there no cable equipped televisions in the poor houses?"
> 
> ...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> You misunderstand entirely. I'm saying, that you're suggesting that a billion-dollar-a-year network is the answer to that guy;s problems--so he can watch the Grey Cup for free. Don't you think that billion dollars could be better spent to lift up the poorest Canadians to where they could afford a game?



It is you who misunderstands Macfury. You live in a mixed economy country—capitalist as well as socialist—for as long as you've lived in Canada. We share the wealth here, but we also allow people to accumulate more than others depending on their skills or their good fortune. You seem to be against sharing the wealth period, which makes me wonder if you're perhaps living in the wrong country. This is Canada, and this is Canadian tradition. I may not approve of every program the national broadcaster shows, but then I don't have to, as long as someone else is benefitting from it. This is what the tax system is for. What I DON'T approve of is when tax money is used to finance private enterprise, like falling businesses and hockey teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It is a short-lived tradition in constant flux. I am pushing for it to go much harder the other way, unttil only the truly needy are supported. I don't care how satisfied you are with some sort of squishy feel-good trough at which others feed. Even now you don't like seeing businesses benefit from your tax money--why aren't you just as squishy happy about that, since others are being made happy by it? Don't businesspeople pay into the tax system?



fjnmusic said:


> It is you who misunderstands Macfury. You live in a mixed economy country—capitalist as well as socialist—for as long as you've lived in Canada. We share the wealth here, but we also allow people to accumulate more than others depending on their skills or their good fortune. You seem to be against sharing the wealth period, which makes me wonder if you're perhaps living in the wrong country. This is Canada, and this is Canadian tradition. I may not approve of every program the national broadcaster shows, but then I don't have to, as long as someone else is benefitting from it. This is what the tax system is for. What I DON'T approve of is when tax money is used to finance private enterprise, like falling businesses and hockey teams.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You misunderstand entirely. I'm saying, that you're suggesting that a billion-dollar-a-year network is the answer to that guy;s problems--so he can watch the Grey Cup for free. Don't you think that billion dollars could be better spent to lift up the poorest Canadians to where they could afford a game?





fjnmusic said:


> It is you who misunderstands Macfury. You live in a mixed economy country—capitalist as well as socialist—for as long as you've lived in Canada. We share the wealth here, but we also allow people to accumulate more than others depending on their skills or their good fortune. You seem to be against sharing the wealth period, which makes me wonder if you're perhaps living in the wrong country. This is Canada, and this is Canadian tradition. I may not approve of every program the national broadcaster shows, but then I don't have to, as long as someone else is benefitting from it. This is what the tax system is for. What I DON'T approve of is when tax money is used to finance private enterprise, like falling businesses and hockey teams.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well said! 

It is those ideals that makes me proud to be a Canadian.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Pay for it by Sirius. The fact that you enjoy it is no reason I should pay for it. I enjoy a lot of programming that likely falls off your radar--only difference is that I don't bitch and moan that I want someone in Alberta to pay for it.





Macfury said:


> If someone came to my door offering everything provided by the CBC for a dime, I'd kick their asses down the steps and call them thieves. The "Beeb" should also be privatized.





Macfury said:


> You misunderstand entirely. I'm saying, that you're suggesting that a billion-dollar-a-year network is the answer to that guy;s problems--so he can watch the Grey Cup for free. Don't you think that billion dollars could be better spent to lift up the poorest Canadians to where they could afford a game?


I don't think I misunderstood at all, you went down the path of the Grey Cup. 

I had simply said that it was a shame that the Grey Cup was not broadcast on over the air channels, for those people who don't subscribe to cable or satellite. 

My main point of that post was that even though I might not appreciate all of the programming that is shown on the CBC, that there is a variety that caters to a wide range of viewers. I'm no longer interested in children's programming but I am glad that the CBC still broadcasts shows for kids. I know that they are appreciated. And yes there was an 'era' of kids CBC programming that we may never see again (Friendly Giant, Mr. Dressup, Chez Helene) but who knows when the next wave of talent may come and where they may come from. 

You've made your opinion known, you feel that the user should pay for what they use. 

