# Court Orders CBC To Cough Up Records



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Finally our taxpayer funded CBC is ordered to do the right thing and tell *us* how they spend *our* money.



> OTTAWA - The state broadcaster was ordered to play nice with the parliamentary officer it spurned in a court ruling that orders the CBC to produce access documents the network doesn't want anyone to see because they could shed light on wasteful spending.
> 
> The Federal Court of Appeal said Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault has the legal authority to determine whether access to information requests the CBC wants kept under wraps should be released.
> 
> ...


Court orders CBC to cough up records


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

With all that resistance, you just know there's going to be some spectacular "expenses". It should be interesting. 

Another good move...


> The federal government introduced long-promised legislation Wednesday that will make it mandatory for First Nations chiefs and band councillors to publish their salaries.


With the Billions poured into First Nations and people still living in shacks, its about time they make the leadership accountable for where they're spending the cash.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

The problem with the CBC is they are run by corrupt Union folk..
My experiences with them were eye opening.. 
they are given a budget to work with .. which in my opinion is far to big.. ( so they spent it to the last penny or more - otherwise they will not receive it next year - meaning they purchasing and wasting money on un-needed items )not to mention.. the purchaser always asked after every order : "what do I get" - i would always show a copy of the PO, then they would say "ok, but what do I get?"
I knew what they meant - I did not play that way.. I repeated "lets go through the PO again"
but sadly in this investigation - it would be impossible to prove either of my experiences..
so the bloated pig that CBC is - will continue in its ways.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> With the Billions poured into First Nations and people still living in shacks, its about time they make the leadership accountable for where they're spending the cash.


Yes! Chiefs roll around in expensive cars, big rich homes and don't give any money to band. The gov't should not give money to the chiefs but give out money to each person individually. They have abused the money for far too long and their own people live poor and desolate.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

SINC said:


> Finally our taxpayer funded CBC is ordered to do the right thing and tell *us* how they spend *our* money.


Ooooh, this should be juicy.....

End result? Sun TV will be revived and get "Hockey Night in Canada" with Don Cherry thrown in.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Long overdue, on both accounts (CBC & First Nations).


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

macintosh doctor said:


> the purchaser always asked after every order : "what do I get" - i would always show a copy of the PO, then they would say "ok, but what do I get?"
> I knew what they meant - I did not play that way.. I repeated "lets go through the PO again"
> but sadly in this investigation - it would be impossible to prove either of my experiences..
> so the bloated pig that CBC is - will continue in its ways.


 
Sorry, but that's not the CBC, that's Federal Government finance rules and accountability. When something is ordered in the federal government, it has to be proven that it's been received, BEFORE it's paid for. They have to follow them, like the rest of the federal government.

Some people apparently want to track the government's spending (go figure), so therefore they have to make sure they can prove and justifiy they're costs.

Trust me, it's ALWAYS fun dealing with government financial people. You don't have your I's dotted and your T's crossed and you'll be redoing your paperwork or paying the price.


----------



## equisol (Jan 12, 2008)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Yes! Chiefs roll around in expensive cars, big rich homes and don't give any money to band. The gov't should not give money to the chiefs but give out money to each person individually. They have abused the money for far too long and their own people live poor and desolate.


Reminds me f the book: Animal Farm, the pigs always reap in the profits


----------



## equisol (Jan 12, 2008)

Kosh said:


> Sorry, but that's not the CBC, that's Federal Government finance rules and accountability. When something is ordered in the federal government, it has to be proven that it's been received, BEFORE it's paid for. They have to follow them, like the rest of the federal government.
> 
> Some people apparently want to track the government's spending (go figure), so therefore they have to make sure they can prove and justifiy they're costs.
> 
> Trust me, it's ALWAYS fun dealing with government financial people. You don't have your I's dotted and your T's crossed and you'll be redoing your paperwork or paying the price.


The rules and accountability of the Feds. How many empty boxes are delivered on 31 March, cannot even count them.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

*How convenient*

Does anyone recall the torture issue regarding Afghan detainees.

Not only did the Tories not disclose documents to parliament regarding torture, but they actually blacked out much of the documents and even had a minister caught for altering the actual text - essentially fraud.

All this while they destroyed a man's reputation because he actually spoke out for justice.:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What this have to do with the CBC or First Nations? Stick to the topic.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

if they could apply said due diligence to minister's like Tony Clement and others perhaps I'd take their loud trumpets of financial accountability seriously.

They simply have it in for the CBC and that's obvious. Just cut their budget like they are doing to the rest.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I'll take my accountability and transparency where I can get it. 

The CBC being asked to show where the money goes is a good thing. There are lots of other places where this should be happening as well, but I'll celebrate the small victories.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I'll take my accountability and transparency where I can get it.
> 
> The CBC being asked to show where the money goes is a good thing. There are lots of other places where this should be happening as well, but I'll celebrate the small victories.


+1. Just because I want to see the CBC give up its secrets doesn't mean i don't want to see transparency elsewhere.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sure, I don't think anyone doesn't think the CBC shouldn't be, transparent. But it seems lost at times that the only real time they seem insistent on any transparency is when it has to do with something they don't like. Not that that isn't common in other governments, but the promise of any real transparency is pretty hollow.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> I'll take my accountability and transparency where I can get it.
> 
> The CBC being asked to show where the money goes is a good thing. There are lots of other places where this should be happening as well, but I'll celebrate the small victories.


I would go one further and applaud the court for forcing the CBC to do what they should do when asked, period. They are publicly funded and taxpayers deserve an accounting. And if they are in fact partying on my dollar, they should be reprimanded at the very least.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> I would go one further and applaud the court for forcing the CBC to do what they should do when asked, period. They are publicly funded and taxpayers deserve an accounting. And if they are in fact partying on my dollar, they should be reprimanded at the very least.


True but no further than our DND boys partying and we are using the same access rules but it doesn't apply for some tax payer funded initiatives. They don't call them CONS for nothing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> True but no further than our DND boys partying and we are using the same access rules but it doesn't apply for some tax payer funded initiatives. They don't call them CONS for nothing.


The *COURT.*


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> True but no further than our DND boys partying and we are using the same access rules but it doesn't apply for some tax payer funded initiatives. They don't call them CONS for nothing.


they're just applauding because it's something they hate.

