# CBC funding



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Looming cuts would shake CBC to its core
> 
> 
> 
> ...


more

TheStar.com | Canada | Looming cuts would shake CBC to its core

PBS supplements it's national funding with both private funding support from large NGOs and campaign drives.
Personally I'd rather see that path than more annoying ads. ( queue normally lap puppy yapping about CBC )  )

I don't have a problem with CBC raising funds from a variety of foundations and drives ala WNED - sure you get a couple of weeks of interruptions on usually one top notch program as their "pull" but then superb programming advertising free the rest of the year.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

It's funny, all they're asking for is bridge financing, no new money. It will be interesting to see who takes what side. These days it's anyone's guess with our man Harper constantly switching stripes to save his faltering political career. 

I think a PBS style solution is a good one. Both sides will be as happy as their ideologies will let them be. Less reliance on Government money will satisfy that camp and less reliance on adversarial Governments pandering to those types will satisfy the other.



MacDoc said:


> ( queue normally lap puppy yapping about CBC )  )


I can almost quote them word for word. Nothing new to see here .


----------



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

This is one area where I do not mind my tax dollars being utilized. I would hate to see the CBC have to resort to even more US programing. We shall see.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed, mrjimmy. But if they start running more ads and programming a lot more American content, what separates it from the other (ostensibly) Canadian channel? In which case, then I'd say pull the plug on CBC TV altogether. Keep the radio stuff as is.

Anyhoo, I think that would be _cue normal lap puppy yapping about the CBC_. 
Makes a lot more sense.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Funny how the CBC will use any excuse to start the panhandling. They want the money that they are going to get anyways - they just want it "earlier". And anything they don't get the money of their dreams, it's all about how the Government is "attacking the arts" and that "broadcasting will change forever".

The whole bunch of wet diaper cry-babies should be turfed - which is probably why they are looking to get their grubby paws on cash early, before they get chopped. The same thing has happened before, and nothing has ever been resolved - it is still a grossly inefficient corporation where the fat cats at the top play endless games of politics while eating their steak dinners, while their labour is treated like human garbage, except with less respect that we give garbage.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> This is one area where I do not mind my tax dollars being utilized. I would hate to see the CBC have to resort to even more US programing. We shall see.


I fully agree Dr.G. I'm concerned though because the Harper Government is no friend of the CBC. Not allowing them bridge financing allows them to begin dismantling the CBC while letting the economy be the culprit.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm with Max on this one. Let the coverage spin of CBC-TV die and save the radio side. It's time for Mansbridge and crew to vamoose.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I want to see its core!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, I suspect where you and I differ is that I'd be quite happy to see CBC TV properly, fully funded. But if that funding amounts to a strategy whereby the network is effectively gutted for political reasons, I would rather it be killed outright then allowed to live as some kind of twisted half-measure meant to lull both sides of the chasm.

In any case, lots of cuts to government services are likely coming down the pike. One can't reasonably expect that the CBC would somehow survive the flurry of knives. My only question now is what will remain once the bloodletting's been done.

The New Frugality is descending on us in a hurry.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I want to know when the same cuts are coming to MPs Senate, hangers on and the 13% larger government ( not including programs) that a supposedly small c Harper has concocted.

Let's see some of the gov perqs trimmed.

Harping lap puppies, aside nations have public broadcasting for many reasons education, unity, culture expression and many have long tails earning income world wide.

I'm amazed how many good pieces I see that are Canadian public funded works popping up on movie and education channels from elsewhere.
Are CBC and Canadian Film Board/Telefilm tightly associated??? Maybe there is some overlap to be addressed.

Carping about CBC and turning a blind eye to the fiasco in Afghanistan 20 billion and a hundred young lives later just boggles my mind as to senseless choices.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

While every other broadcaster (tv & radio) is laying off, the CBC has job postings while not having sufficient funds.

Ad revenue for all broadcasters is down...way down, yet Lacroix is threatening more ads.

They want the financing to operate as usual in an economic downturn instead of looking at cost cutting and saving. 

My company cut the salaries from chairman down to the director level by 20% while not laying off one single worker of the 5000 Canadian employees we have. We cut all discretionary spending and watch overtime. Job attrition and a hiring freeze are in effect.

I don't see Lacroix offering to take a salary and bonus cut. What is it with bonuses at a Crown Corporation anyway?

CBC/Radio-Canada - cbc.radio-canada.ca


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The CBC knows no other way than to continue to suckle at the taxpayer's teat. Recession be damned, *we're the CBC!*


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I don't have a problem with Canada having a public broadcaster, but the CBC doesn't know whether it wants to be a public broadcaster or a commercial broadcaster. It can't be both.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Kps, you have the right idea. Trim those executive and middle-management salaries. Put your money where your mouth is. Pretty simple concept, really.