So make sure that little Sally and little Johnny have loonies to pay before they turn on their favourite shows each morning!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There's plenty of other stuff on TV that the CBC does not provide. They shall not grow hungry for lame-ass puppetry and alphabets!



Oakbridge said:


> So make sure that little Sally and little Johnny have loonies to pay before they turn on their favourite shows each morning!





> You've made your opinion known, you feel that the user should pay for what they use.


Absolutely. The reason behind much of government spending was that there was no way to determine how much each person used. With television and with roads, for example, we can now do that. If the problem is that some people can't afford the basics through no fault of their own, then try to fix it on the bottom end at the consumer level--not stupidly and inefficiently from the top down by providing government TV and other pitifully run programs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> Well said!
> 
> It is those ideals that makes me proud to be a Canadian.


Would full communism make you even prouder? Or is there a point that when you share even more, you become less proud?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> There's plenty of other stuff on TV that the CBC does not provide. They shall not grow hungry for lame-ass puppetry and alphabets!
> 
> Absolutely. The reason behind much of government spending was that there was no way to determine how much each person used. With television and with roads, for example, we can now do that. If the problem is that some people can't afford the basics through no fault of their own, then try to fix it on the bottom end at the consumer level--not stupidly and inefficiently from the top down by providing government TV and other pitifully run programs.





Macfury said:


> Would full communism make you even prouder? Or is there a point that when you share even more, you become less proud?


Well said Macfury.

A publicly funded CBC has no place in a 21st century Canada, not based on its current business model.

It was important when there were only 3 channels on the dial but with literally hundreds of options now on broadcast TV alone, not to mention content available on the internet, CBC TV has become more and more irrelevant for quite some time.

The business model of CBC TV has been broken for a long time now and if it wasn't for the government's subsidies that they receive they would have gone bankrupt along time ago.

They need to do some serious remodelling if they are going to survive.

But something tells me they don't have the acumen to do that because they have been sucking on the public teat for so long, they simply have no idea what it would take to do that.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Man, if CBC died, that would be the end of watching the Calgary Stampede on TV for my mom and me (I enjoy the chuckwagons). CBC seems to be the only channel to broadcast the Stampede.

Maybe people should be introduced to symphony, opera and dance as well. I know I've been pleasantly surprised of what a symphony can play for music (just watched a symphony play a catalogue of Michael Jackson). Well, maybe we'll keep the opera short... I still can't watch much opera.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sportsnet covers the Stampede extensively.

Regarding chance encounters with symphonies, opera and dance, when is the last time you have seen kids flip aimlessly through TV stations instead of going direct to the Internet?



Kosh said:


> Man, if CBC died, that would be the end of watching the Calgary Stampede on TV for my mom and me (I enjoy the chuckwagons). CBC seems to be the only channel to broadcast the Stampede.
> 
> Maybe people should be introduced to symphony, opera and dance as well. I know I've been pleasantly surprised of what a symphony can play for music (just watched a symphony play a catalogue of Michael Jackson). Well, maybe we'll keep the opera short... I still can't watch much opera.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Man, if CBC died, that would be the end of watching the Calgary Stampede on TV for my mom and me (I enjoy the chuckwagons). CBC seems to be the only channel to broadcast the Stampede.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe people should be introduced to symphony, opera and dance as well. I know I've been pleasantly surprised of what a symphony can play for music (just watched a symphony play a catalogue of Michael Jackson). Well, maybe we'll keep the opera short... I still can't watch much opera.



Good points, Kosh. Some people can't seem to understand that just because something isn't valuable to them doesn't mean it isn't valuable to someone else. It's like saying I don't want to have to pay to pave the roadway in front of my house so let's
just leave that part gravel, m'kay?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course we understand that it is valuable to someone else--and that the price of delivering that "value" to them is often orders of magnitude greater than that person purchasing the pleasure for themselves.





fjnmusic said:


> Good points, Kosh. Some people can't seem to understand that just because something isn't valuable to them doesn't mean it isn't valuable to someone else. It's like saying I don't want to have to pay to pave the roadway in front of my house so let's
> just leave that part gravel, m'kay?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Some people can't seem to understand that just because something isn't valuable to them doesn't mean it isn't valuable to someone else.