That's all. Nothing to do with transparency etc etc.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> they're just applauding because it's something they hate.
> 
> That's all. Nothing to do with transparency etc etc.


Hate is much too strong a word where the CBC is concerned. I grew up on the prairies in the 50s when CBC was the only TV we got. Radio was well entrenched and few listened to CBC as local radio had local news, something the CBC did not carry.

I will tell you what I dislike about the CBC of today though. 

I dislike that it is taxpayer funded as there is no longer the need for national TV coverage off air. Other networks and technology long ago knocked that pipe dream out of contention.

I dislike they have free rein to spend our tax dollars without accountability.

I dislike their TV division's left wing bias and their selective non-coverage of events that do not fit their left leaning ideology.

I dislike having witnessed their TV news department fabricate stories they missed with staged re-enactments.

I disliked how CBC TV sports wasted taxpayers money over the past decades. I can recall situations I attended where CBC crew members outnumbered CTV crews by five and six to one to cover the same events.

I could go on, but by now you get the idea.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> they're just applauding because it's something they hate.
> 
> That's all. Nothing to do with transparency etc etc.


Absolutely correct.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> they're just applauding because it's something they hate.
> 
> That's all. Nothing to do with transparency etc etc.





mrjimmy said:


> Absolutely correct.


Ah yes, the blind leading the blind is alive here.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I was under the impression that the cbc news network wasn't, tax payer funded.

And I think I am bang on in my last post, because I don't see you, nor any other con supporter here expressing the same sort of outrage you express at every liberal misuse of tax money at the clear obvious pork barreling and misuse going on in Harper's government.

That, makes my post true. Sorry.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, the blind leading the blind is alive here.


They're just pissing their pants because it's the CBC, SINC. Sacred cows.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

typical conservative response. Plug the ears, sing a la la, no I don't want to hear about the obvious.

Not ONE of you has ever questioned the obvious misuse of tax dollars by the conservatives. That is until the focus hit's the "sacred cow"

I say, open the books. Make it accountable. At no point, have I ever suggested it shouldn't be. Sacred cow or no, it should be any different than say Tony Clement's misuse of 50 million bucks, just, for starters.

There's a post that'll fly right over a few heads.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I was under the impression that the cbc news network wasn't, tax payer funded.


Hmm, no concept of reality there.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Hmm, no concept of reality there.


CBC News Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> It is funded by cable subscriber fees and commercial advertising.


ouch.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> CBC News Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> ouch.


Nice try, but that’s bullschit.

That is the old Newsworld cable division and nothing more. Here's the real story: 



> For the fiscal year 2006, the CBC received a total of $1.53 billion from all revenue sources,* including government funding via taxpayers,* subscription fees, advertising revenue, and other revenue (e.g. real estate). Expenditures for the year included $616 million for English television, $402 million for French television, $126 million for specialty channels, a total of $348 million for radio services in both languages, $88 million for management and technical costs, and $124 million for "amortization of property and equipment." Some of this spending was derived from amortization of funding from previous years.
> 
> Among its revenue sources for the year ending March 31, 2006, *the CBC received $946 million in its annual funding from the federal government, as well as $60 million in "one-time" supplementary funding for programming.* However, this supplementary funding has been repeated annually for a number of years. *This combined total is just over a billion dollars annually and is a source of heated debate.* *To supplement this funding, the CBC’s television networks and websites sell advertising, while cable/satellite-only services such as CBC News Network additionally collect subscriber fees,* in line with their privately owned counterparts. CBC’s radio services do not sell advertising except when required by law (for example, to political parties during federal elections).
> 
> CBC’s funding differs from that of the public broadcasters of many European nations, which collect a licence fee, or those in the United States, such as PBS and NPR, which receive some public funding but rely to a large extent on voluntary contributions from individual viewers and listeners. *An Abacus poll from August 2011 showed that approximately one out of two Canadians would like to see the CBC's funding switched to the PBS/NPR model, one out of three Canadians want Parliament to sell off or privatize the CBC, and only one out of four Canadians want the CBC's annual subsidy to be increased.*


Suck on that one for a while.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

No it isn't.

I'm sorry, but you didn't address that the news network is funded primarily by other means. By subscriber fees I believe that means the fees that other cable channels also receive.

And please, don't resort to telling me suck on anything. That really isn't necessary.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nice try, but that’s bullschit.





SINC said:


> Suck on that one for a while.


:lmao:

Have you been at the local?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Have you been at the local?


No, not at all, gt needs to rethink what he is trying to insinuate. He is comparing the cable news division to the entire network of the CBC and it is bullschit pure and simple.

I guess the next time I disagree with you I can now freely accuse you of over imbibing too, can I?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I guess the next time I disagree with you I can now freely accuse you of over imbibing too, can I?


Knock yourself out.

I was referring to your colourful language. The type of language you would moan about in days of yore...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you didn't address that the news network is funded primarily by other means. By subscriber fees I believe that means the fees that other cable channels also receive.
> 
> And please, don't resort to telling me suck on anything. That really isn't necessary.


I was not referring to the cable news division and you know that full well. I am referring to the full network, not a tiny portion that happens to break even with help from cable fees.

Odd that the amount of times you use this: :baby: you can't take it when it is tossed back in another form. It means absorb, by the way.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I was not referring to the cable news division and you know that full well. I am referring to the full network, not a tiny portion that happens to break even with help from cable fees.
> 
> Odd that the amount of times you use this: :baby: you can't take it when it is tossed back in another form. It means absorb, by the way.


I think the "baby" icon is a little different than the language you used.

I -was- referring to the news network, if you actually read my posts. As far as the rest of the CBC is concerned, I've already stated multiple times I'm all for making the CBC accountable to voters. I don't care, what conservatives think of the CBC, if Canadians want the CBC and support paying for it, well there it is. If not, well this is, a democracy. Despite what steamroller Harper decides.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I think the "baby" icon is a little different than the language you used.
> 
> I -was- referring to the news network, if you actually read my posts. As far as the rest of the CBC is concerned, I've already stated multiple times I'm all for making the CBC accountable to voters. I don't care, what conservatives think of the CBC, if Canadians want the CBC and support paying for it, well there it is. If not, well this is, a democracy. Despite what steamroller Harper decides.