Ad revenue is indeed down across the board. More ads will not necessarily bring in a lot more dough. Ad-heavy networks are networks I avoid. It's like having access to the BBC channel when we had cable... the sheer tonnage of commercials made all too easy for me to fairly swiftly ditch the channel - even though I thoroughly enjoy much of the programming.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

kps said:


> While every other broadcaster (tv & radio) is laying off, the CBC has job postings while not having sufficient funds.
> [/url]


Hiring? Where? I know folks who'd be warming up their resumes right now.

CBC is spread all over the country though so could just be they actually need people in remote places that folks might not want to go to.

Kevin


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The CBC doesn't really need a television network any longer. The original reason for it was because there was a mandate to get Canadian television to all of the citizens of Canada. Well, your mandate has been completed! Let the CBC buy a nice web site with streaming video and anyone who is really interested can download Little Mosque on the Prairie or whatever splinter programming the CBC is offering these days. When the CBC begins to get into bidding wars over certain sports properties, it's clear that there are other networks willing to serve the viewer with that type of programming. CBC doesn't even know if it wants to be populist or elitist half the time.

The CBC will have to rn more US programming? Why. We already get those shows. Why not reduce the number of hours it broadcasts instead?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I strongly suspect all networks will be suffering from falling ad revenues. For selfish reasons I would hate to see CBC Radio go as the only other station we get consistently is of the 5h!t kickin' genre.

OTH I already miss Air Farce. Twenty Two Minutes has certainly gone downhill, but we do still have Rick Mercer. I think Canada's politicos do need the occasional boot up the butt that the commercial outlets are afraid to supply.beejacon Perhaps the solution is for CBC TV to limit itself to evening broadcasts only.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Niteshooter said:


> Hiring? Where? I know folks who'd be warming up their resumes right now.
> 
> CBC is spread all over the country though so could just be they actually need people in remote places that folks might not want to go to.
> 
> Kevin


Kev, check the link I posted.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Cutbacks and layoffs at the CBC?

Hmm this isn't exactly a breaking news story folks, this has been going on for years. I have friends who have been victims of this going back into the late 80's.

Granted I'd also be the last person to defend management (or lack thereof) at the CBC.

Still it is a Canadian institution, I grew up listening to Cross Country Checkup every sunday night at dinner time. In certain parts of the country there are programs that are institutions, eg the Fisheries Broadcast in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think down here in central Canada we forget that not everyone has access to several hundred channels of mind numbing dreck.....though satellites are doing their part to 'fix' that.

Kevin


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

kps said:


> Kev, check the link I posted.


Hmm ok dug down and found them. Doesn't seem like anything sinister there, it is a huge corporation spread all over hecks half acre. I would guess these positions are also internally posted as well so it's possible that they might not get as far as the general public.

The temp postings might be for summer interns. The Star has (and pretty sure will have them this year) intern positions every summer for students to gain experience in the company. Although I would say our hiring process is either finished or just about by now. Ahhh just found the link to that one on the CBC website, so the temp positions could be for things like maternity leaves.

Guess the other thing about job postings at least in our company, management has to make these postings because of the union but 90% of the time there is a preferred candidate so the whole process is just for show as someone has already got the inside track. 

Kevin


----------



## Ravindra Mohabeer (Oct 14, 2003)

Wouldn't a better solution be to set up a side foundation to raise the money so that it doesn't impact the networks directly? One reason I listen to CBC Radio is the lack of commercials. CBC TV would be great commercial free, kind of like TVO or the Knowledge Network - PBS like but without the 15 minutes of 'supported by pseudo ads.'

There are mismanagement issues at the CBC but these likely stem from decades of being told that we want you, we need you, we don't think we should pay for you. You can't have it both ways. I don't think that economic sense is the only thing at play here either. Sure the CBC isn't immune to the economic downturn, but yesterday the Harper government was shown to be asking for $3billion dollars in 'money to be designated later as needed' - i.e. not earmarked for anything specific. 

I think the real problem there is that even if people know that the billion word is a big number, the 3 makes it seem much smaller. They are asking for 3 thousand million dollars in 'just in case' 'beer money.' A third of that is more than the entire CBC operating budget - something with a tangible outcome and something that 85% + of Canadians have already identified as being a priority.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When the CBC started out it began its service at 6:30 and cut it at 11:30. I'd suggest they do the same now and concentrate only on about four to five hours of programming per night and perhaps an hour or two of children;s programming in the morning. Broadcast television will soon be dead with the advent of digital programming--all they need is a tiny slice of digital heaven to call their own and give up this insistence on running a full broadcasting system.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I want to see its core!