Fine. Then support it with your own private donations, just like PBS stateside.

I don't watch it, I don't feel obliged to pay for it. My tax dollars are not being used to fund a point of view that I don't support.



fjnmusic said:


> It's like saying I don't want to have to pay to pave the roadway in front of my house so let's just leave that part gravel, m'kay?


Comparing the necessity of paving the street in front of your house to keeping CBC afloat with public funding? Serious? Your analogy isn't even close.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There is no reason for any government funded TV in Canada in this day and age. It should be cut loose to live or die on its own merit and fundraising ability. Pardon me if I giggle here while even trying to picture pigs at a trough fundraising. *snort*


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

SINC said:


> There is no reason for ay government funded TV in Canada in this day and age. It should be cut loose to live or die on its own merit and fundraising ability. Pardon me if I giggle here while even trying to picture pigs at a trough fundraising. *snort*


Sinc, I agree. In the early days, whether it was music, theatre, or TV, our small population could not support the development of the industry. No one thought Canadians had any talent ... For thoses old enough to remember the Canadian Content rules in radio, broadcasters actually thought there was nothing to broadcast.. Now we know differently. Canadian talent is global. I do not think we need to have CBC TV funded to such an extent, especially since we have many other networks now.

Clearly throwing money at CBC TV is not going to get any more viewers, and from that revenue .... They are just outdated and the money spent would be better served elsewhere .... Let them go Private and have done with it and allow us to escape the cultural ghetto they have provided for the last 40 years. If only CBC TV was 1/10th as good as CBC Radio.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

By the time the CBC decided it was time to start a television network in 1952 it had intervened to prevent other broadcasters from entering the market since 1939, because it believed it had the right to establish a beach head prior to its potential competition.

By 1952, the US television industry had developed far beyond that of Canada, thanks to the CBC's stalling tactics. If Canadian content regulations were required at that late date, much of the blame lies with the CBC itself.



Rps said:


> Sinc, I agree. In the early days, whether it was music, theatre, or TV, our small population could not support the development of the industry. No one thought Canadians had any talent ... For thoses old enough to remember the Canadian Content rules in radio, broadcasters actually thought there was nothing to broadcast.. Now we know differently. Canadian talent is global. I do not think we need to have CBC TV funded to such an extent, especially since we have many other networks now.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Sinc, I agree. In the early days, whether it was music, theatre, or TV, our small population could not support the development of the industry. No one thought Canadians had any talent ... For thoses old enough to remember the Canadian Content rules in radio, broadcasters actually thought there was nothing to broadcast.. Now we know differently. *Canadian talent is global. I do not think we need to have CBC TV funded to such an extent, especially since we have many other networks now.*
> 
> Clearly throwing money at CBC TV is not going to get any more viewers, and from that revenue .... They are just outdated and the money spent would be better served elsewhere .... Let them go Private and have done with it and allow us to escape the cultural ghetto they have provided for the last 40 years. If only CBC TV was 1/10th as good as CBC Radio.


Bang on Rps.

There is much more Canadian content being created now than ever before, in large part, because of specialty cable channels, which sell *worldwide* and do well financially because of that global reach. 

The CBC, not so much. When was the last time you saw a TV program being licensed to broadcast in another county on any significant scale? IMO it would have been Anne of Green Gables and maybe Road to Avonlea.

For some reason that escapes me, some Japanese people are obsessed with Anne of Green Gables. But aside from that, pretty much nothing.



> Clearly throwing money at CBC TV is not going to get any more viewers, and from that revenue .... They are just outdated and the money spent would be better served elsewhere .... *Let them go Private and have done with it and allow us to escape the cultural ghetto they have provided for the last 40 years. If only CBC TV was 1/10th as good as CBC Radio.*


Agreed on all points and especially those in *bold* and a special shout out to the term you used:

Cultural Ghetto. 

Perfect.

That is indeed what CBC TV has become and all on the public dime.

We are all paying for their slow, painful demise.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

CBC decline = the glue that holds Canada together coming undone.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

CBC has improved immensely since extreme right winger Kevin O'Leary left the Exchange and Dragons Dump.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

MazterCBlazter said:


> CBC decline = the glue that holds Canada together coming undone.