No, you were referring to the CABLE news network and trying to divert attention from the subject at hand and using the 'ouch' as some kind of coup on your part. Sorry but I don't buy that. That minor part of the bigger picture is a red herring and nothing more. I was and continue to refer to the full broadcast TV network.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> No, you were referring to the CABLE news network and trying to divert attention from the subject at hand and using the 'ouch' as some kind of coup on your part. Sorry but I don't buy that. That minor part of the bigger picture is a red herring and nothing more. I was and continue to refer to the full broadcast TV network.


yes I was indeed referring to the news network that exists on cable and satellite. You finally figured it out. But you would have known that, if you read my post. But you decided to go googling to try and prove that news network was tax payer funded. 

And then got all upset and lashed out. No need.

I thought I had seen you railing about the national news. I wondered if you knew that cbc newsworld (now called cbc news network) wasn't tax payer funded.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> No, you were referring to the CABLE news network and trying to divert attention from the subject at hand and using the 'ouch' as some kind of coup on your part. Sorry but I don't buy that. That minor part of the bigger picture is a red herring and nothing more. I was and continue to refer to the full broadcast TV network.


Of course you were clear--but don't expect anything but a little impromptu tap dancing around the faux pas.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ha ha oh atom smasher, that was valiant, I'll give you that. One can always count on you to jump in for a 'how macfury sees it'.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> No, not at all, gt needs to rethink what he is trying to insinuate. He is comparing the cable news division to the entire network of the CBC and it is bullschit pure and simple.
> 
> I guess the next time I disagree with you I can now freely accuse you of over imbibing too, can I?


I would invite you, to show where I did so. I merely asked about the news network. Which, if you knew what it was, you'd have known very well what I was referring to. I think it's clear to anyone I wouldn't suggest the CBC itself isn't taxpayer funded! Especially after I expressed full support for opening the books!

Sorry but that was fun.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> Hate is much too strong a word where the CBC is concerned. I grew up on the prairies in the 50s when CBC was the only TV we got. Radio was well entrenched and few listened to CBC as local radio had local news, something the CBC did not carry.
> 
> I will tell you what I dislike about the CBC of today though.
> 
> ...


You're in a minority for disliking the CBC. You're views however are supported by a majority federal government with a penchant for dismantling a liberal (small l) institution that delivers information to Canadians and the world that runs counter to the CON agenda.

This will be an interesting battle. My hope is that common sense prevails and the CBC is left alone to do what it does best.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> You're views however are supported by a majority federal government with a penchant for dismantling a liberal (small l) institution..


Go ahead and make the "l" a capital. Makes no difference to the narrative.



jimbotelecom said:


> My hope is that common sense prevails and the CBC is left alone to do what it does best.


Consume cash?

But seriously, I would support a 50% budget cut, leaving it to just pursue its two or three hit programs. There's no longer any reason it needs to broadcast for a full business day.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

BTW, CON men, don't bother responding to the limited information that was released using the same access to info following the Afghani detainee file.

Nicely dodged my fine feathered friends.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

IMHO, the whole idea of public broadcasting is a leftover from post second world war and cold war era mentality.

Over the years however, the CBC has grown into a massive, costly and entrenched bureaucracy equivalent to the American post 9/11 NSA, with the only exception being that the CBC is not armed. LOL

For a long time I was a fence sitter regarding privatization, but lately I think it's time to fully privatize the broadcaster. There's plenty of interest in both the TV, radio and northern service from private parties. Get on with it.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Complete and utter drek from the nattering nabobs of negativity.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Complete and utter drek from the nattering nabobs of negativity.


Glad you approve...:lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you're right jimbo, the majority of Canadians like and want the CBC. That just ticks off these cons, who think that because a handful of them detest the CBC that they can just wipe it out.

Good luck with that. Didn't Mulroney find this out before? Should indeed be interesting to watch. Though first we'll be treated with howls of indignation of what the CBC spent money on, from the very ones who have been proven to waste far more. Oh but that's ok, they're fighting the good fight!

But no we don't want to dismantle Harper. You will notice as well that not one peep came of my comment that NOT ONE of these cons who are soooo concerned about the CBC has said one word about the unbelievable misuse of our tax dollars by the Harper government.

NOT ONE. That should tell all you need to know about the motives of these so called conservatives.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The majority of Canadians don't know any better...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Yes CBC is wildly popular. These are last weeks most viewed programs by Canadians. The 4 in bold are on CBC and the rest are from private broadcasters. The private broadcasters pretty much sweep the viewership statistics.

1 BIG BANG THEORY
2 SURVIVOR:S.PACIFIC
3 GREY'S ANATOMY
4 C.S.I.
5 AMAZING RACE 19
*6 H.N.I.C. GAME #1*
7 HOUSE
8 NCIS: LOS ANGELES
9 DANCING/STARS 13 PRF
10 CASTLE
11 DANCING/STARS 13 RES
12 UNFORGETTABLE
13 THE MENTALIST
14 CTV EVENING NEWS
15 GLEE
16 ONCE UPON A TIME
17 WHITNEY
18 HAW AII FIVE-O
19 BONES
20 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES
21 THE X FACTOR PERF
22 BLUE BLOODS
23 NCIS
24 TWO AND A HALF MEN
25 GRIMM
26 BIG BANG THEORY
*27 BATTLE OF THE BLADES
28 DRAGONS' DEN
29 H.N.I.C. PRE-GAME*
30 FLASHPOINT


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

really and how many of those wildly popular shows did those other private networks produce?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> Yes CBC is wildly popular. These are last weeks most viewed programs by Canadians. The 4 in bold are on CBC and the rest are from private broadcasters. The private broadcasters pretty much sweep the viewership statistics.
> 
> 1 BIG BANG THEORY
> 2 SURVIVOR:S.PACIFIC
> ...


Of course you're assuming the CBC is only a TV station. You might have a look at alexa for cbc.ca's ranking and then there's CBC Radio number 1 or near number 1 in every major market in Canada from east to west to north to south not including the international crowd. 


Out of top 30 you have chosen I watched #6 live Habs game. And I catch the rare 28 online. I watch news and docs. Like the at issue panel with Chantal Hebert.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If the CBC is so wildly popular with Canadians, CBC supporters should have nothing to fear with privatization. After all, advertisers will be flocking to their doors clamouring to buy ads based on that majority of viewers they can reach, won't they? They ought to be profitable overnight.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Speaking for myself in a larger we, we're not interested in advertising.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Speaking for myself in a larger we, we're not interested in advertising.