It will be one hard Core indeed - entirely rife with decades of nepotism, incest and degeneration. I don't know if we have the technology to view such a thing directly - it's more of a remote sensing project, like the New Horizons spacecraft, but ruggedized.

Yes, life at the CBC. Can't say that they are very smart. They fired my cousin because of "funding cutbacks", but because it is the CBC and entirely pathetic, they fired her by e-mail. And because the CBC is entirely about being the cutting edge in pathetic management practices - they couldn't even bother to e-mail her directly, they CC:'d it to everyone that was getting the axe and addressed to "whom it may concern". It was only because my cousin decided to check her Junk Mail box that she found the "notice", which was tossed with all of the other Spam. Of course, she was recruited like two weeks later, and went to work for the BBC, with more pay, a way better job, more vacations - but with the downside of crazy trips to check out the wintertime festivities in Siberia...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Niteshooter said:


> Hmm ok dug down and found them. Doesn't seem like anything sinister there,
> <SNIP>
> Guess the other thing about job postings at least in our company, management has to make these postings because of the union but 90% of the time there is a preferred candidate so the whole process is just for show as someone has already got the inside track.
> 
> Kevin


I don't think there's anything sinister about the postings either, but what's truly sinister is what you describe in your last paragraph...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> Kps, you have the right idea. Trim those executive and middle-management salaries. Put your money where your mouth is. Pretty simple concept, really.
> .


That's right...lead by example or shut the @#%& up!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I don't mind if CBC TV goes under. It isn't right that taxpayer money is spent to support Liberal / NDP mouthpiece.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I don't mind if CBC TV goes under. It isn't right that taxpayer money is spent to support Liberal / NDP mouthpiece.


Not to mention they're competing against the nations private sector broadcasters for advertising and viewership while enjoying tax payer funding. Not to mention given a choice the majority of CDNs could care less if it existed and rarely watch it if not for Hockey. I'd love to see it fold.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Spreading unsupported crap again.....??? nothing new there....
Even in your fav rag......



> Friends commissioned the poll in response to a pre-election fundraising letter signed by Conservative campaign director Doug Finley.
> 
> As part of his appeal for money, Mr. Finley asked for responses to several questions, including: "The CBC costs taxpayers over $1.1-billion per year. Do you think this is a good use of taxpayers' dollars or a bad use of taxpayers' dollars?"
> 
> ...


Most voters support public funding for CBC, poll finds - Posted


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

What you left out... "_A new poll released by the watchdog group Friends *of Canadian Broadcasting*_"... how "scientific" was this poll I wonder...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That poll is just so much horsepucky. There is no way 76% of Canadians support the CBC. Try asking the people around you. You'll find it quite likely to be just the opposite. They can close it down anytime and it wouldn't be missed as long as they kept the hockey. Oh wait, they let that get away from them too. TSN and CTV now sound like the CBC.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I ask the people around me and it's greater than 76%. They ask the people around them and it's the same. Horsepucky you say...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> What you left out... "_A new poll released by the watchdog group Friends *of Canadian Broadcasting*_"... how "scientific" was this poll I wonder...


How scientific is any poll. Oh wait, is it scientific if it agrees with your views?

: : : Nanos Research : : : insight you can trust.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> How scientific is any poll. Oh wait, is it scientific if it agrees with your views?
> 
> : : : Nanos Research : : : insight you can trust.


I know all too well who Nick Nanos is I have spoken with him personally. I don't question Nanos per say I question the commissioning of the poll by a clearly vested interest and the questions that were asked. FCB commissioned the poll and chose the questions Nanos merely conducted the poll they didn't draft it. A poll will yield very different results depending on what questions are asked and how they are asked.

So lay off your partisan line for once.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> So lay off your partisan line for once.


:lmao:

In the words of 15 year old girls everywhere,

whatever...

Regardless of the framework or the specific questioning, if you don't like the CBC, you don't like it. Or are we the people that easily duped? I'm sure your friend Nick wouldn't conduct a poll so obviously skewed as to flummox the poor helpless poll-ees.

Lay off your arrogance once in a while.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

screature said:


> I know all too well who Nick Nanos is I have spoken with him personally. I don't question Nanos per say* I question the commissioning of the poll by a clearly vested interest* and the questions that were asked. FCB commissioned the poll and chose the questions Nanos merely conducted the poll they didn't draft it. A poll will yield very different results depending on what questions are asked and how they are asked.
> 
> So lay off your partisan line for once.