For a cartoon to be funny, there needs to be at least an element of truth to it. The implication that content not produced by the CBC is inferior is in itself the real joke. There is a whole world of vastly superior programming out there that goes far beyond any vapid "reality" programming. CBC programming is VERY bad by any standards. The other Canadian broadcasters do an exponentially better job of producing content that is actually of value.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Agreed. _Dragon's Den_ is CBC's biggest hit--and it's a copy of a Japanese program--at only one million viewers. When your top show reaches fewer than 3% of the country, that's some mighty weak glue.



heavyall said:


> For a cartoon to be funny, there needs to be at least an element of truth to it. The implication that content not produced by the CBC is inferior is in itself the real joke. There is a whole world of vastly superior programming out there that goes far beyond any vapid "reality" programming. CBC programming is VERY bad by any standards. The other Canadian broadcasters do an exponentially better job of producing content that is actually of value.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kosh said:


> Man, if CBC died, that would be the end of watching the Calgary Stampede on TV for my mom and me (I enjoy the chuckwagons). *CBC seems to be the only channel to broadcast the Stampede.
> *
> Maybe people should be introduced to symphony, opera and dance as well. I know I've been pleasantly surprised of what a symphony can play for music (just watched a symphony play a catalogue of Michael Jackson). Well, maybe we'll keep the opera short... I still can't watch much opera.


Did you ever stop to ponder why?...

Because they owns the rights to broadcast it, that is why.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> *CBC decline = the glue that holds Canada together coming undone.*


It seems the people in the cartoon need to broaden their viewing horizons. I watch plenty of TV and very little of CBC TV. There is plenty of good, great and even excellent TV to watch. They need to get outside of the box as do you apparently.

Complete and utter rubbish. Canada was a nation brought together by a Constitution long before the CBC came into being.

If you truly feel that the CBC is "the glue that holds Canada together" you could not be more wrong. What a facile statement.

Canada existed long before CBC TV and will continue to exist as a nation for a long, long time after CBC TV ceases to exist.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I'm generally a CBC supporter but this is a tad disturbing...

Amanda Lang took money from Manulife & Sun Life, gave them favourable CBC coverage

:greedy:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

gwillikers said:


> I'm generally a CBC supporter but this is a tad disturbing...
> 
> Amanda Lang took money from Manulife & Sun Life, gave them favourable CBC coverage
> 
> :greedy:


I caught them red handed in 1978 fabricating news, exposed them, took all kinds of flack for it and have never trusted CBC TV ever again. That still stands and it continues today. Privatize them now.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

SINC said:


> I caught them red handed in 1978 fabricating news, exposed them, took all kinds of flack for it and have never trusted CBC TV ever again. That still stands and it continues today. Privatize them now.


They are by far the most dishonest news source I've ever seen. If it's in a CBC news broadcast, always assume that they are flat out lying until you know otherwise. The number of time where they are accurately reporting what actually happened (even in a totally non political event) are so few and far between that it's not worth the time it takes to determine if they might actually be telling the truth occasionally.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

On a lighter note, a female friend of mine calls, Ian Hanomansing... Ian Handsome-man-thing.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

gwillikers said:


> On a lighter note, a female friend of mine calls, Ian Hanomansing... Ian Handsome-man-thing.
> 
> :lmao::lmao::lmao:


My wife likes his looks as well.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

gwillikers said:


> I'm generally a CBC supporter but this is a tad disturbing...
> 
> Amanda Lang took money from Manulife & Sun Life, gave them favourable CBC coverage
> 
> :greedy:


Yep happens all the time with Crown Corps.

That is why Harper has been/is trying to reign them in. You can see the power of the bureaucracy at large in this country when it is 8 years into his mandate and Harper is still having to fight hard to diminish the largess of the CBC and dozens of other bloated bureaucracies and Crown Corporations.

Trying to correct the mess of what 13 years of Liberal governments made.