That's fine, but then you support it financially through subscriptions or some other "pay per view" system. Don't make us (the "larger" collective us) pay for programming you want to watch ad free but no one else does. Free broadcasting works off of advertising revenue, that's the current paradigm, so unless that somehow changes, keep the tax dollars out of it.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

You and I know that the public supports the CBC.

Your views sync with other free market theorists however you might consider where you should place yourself among the Canadian public. 

Thanks for your minority opinion.:clap:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> You and I know that the public supports the CBC.
> 
> Your views sync with other free market theorists however you might consider where you should place yourself among the Canadian public.
> 
> Thanks for your minority opinion.:clap:


Is that all you got left...personal jabs and snipes? You clearly use the only thing left to you as you do not have a cogent argument to the contrary. 

....and yes I support the CBC also, but as a privatized enterprise.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> Is that all you got left...personal jabs and snipes? You clearly use the only thing left to you as you do not have a cogent argument to the contrary.
> 
> ....and yes I support the CBC also, but as a privatized enterprise.


Jabs and snipes or, simply the truth? Nothing malicious or personal whatsoever.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

*And in today's news:*

Tories keep ‘as many things secret as the CBC,’ watchdog says - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I frankly think that Canadians want the CBC, although they may want it's budget trimmed. I think quite a few of us watch the CBC as well as other Canadian networks. BUT (and that's a big BUT), if they were to privatize it, I think they should put half of the CBC's budget in the CMF (Canada Media Fund) which in my view is a good vehicle for producing and promoting Canadian TV shows.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Of course you're assuming the CBC is only a TV station.


Not at all, but it is probably its largest expenditure.



> You might have a look at Alexa for cbc.ca's ranking


Currently ranked 28th. I might add that the 27 sites that top it are run by private enterprise. CBC.ca could be too.



> and then there's CBC Radio number 1 or near number 1 in every major market in Canada from east to west to north to south not including the international crowd.


That great and I'm sure they're programming would be just as popular if they're privatized.



> Out of top 30 you have chosen


I didn't choose them, all Canadian TV viewers did.



> I watched #6 live Habs game. And I catch the rare 28 online. I watch news and docs. Like the at issue panel with Chantal Hebert.


[/QUOTE]

I like the Discovery Channel and TLC but I don't think it would be fair to force others that don't like the stations to pay for it for me.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Jabs and snipes or, simply the truth? Nothing malicious or personal whatsoever.


Right...you have nothing left.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> Right...you have nothing left.


No not really I'll remain here to poke holes in market driven bafflegab.

Thanks.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> No not really I'll remain here to poke holes in market driven bafflegab.
> 
> Thanks.


You're failing, but keep at it. 

Market driven is the current paradigm, neither one of us created that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> You're failing, but keep at it.
> 
> Market driven is the current paradigm, neither one of us created that.


Meanwhile the CBC bids up the value of programming it wants, sells commercial air time and shows U.S. programming to bring in cash. 100% non-market driven, that network. Time to shlt or get off the pot CBC!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> You're failing, but keep at it.
> 
> Market driven is the current paradigm, neither one of us created that.


I know I'll be failing when a majority of Canadians do not support the publicly funded CBC.

Be seeing you.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Meanwhile the CBC bids up the value of programming it wants, sells commercial air time and shows U.S. programming to bring in cash. 100% non-market driven, that network. Time to shlt or get off the pot CBC!


and that is precisely why I got off the fence on the side of privatization.

In previous threads (g'head do a search) I've said that the CBC needed to decide between being a public broadcaster or a commercial enterprise...it can't be both.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> and that is precisely why I got off the fence on the side of privatization.
> 
> In previous threads (g'head do a search) I've said that the CBC needed to decide between being a public broadcaster or a commercial enterprise...it can't be both.


The CBC TV network was launched in 1952 with the promise that it would show only domestic programming, a promise it broke within months. Someone seriously needs to look at exactly what needs this expensive monster is meeting, then cut away everything that isn't meeting those needs. And I mean NEEDS--not WANTS.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Is that all you got left...personal jabs and snipes? You clearly use the only thing left to you as you do not have a cogent argument to the contrary.
> 
> ....and yes I support the CBC also, but as a privatized enterprise.


I see plenty of the same jabs coming from the right, except one major difference.

The majority of Canadians obviously like and want the CBC. Period. That's fact you or any other right CBC hater can't change. The haters are a small minority, and feel their wishes are more important than the rest. Which seems rather common amongst conservatives.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I see plenty of the same jabs coming from the right, except one major difference.
> 
> The majority of Canadians obviously like and want the CBC. Period. That's fact you or any other right CBC hater can't change. The haters are a small minority, and feel their wishes are more important than the rest. Which seems rather common amongst conservatives.


Oh, really?

I think not:



> 2010/11 TV Season Report Card confirms CTV as Canada's #1 network in total viewers and A25-54 for full decade -
> 
> - CTV wins more timeslots than all other networks combined -
> - CTV leads closest competitor (CBC) by 50% in prime time -
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Oh, really?
> 
> I think not:


you somehow think that because CTV is number one that that automatically cancels out the CBC's popularity?

Interesting logic you have there.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> you somehow think that because CTV is number one that that automatically cancels out the CBC's popularity?
> 
> Interesting logic you have there.


No, I think anyone who says the CBC is favoured by the majority of Canadians needs to be corrected. I just did that.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> The majority of Canadians obviously like and want the CBC. Period.


Did you look at the TV viewership statistics I posted. Clearly the majority of Canadians are watching something else. If it were not for Hockey games the network would be right up there with the Lawn Bowling Channel. I'm sure CTV or some other network would be more than happy to take over the hockey coverage.
You may have a case for radio but clearly not on the TV.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> No, I think anyone who says the CBC is favoured by the majority of Canadians needs to be corrected. I just did that.


A small lesson in reading comprehension. It wasn't stated that the CBC is the number one choice among Canadians. But that the CBC is both well regarded and desired by a majority of Canadians. Your argument is ridiculous.

oh. and once more pointing out something not one conservative supporter will dare address...

Tories keep ‘as many things secret as the CBC,’ watchdog says - The Globe and Mail


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I see plenty of the same jabs coming from the right, except one major difference.
> 
> The majority of Canadians obviously like and want the CBC. Period. That's fact you or any other right CBC hater can't change. The haters are a small minority, and feel their wishes are more important than the rest. Which seems rather common amongst conservatives.


Where are you getting all this? I don't *hate* the CBC, I think it needs to either fulfil its original mandate or go private...period.

I'm not interested in comparing it to the Conservative Party, other broadcasters and whatever other entity someone want's to apply to it. You and Jimbo keep reiterating that most canadians want the CBC...what they don't tell you is in what form.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Did you look at the TV viewership statistics I posted. Clearly the majority of Canadians are watching something else. If it were not for Hockey games the network would be right up there with the Lawn Bowling Channel. I'm sure CTV or some other network would be more than happy to take over the hockey coverage.
> You may have a case for radio but clearly not on the TV.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


and did you notice the number of US shows?

You missed the point.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> A small lesson in reading comprehension. It wasn't stated that the CBC is the number one choice among Canadians. But that the CBC is both well regarded and desired by a majority of Canadians. Your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> oh. and once more pointing out something not one conservative supporter will dare address...
> 
> Tories keep ‘as many things secret as the CBC,’ watchdog says - The Globe and Mail


Ridiculous? Better look in the mirror. If the majority of Canadians prefer to watch the CTV network, how can the CBC be "desired by a majority of Canadians"? Talk about illogical claims.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Where are you getting all this? I don't *hate* the CBC, I think it needs to either fulfil its original mandate or go private...period.
> 
> I'm not interested in comparing it to the Conservative Party, other broadcasters and whatever other entity someone want's to apply to it. You and Jimbo keep reiterating that most canadians want the CBC...what they don't tell you is in what form.


well ok, show me that the majority of Canadians want to see the CBC cut down and privatized.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> well ok, show me that the majority of Canadians want to see the CBC cut down and privatized.


Since you brought it up, you first.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Ridiculous? Better look in the mirror. If the majority of Canadians prefer to watch the CTV network, how can the CBC be "desired by a majority of Canadians"? Talk about illogical claims.


it is a very simple concept, but since you're clearly against the CBC, you'll form the argument to suit your purposes. 

Just one last attempt not that it will be successful, but one network having the number one spot doesn't erase the CBCs popularity.

But nice try though.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> Where are you getting all this? I don't *hate* the CBC, I think it needs to either fulfil its original mandate or go private...period.
> 
> I'm not interested in comparing it to the Conservative Party, other broadcasters and whatever other entity someone want's to apply to it. You and Jimbo keep reiterating that most canadians want the CBC...what they don't tell you is in what form.


It's quite possible Kps that you're unaware of data recently polled by numerous public sector owned firms that the publicly funded CBC is supported b a majority of respondents.
Google can be your buddy too.

All you market-driven ideologues keep spouting are TV watching habits. You don't take into account the full media experience that CBC delivers. You don't like the CBC. I get it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

once again notice the furious 'no no no!" when confronted with the news that their fav government is just as guilty as the CBC for withholding information.

oh but that's ok, because well... the ceee BEEE CEEE!

If I saw the sort of outrage and outspoken condemnation of this practice about a government doing the very same thing, maybe, maybe... I could take their posts as somewhat, credible.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> well ok, show me that the majority of Canadians want to see the CBC cut down and privatized.


I already did that once. Half of Canadians want it to go ala PBS and only 25% want it to have increased funding. Here it is again:



> For the fiscal year 2006, the CBC received a total of $1.53 billion from all revenue sources, including government funding via taxpayers, subscription fees, advertising revenue, and other revenue (e.g. real estate). Expenditures for the year included $616 million for English television, $402 million for French television, $126 million for specialty channels, a total of $348 million for radio services in both languages, $88 million for management and technical costs, and $124 million for "amortization of property and equipment." Some of this spending was derived from amortization of funding from previous years.
> 
> Among its revenue sources for the year ending March 31, 2006, the CBC received $946 million in its annual funding from the federal government, as well as $60 million in "one-time" supplementary funding for programming. However, this supplementary funding has been repeated annually for a number of years. This combined total is just over a billion dollars annually and is a source of heated debate. To supplement this funding, the CBC’s television networks and websites sell advertising, while cable/satellite-only services such as CBC News Network additionally collect subscriber fees, in line with their privately owned counterparts. CBC’s radio services do not sell advertising except when required by law (for example, to political parties during federal elections).
> 
> CBC’s funding differs from that of the public broadcasters of many European nations, which collect a licence fee, or those in the United States, such as PBS and NPR, which receive some public funding but rely to a large extent on voluntary contributions from individual viewers and listeners. An Abacus poll from August 2011 showed that approximately one out of two Canadians would like to see the CBC's funding switched to the PBS/NPR model, one out of three Canadians want Parliament to sell off or privatize the CBC, and only one out of four Canadians want the CBC's annual subsidy to be increased.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I already did that once, here it is again:


hardly a definitive poll.

But then you're talking to someone who supports cutting their funding as I do other things.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> It's quite possible Kps that you're unaware of data recently polled by numerous public sector owned firms that the publicly funded CBC is supported b a majority of respondents.
> Google can be your buddy too.
> 
> All you market-driven ideologues keep spouting are TV watching habits. You don't take into account the full media experience that CBC delivers. You don't like the CBC. I get it.


Polls mean very little. Poll questions can be phrased in such ways as to get the answers needed.

Just to be clear, it's not that I don't LIKE the CBC, it's just that I don't LIKE to pay for a *commercial* broadcaster with my tax dollars.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> Polls mean very little. Poll questions can be phrased in such ways as to get the answers needed.
> 
> Just to be clear, it's not that I don't LIKE the CBC, it's just that I don't LIKE to pay for a *commercial* broadcaster with my tax dollars.


I hate ads too.

Thanks.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> I already did that once. Half of Canadians want it to go ala PBS and only 25% want it to have increased funding. Here it is again:


Nice wlki.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> once again notice the furious 'no no no!" when confronted with the news that their fav government is just as guilty as the CBC for withholding information.
> 
> oh but that's ok, because well... the ceee BEEE CEEE!
> 
> If I saw the sort of outrage and outspoken condemnation of this practice about a government doing the very same thing, maybe, maybe... I could take their posts as somewhat, credible.


LOL are you running out of ideas too? Should I start the same bulls**t with the previous Liberals or provincial NDP governments? I rather not start stooping that low, Groove.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> I hate ads too.
> 
> Thanks.