Give the CPC another 4 years and the pendulum may actually (almost) swing back to the middle point.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Good lord. Harper wants to transform the CBC into his own special mouthpiece the same way the neocons did down south with Fox News. If you want an example of obvious manipulation by the Conservatives, look no further than the situation in Alberta with the Wildrose members deserting their own official opposition party to line up the trough. And yes, they are Harper's people too, Prentice and Smith. And cons here want to blame the CBC for all of our problems. Some things never change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Have you been nipping at the sauce tonight, fjn? 

1. There is nobody accusing the government of trying to manipulate CBC news into providing even-handed reporting.
2. The neocons down south are who, exactly? And how did they supposedly manipulate a privately owned network into "their mouthpiece"?
3. The Conservatives are responsible for the collapse of the Wildrose Party--not the desertion of the party by voters?
4. Who blames the CBC for"all of our problems?" It simply squanders billions of dollars on its one-side, "progressive" coverage. That's just two problems that are easily dealt with by pinching off funding.



fjnmusic said:


> Good lord. Harper wants to transform the CBC into his own special mouthpiece the same way the neocons did down south with Fox News. If you want an example of obvious manipulation by the Conservatives, look no further than the situation in Alberta with the Wildrose members deserting their own official opposition party to line up the trough. And yes, they are Harper's people too, Prentice and Smith. And cons here want to blame the CBC for all of our problems. Some things never change.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> if you want an example of obvious manipulation by the Conservatives, look no further than the situation in Alberta with the Wildrose members deserting their own official opposition party to line up the trough.


I'm failing to see the obvious here. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> I'm failing to see the obvious here. Could you elaborate?


It's the egg nog talking.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I wish it were the egg nog. Fact of the matter is, when it comes to money, there are no bigger wasters of it than supposedly fiscally "conservative" people, especially in Alberta. Prentice made promises that would help everyone feel good about him, and it was unaffordable when oil was $100 a barrel. Now oil hovers around $50 a barrel. Either it wasn't affordable then, or they lie to us all the time about finances. I'm going with both. 

The CBC is definitely not a huge drain on finances compared to other things government has wasted money on. But Harper is concerned that they don't depict his gov't in a favorable light, so he is trying to manipulate the system. Even when they rule the country, the conservatives try to blame the progressives for their problems. Bunch of whiners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There are bigger wasters--the Liberals and the NDP. 

However, with its billion-a-year bonanza, the CBC is a great target for elimination. As a crown corporation, it is a huge recipient of corporate welfare. Should other corporations be cut off? Absolutely! But I will back any efforts to cut corporate welfare wherever its offered.

I doubt Harper blames the "progressives" for much. In fact, he seems very positive most of the time, simply undoing "progressive" mischief without much fanfare.



fjnmusic said:


> I wish it were the egg nog. Fact of the matter is, when it comes to money, there are no bigger wasters of it than supposedly fiscally "conservative" people, especially in Alberta. Prentice made promises that would help everyone feel good about him, and it was unaffordable when oil was $100 a barrel. Now oil hovers around $50 a barrel. Either it wasn't affordable then, or they lie to us all the time about finances. I'm going with both.
> 
> The CBC is definitely not a huge drain on finances compared to other things government has wasted money on. But Harper is concerned that they don't depict his gov't in a favorable light, so he is trying to manipulate the system. Even when they rule the country, the conservatives try to blame the progressives for their problems. Bunch of whiners.
> 
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Good lord. *Harper wants to transform the CBC into his own special mouthpiece the same way the neocons did down south with Fox News. If you want an example of obvious manipulation by the Conservatives, look no further than the situation in Alberta with the Wildrose members deserting their own official opposition party to line up the trough. *And yes, they are Harper's people too, Prentice and Smith. And cons here want to blame the CBC for all of our problems. Some things never change.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Macfury said:


> Have you been nipping at the sauce tonight, fjn?
> 
> *1. There is nobody accusing the government of trying to manipulate CBC news into providing even-handed reporting.
> 2. The neocons down south are who, exactly? And how did they supposedly manipulate a privately owned network into "their mouthpiece"?
> ...





fjnmusic said:


> I wish it were the egg nog. Fact of the matter is, when it comes to money, there are no bigger wasters of it than supposedly fiscally "conservative" people, especially in Alberta. Prentice made promises that would help everyone feel good about him, and it was unaffordable when oil was $100 a barrel. Now oil hovers around $50 a barrel. Either it wasn't affordable then, or they lie to us all the time about finances. I'm going with both.
> 
> The CBC is definitely not a huge drain on finances compared to other things government has wasted money on. *But Harper is concerned that they don't depict his gov't in a favorable light, so he is trying to manipulate the system. Even when they rule the country, the conservatives try to blame the progressives for their problems. Bunch of whiners.*
> 
> ...