So, would you agree with Mcfury then and provide the CBC with 50% of the current budget to pursue the "public" portion of the mandate?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

jimbotelecom said:


> I hate ads too.
> 
> Thanks.


So bottom line is Jimbo wants us to keep paying the bills for his favourite TV shows, radio and website that we never watch, listen to or visit. That's fair.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> So bottom line is Jimbo wants us to keep paying the bills for his favourite TV shows, radio and website that we never watch, listen to or visit. That's fair.


Except that I and several million other Canadian's support a publicly funded CBC.

You don't. I understand.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> LOL are you running out of ideas too? Should I start the same bulls**t with the previous Liberals or provincial NDP governments? I rather not start stooping that low, Groove.


Sure, I voted them out as well. If a government shows the sort of contempt and disregard for our tax dollars, I pull my support. Unlike some here who have double standards.

I will reiterate that I fully support opening CBC's books, and cutting their funding as part of cost savings. Though it's hard to take seriously the concern and outrage when our government is guilty of the same things and we've seen how much they like squandering our tax dollars.

Which seems to be a point missed by our ardent Harper supporters.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Sure, I voted them out as well. If a government shows the sort of contempt and disregard for our tax dollars, I pull my support. Unlike some here who have double standards.
> 
> I will reiterate that I fully support opening CBC's books, and cutting their funding as part of cost savings. Though it's hard to take seriously the concern and outrage when our government is guilty of the same things and we've seen how much they like squandering our tax dollars.
> 
> Which seems to be a point missed by our ardent Harper supporters.


Why don't you start another thread on Harper and what he is doing. It doesn't belong here as has been pointed out numerous times for you now. This is about the CBC and their position in the TV marketplace.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Why don't you start another thread on Harper and what he is doing. It doesn't belong here as has been pointed out numerous times for you now. This is about the CBC and their position in the TV marketplace.


it upsets you that much? I wouldn't have thought so.

Why don't YOU start a thread about it? Since you're soooo concerned about the unwillingness of a government organization to be open about costs and expenditures, surely you would be equally as outraged about the government's unwillingness hmmm? I guess not...

Since this thread is about a government funded organization and their unwillingness to come clean about their finances, it relates to the very government who is guilty of the same, thing.

It's very telling that you would declare it off limits. Of course you would.

Zero. Credibility on this issue.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Best you got eh? Figures.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I guess SINC is easy to pick on considering he's a self confessed CBC hater, but I don't think he blindly supports everything the Harper government does. You'd be surprised how many self proclaimed Conservatives do not like Harper. 

I rewarded the CPC for scrapping the long gun registry, that does not mean they have my carte blanche.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Right you are, almost kps. I simply dislike the CBC and all it stands for as far as its TV arm goes. Hate is not the proper description. And yes, there are many Conservative positions I do not support, the copyright bill among them. As for Alberta Conservatives, they've lost my vote and confidence. I will support the Wildrose candidate in my riding.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> Why don't you start another thread on Harper and what he is doing. It doesn't belong here as has been pointed out numerous times for you now. This is about the CBC and their position in the TV marketplace.


Dabnamit Jebbadiah it's a time to pull up stakes!

I love the TV show that CBC does too Sinc - The Marketplace - it's won a few journalistic awards - glad you like it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Dabnamit Jebbadiah it's a time to pull up stakes!
> 
> I love the TV show that CBC does too Sinc - The Marketplace - it's won a few journalistic awards - glad you like it.


Surely you are not so ill read that you thought I meant the CBC's Marketplace sh, oh wait.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> I guess SINC is easy to pick on considering he's a self confessed CBC hater, but I don't think he blindly supports everything the Harper government does. You'd be surprised how many self proclaimed Conservatives do not like Harper.
> 
> I rewarded the CPC for scrapping the long gun registry, that does not mean they have my carte blanche.


Then why not a peep for the very same misdeeds he's upset the CBC for?

You can defend him all you like, but I don't see any posts on their misdeeds. 

Now, I'm truly not trying to be personal or offensive Sinc, but I'm taking your words at face value. I just don't see the consistency in your position in regards to openness and accountability in regards to spending our tax money.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Yep what's good enough for the goose isn't good enough for the gander, eh!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> Surely you are not so ill read that you thought I meant the CBC's Marketplace sh, oh wait.


Yep that's the one. Look at this for example. 

Superbugs in the Supermarket - Marketplace

Chicken tonight?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Then why not a peep for the very same misdeeds he's upset the CBC for?
> 
> You can defend him all you like, but I don't see any posts on their misdeeds.
> 
> Now, I'm truly not trying to be personal or offensive Sinc, but I'm taking your words at face value. I just don't see the consistency in your position in regards to openness and accountability in regards to spending our tax money.


What misdeeds exactly? All I'ver seen so far is a bunch of accusations and it's not like they've had years in power like the "Naturally Ruling Party" did to f**k us over. That may come, give it more time, then go ballistic and I'll be there right along with you.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> What misdeeds exactly? All I'ver seen so far is a bunch of accusations and it's not like they've had years in power like the "Naturally Ruling Party" did to f**k us over. That may come, give it more time, then go ballistic and I'll be there right along with you.


Ah one less vote in the making. There is sanity.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yep that's the one. Look at this for example.
> 
> Superbugs in the Supermarket - Marketplace
> 
> Chicken tonight?


I'll eat anything as long as it tastes like chicken....


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> I'll eat anything as long as it tastes like chicken....


I picked up a packet of hallal chicken thighs and plan to grill them with sweet thai chili sauce.

If it's hallal it's got to be good.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> What misdeeds exactly? All I'ver seen so far is a bunch of accusations and it's not like they've had years in power like the "Naturally Ruling Party" did to f**k us over. That may come, give it more time, then go ballistic and I'll be there right along with you.


C'mon now kps, they've been in power for some time now. You don't think watching clement squirm and lie about the 50 million squandered, constant blocking of answering question about costs by the government, come on now. The list is growing already.

You know I'm not suggesting they're worse than the liberals in this regard. It has been my position for some time no party should be granted total unchecked control for 4 years to steamroller whatever they want without consequences. Every 4 years at the ballot box doesn't seem to be serving us well regardless of which party gets in. 

It seems the US is finding this out now too.

I'm glad you will 'there' too. But my question is, what's the alternative, the other liars?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> I picked up a packet of hallal chicken thighs and plan to grill them with sweet thai chili sauce.
> 
> If it's hallal it's got to be good.


Praise Allah for the chicken, but the Thai sauce just made you an infidel. You shall pay for that later or in the morning. XX)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> I'll eat anything as long as it tastes like chicken....


over pints you just know I'd have a roar over that one.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Still smells like CBC haters to me. What about you Jeb?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> C'mon now kps, they've been in power for some time now. You don't think watching clement squirm and lie about the 50 million squandered, constant blocking of answering question about costs by the government, come on now. The list is growing already.
> 
> You know I'm not suggesting they're worse than the liberals in this regard. It has been my position for some time no party should be granted total unchecked control for 4 years to steamroller whatever they want without consequences. Every 4 years at the ballot box doesn't seem to be serving us well regardless of which party gets in.
> 
> ...


I think both of us are repeating the same thing over and over while somehow agreeing on the core aspect and values of all politicians. 

I guess I prefer the crooks I vote for to lean to the right, while others prefer the crooks they vote for to lean to the left. LOL


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> I think both of us are repeating the same thing over and over while somehow agreeing on the core aspect and values of all politicians.
> 
> I guess I prefer the crooks I vote for to lean to the right, while others prefer the crooks they vote for to lean to the left. LOL


well thanks for the honesty anyway. Cheers.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

This is getting touching.:-(


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> This is getting touching.:-(


Live and let live...all's quiet on the western front.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Things are good on the eastern front too. The sun is shining and I'm taking in a little CBC Radio. It looks like it will be a fine weekend.

Good night Uncle Joe.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC thank you for starting and sharing this thread.

It feels warm and cozy now.

Have a wonderful weekend.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Just to be clear...



> *Live and let live is the spontaneous rise of non-aggressive co-operative behaviour that developed during the First World War particularly during prolonged periods of Trench Warfare on the Western Front. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the Christmas Truce of 1914.*
> It is a process that can be characterised as the deliberate abstaining from the use of violence during war. Sometimes it can take the form of overt truces or pacts negotiated locally by soldiers. At other times it can be a tacit behaviour—sometimes characterised as "letting sleeping dogs lie"—whereby both sides refrain from firing or using their weapons, or deliberately discharge them in a ritualistic or routine way that signals their non-lethal intent.
> This behaviour was found at the small-unit level, sections, platoons or companies, usually observed by the "other ranks" e.g. privates and non-commissioned officers. Examples were found from the lone soldier standing sentry duty, refusing to fire on exposed enemy soldiers, up to snipers, machine-guns teams and even field-artillery batteries.
> Tony Ashworth in his book Trench Warfare 1914–1918: The Live and Let Live System researched this topic based upon diaries, letters, and testimonies of veterans from the war. He discovered that 'live and let live' was widely known about, at the time, and was common usually at specific times and places. It was often to be found when a unit had been withdrawn from battle and was sent to a rest sector.
> ...


Emphasis mine.

Live and let live (World War I)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Backbench MP suckers CBC | Alberta | News


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

I'm really surprised at the language thats been aloud to pass here. I mean I never knew I could just scramble a few letters and it would be alright to swear to make my point around here. I'm very disappointed to be honest.

Might as well stay somewhat on topic though. First I don't think it matters what political leaning the stations content has. As long as its not hurtful or sending hate messages. (I don't think it does.. well except Mr Cherry lol!) Second, I think that the station does need to be retooled. CBC should stick to the programming it does best. It should find a way to produce shows based on Canadian life past and present that is both informative and entertaining. Wether that be through satire or comedy like Royal Canadian Air Farce, or historical dramas like say.. Road to Avonlea or investigative and news programming. A lot of their shows do suck though.. so this is a tricky thing to do.. 

Perhaps some form of phased privatization could achieve this best. You know "you have 5 years to get your act together with ever decreasing government funding to become a successful private company provide you produce and show unique and engaging canadian content over just buying American content like everyone else" CTV, Global, etc... cough cough!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think to some degree, a little bit of being an adult and "time and place" can make a difference.

as far as producing Canadian content, regardless of it leanings, being able to do that, and privatizing, is a total pipe dream. When you're competing against american shows, good luck with -that-.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I think to some degree, a little bit of being an adult and "time and place" can make a difference.
> 
> as far as producing Canadian content, regardless of it leanings, being able to do that, and privatizing, is a total pipe dream. When you're competing against american shows, good luck with -that-.


Outside of sports, news broadcasts and a few documentaries Canadian Content is almost non-existent outside of the CBC. Even the CFL has been relegated to none OTA channels. 

Not sure if this is good or bad as some of CBCs Canadian Offerings in the entertainment area have been pathetic but others have been outstanding. I do wonder if programs like Air Farce or 22 Minutes would have ever survived corporate censorship in the real world of Broadcasting.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thankfully, TV viewing is one of the most democratic institutions around. Viewers vote by turning on the television. If Canadians vote for U.S. programs, so be it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Outside of sports, news broadcasts and a few documentaries Canadian Content is almost non-existent outside of the CBC. Even the CFL has been relegated to none OTA channels.
> 
> Not sure if this is good or bad as some of CBCs Canadian Offerings in the entertainment area have been pathetic but others have been outstanding. I do wonder if programs like Air Farce or 22 Minutes would have ever survived corporate censorship in the real world of Broadcasting.




It seems the macfurys are all for killing off any canadian content whatsoever, they don't quite fathom the difficulty of Canadians trying to compete against such a massive market. So in that case, perhaps all barriers to the canadian market should be removed altogether, allow complete unfettered access to our canadian companies, markets etc. allow all huge US companies to buy up anything canadian (because they can and will) and good luck to any smaller canadian companies trying to compete in the face of this.

Wasn't there a certain conservative that grew up learning to sing on demand for a rich American for money?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> *Outside of sports, news broadcasts and a few documentaries Canadian Content is almost non-existent outside of the CBC*. Even the CFL has been relegated to none OTA channels.
> 
> Not sure if this is good or bad as some of CBCs Canadian Offerings in the entertainment area have been pathetic but others have been outstanding. I do wonder if programs like Air Farce or 22 Minutes would have ever survived corporate censorship in the real world of Broadcasting.