I don't believe what you say and suggest to be true at all. The CBC are masters of their own domain and that is the problem. They don't have a clue as to how to create content that viewers actually want to watch in the 21st century. Maybe if they didn't suck (in general) off of the government teat they would actually have to come up with a plan and a way to make the corporation viable without $1B of tax payers dollars every year!

Regarding the Wildrose, that is just sheer nonsense IMO, seasonal libations involved or not.

Bang on MF!

Once again, I don't believe what you say and suggest to be true at all. All the government wants is for *all* (not only the CBC) Crown Corps to act in a fiscally and morally responsible manner rather than acting like a bunch of self entitled, self important, greedy and petulant children.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> I don't believe what you say and suggest to be true at all. The CBC are masters of their own domain and that is the problem. They don't have a clue as to how to create content that viewers actually want to watch in the 21st century. Maybe if they didn't suck (in general) off of the government teat they would actually have to come up with a plan and a way to make the corporation viable without $1B of tax payers dollars every year!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It would be nice if they could then lead by example. Happy Festivus to all!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> It would be nice if they could then lead by example. Happy Festivus to all!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They have, the deficit has been slain.

A Happy Festivus to you and yours as well, all gathered around the Festivus Pole. 

Peace and Good Tidings be unto to you.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> They have, the deficit has been slain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And to you, amigo. Alberta once slayed not just the deficit, but the debt too, if you ask the government. We are however in arrears big time now. Again, according to the government, which hasn't changed in 43 years. At least there's no sales tax, I suppose. Woo-hoo. 

Boxing Day in two days everybody!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

here is another reason i want my tax dollars pulled from the CBC
Bill Cosby ambushed by CBC's 22 Minutes exiting Kitchener theatre - Canada - CBC News

or at least fire the employee, or those who approved this offensive behavior.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if there is malfeasance or not...

Amanda Lang tried to sabotage a CBC story that scandalized RBC, who paid her



> Multiple sources within CBC News have revealed to CANADALAND, under condition of anonymity, a shocking campaign Amanda Lang undertook in 2013 to sabotage a major story reported by her colleague, investigative reporter Kathy Tomlinson.
> 
> Key details of these events have been confirmed to CANADALAND by Tomlinson’s spouse, Alan Fryer, a former W-FIVE reporter and Washington Bureau chief for CTV News.


The investigation revealed four issues, the first of which is below:



> 1. Amanda Lang lobbied aggressively within the CBC to undermine Kathy Tomlinson’s reporting on the temporary foreign worker scandal at RBC, the largest financial institution in the country and a bank that has sponsored Lang's speeches or events where Lang spoke at least six times (1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6), for fees up to $15,000 per event.


Further:

UPDATE: Amanda Lang in “serious relationship” with RBC board member while reporting on RBC



> CANADALAND can now confirm that CBC Senior Business Correspondent Amanda Lang’s ties to RBC go beyond sponsored speaking events.
> 
> Sources close to Amanda Lang, who spoke to CANADALAND on the condition of anonymity, confirm that she has been in a romantic relationship with RBC Board Member W. Geoffrey Beattie since January 2013 at the latest. This relationship is ongoing, and the two were involved in April 2013, when Lang acted within the CBC to scuttle a colleague’s reporting on abuses of Canadian labour law by RBC.


Oops...

CBC responds:

CBC denies that Amanda Lang tried to ‘sabotage’ story about RBC, foreign workers



> The editor-in-chief of CBC News said two reports of ethical breaches on the part of senior business correspondent Amanda Lang “made false assumptions and left out important facts.”


Things that make you go hmmm...


----------