Not even close to being true... CTV has had a number of successful Canadian made shows... Corner Gas, Robson Arms and Flashpoint being a few standouts. And especially when you go to cable there are tons of Canadian made programs on the specialty channels... even HBO has Canadian made programs, Call Me Fitz and Good Dog being two really good ones... you need to look around a little more eMacMan.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, Oasis, HIFI, RadX and Equator HD are also full of Canadian content, much of it far better than anything the CBC has done in years.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

A lot of the renovation shows on HGTV in the US actually started as Canadian shows on HGTV Canada, and then spread.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> A lot of the renovation shows on HGTV in the US actually started as Canadian shows on HGTV Canada, and then spread.


Exactly. Holmes on Homes, Sarah's House, Design Inc. being some of the biggies and there are plenty of others to not mention the Food Network... Chef Abroad , Chef at Home, The Thirsty Traveller, French Food at Home, Glutton for Punishment, Restaurant Makeover, Fresh with Anna Olson, etc.etc. etc.. 

And then there is the CTV Travel Network, the Comedy Channel and many others... The Red Green Show, Puppets Who Kill, Trailer Park Boys etc. etc...

The CBC produces some of the *least* Canadian content actually, especially when compared to the cable networks.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Odd that one now has to turn away from the publicly funded CBC to see the best in Canadian content, isn't it? One more reason to privatize the failing network.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I say go for it.

I'll smile (once again) as Harper takes it on the chin over it.

I'm wondering what'll happen to the right wing media funding. You know, starting with the half billion to SunTV parent. 

Gotta control the message you know, so dupe your citizens that you're cutting things in the name of saving money (while spending your face off on other toys).

Once again, while I certainly support cuts to the CBC, I see not one pixel spent on the obscene gobs of tax money being wasted elsewhere in any other thread.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

screature said:


> Not even close to being true... CTV has had a number of successful Canadian made shows... Corner Gas, Robson Arms and Flashpoint being a few standouts.


CTV also has Rookie Blue.

Too bad I couldn't claim Haven was a Canadian made show. It's American made, but filmed in Nova Scotia.

Republic of Doyle is a good CBC show. I'm not sure if it's still being produced or in reruns as I watch it on Bold.

Holmes has his new series Holmes Inspection. He inspects all the work, then gets his second in command to make all the fixes.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Kosh said:


> Republic of Doyle is a good CBC show. I'm not sure if it's still being produced or in reruns as I watch it on Bold.


Talking about the Republic of Doyle, the new season for it starts this Wednesday on CBC.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Kosh said:


> Talking about the Republic of Doyle, the new season for it starts this Wednesday on CBC.


Yes, and it should be a good start to Season #3, with Russell Crowe as a guest star.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Yes, and it should be a good start to Season #3, with Russell Crowe as a guest star.


Great show.

I wonder what the conundrum will be when harper's fav show the Murdoch mysteries is picked up by the CBC.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Great show.
> 
> I wonder what the conundrum will be when harper's fav show the Murdoch mysteries is picked up by the CBC.


Well, I have had various PMs from people across this great country of ours who say that St.John's looks like a fine city. I agree with them .......... so hopefully a continued cross-Canada viewership will help keep the show going. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I find it ironic (but not surprising) that this thread has morphed into a discussion of how much we like CBC programming.

I went decades without a TV because there was nothing worth watching on, and for the past few years our family has had no difficulty finding more than we have time to watch on line. But we bought a TV a couple of years ago to use as a monitor for a gaming console, and we've watched a few things OTA. We only get 2 channels (CBC and Global), and CBC is the only thing we watch (other than movies/streams). I'm looking forward to the Republic of Doyle premiere tomorrow night... despite being too soap-opera-like for my taste, our whole family finds it fairly entertaining. And yes, St. Johns looks like quite the place to visit.

Between the great programming on CBC TV, and the almost universally-loved CBC radio, I think all the Harper goons can do about the CBC is ignore it. Any significant attacks would be politically stupid.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Personally, CBC, either radio (1 and 2) or TV is the #1 station I go to for news here in Canada. In my opinion, it is a good use of my tax dollars.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I find it ironic (but not surprising) that this thread has morphed into a discussion of how much we like CBC programming.


Really? All I saw was a few people who liked Republic of Doyle. Most all of the other programs mentioned weren't on CBC television.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Really? All I saw was a few people who liked Republic of Doyle. Most all of the other programs mentioned weren't on CBC television.


Same here. Much of the talk has been about great shows produced by networks other than the CBC, seems some people just see what they want to see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Between the great programming on CBC TV, and the almost universally-loved CBC radio, I think all the Harper goons can do about the CBC is ignore it. Any significant attacks would be politically stupid.


It's not hard to find contradictory opinion on that bryanc: 



> For the fiscal year 2006, the CBC received a total of $1.53 billion from all revenue sources,* including government funding via taxpayers,* subscription fees, advertising revenue, and other revenue (e.g. real estate). Expenditures for the year included $616 million for English television, $402 million for French television, $126 million for specialty channels, a total of $348 million for radio services in both languages, $88 million for management and technical costs, and $124 million for "amortization of property and equipment." Some of this spending was derived from amortization of funding from previous years.
> 
> Among its revenue sources for the year ending March 31, 2006, *the CBC received $946 million in its annual funding from the federal government, as well as $60 million in "one-time" supplementary funding for programming.* However, this supplementary funding has been repeated annually for a number of years. *This combined total is just over a billion dollars annually and is a source of heated debate.* *To supplement this funding, the CBC’s television networks and websites sell advertising, while cable/satellite-only services such as CBC News Network additionally collect subscriber fees,* in line with their privately owned counterparts. CBC’s radio services do not sell advertising except when required by law (for example, to political parties during federal elections).
> 
> CBC’s funding differs from that of the public broadcasters of many European nations, which collect a licence fee, or those in the United States, such as PBS and NPR, which receive some public funding but rely to a large extent on voluntary contributions from individual viewers and listeners. *An Abacus poll from August 2011 showed that approximately one out of two Canadians would like to see the CBC's funding switched to the PBS/NPR model, one out of three Canadians want Parliament to sell off or privatize the CBC, and only one out of four Canadians want the CBC's annual subsidy to be increased.*


Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Just found it funny that these two thread titles that are completely unrelated showed up one on top of the other.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think it's a bit of a chuckle that some are having quite the revelation that other networks create good tv shows too!

Who'd a thunk it.


----------