Careful screature!

While this poll may be clearly flawed (especially if a vested interest commissioned it AND selected the questions) if we don't permit polls to be commissioned by "vested interests" we'll very shortly see people like Mr. Nanos circling the hill dressed in tatters clutching little cardboard signs that read "will survey for food".

That won't happen though - too much of the system is based on doing what is popular vs. what is correct or sustainable. The pollsters will never go hungry.

That would apply to all policies - cultural, environmental or geopolitical.

Oh well, another double cheeseburger with fries for dinner tonight! Easy and convenient win again (not to mention tasty!) So much for my arteries... yum!!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Settle down, gang. 

Whether you like the CBC or not, the fact remains that the CBC is a large (read overstaffed) politicized bureaucracy, questionably managed and bordering on a ruthless monopoly when it comes to certain aspects of Canadian broadcasting.

I say it needs an enema!

...after that, give it the proper mandate of being a public broadcaster instead of this hybrid incarnation of a publicly funded commercial broadcaster without accountability.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Settle down, gang.
> 
> Whether you like the CBC or not, the fact remains that the CBC is a large (read overstaffed) politicized bureaucracy, questionably managed and bordering on a ruthless monopoly when it comes to certain aspects of Canadian broadcasting.
> 
> ...


Good plan indeed. Cut off all taxpayer funding and let it raise its own funding a la PBS.

Then see how long it can last with its present structure. Not very long at all, but it would show the Friends of CBC just how much Canadians really support their beloved, bloated, biased service.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Good plan indeed. Cut off all taxpayer funding and let it raise its own funding a la PBS.
> 
> Then see how long it can last with its present structure. Not very long at all, but it would show the Friends of CBC just how much Canadians really support their beloved, bloated, biased service.


SINC, you should start your own group. Call it Enemies Of Canadian Broadcasting. After which conduct a poll that concludes no Canadian supports the CBC and work to have it's funding cut. Until then, .


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> SINC, you should start your own group. Call it Enemies Of Canadian Broadcasting. After which conduct a poll that concludes no Canadian supports the CBC and work to have it's funding cut. Until then, .


I see. When the truth is observed and no reasonable response is available, divert man, divert.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> the truth


Oh you make me laugh!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> SINC, you should start your own group. Call it Enemies Of Canadian Broadcasting. After which conduct a poll that concludes no Canadian supports the CBC and work to have it's funding cut.


YOU DO know the poll was commissioned in response to a Con campaign against the CBC..... ...a little context.

It's not like it's any secret Harper and his lap puppies would like to dump the CBC.

It's hardly bloated given the history of cuts....

You can review them here in full

All CBC / Public Broadcasting Articles — 2009


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Hmmm, a public broadcaster needs public funding, but not for management bonuses and certainly not for "Wheel of Fortune".

Let them keep their billion, but provide a public service instead of competing with private broadcasters or blocking private broadcasters from entering some of their domains.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> YOU DO know the poll was commissioned in response to a Con campaign against the CBC..... ...a little context.
> 
> It's not like it's any secret Harper and his lap puppies would like to dump the CBC.
> 
> ...


Don't you worry Doc, it'll be business as usual at the CBC, the cons are in no position to even look at the CBC with an inquisitive eye, never mind cut funding.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> YOU DO know the poll was commissioned in response to a Con campaign against the CBC..... ...a little context.
> 
> It's not like it's any secret Harper and his lap puppies would like to dump the CBC.
> 
> ...


Are you responding to SINC here MD?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> Don't you worry Doc, it'll be business as usual at the CBC, the cons are in no position to even look at the CBC with an inquisitive eye, never mind cut funding.


They can however deny them bridge financing which which could force them to sell off assets, slash programming and close down remote facilities.

I agree that the CBC has become a bloated bureaucracy that needs fixin'. I also agree that they should pare back their commercial interests and concentrate on their public broadcasting mandate. My beef is with those who claim the majority of us don't want or appreciate the CBC. Put your stats where your mouth is. I work and travel across this great land of ours frequently and see and hear quite a different story. 

Ultimately, all we have in this thread is an allegedly biased poll that shows 76% support our public broadcaster. Everything else is anecdotal.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> :lmao:
> 
> In the words of 15 year old girls everywhere,
> 
> ...


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Priceless example of the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I should think that if the CBC appealed to the public for out-of-pocket support, it would be reduced to two guys and a girl, talking in turn through passing car radios using an old Mr. Microphone rig.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Priceless example of the pot calling the kettle black.


So we're even. You go back to your arrogance and I'll go back to my partisan ways. Please don't feel the need to correct me in the future.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> So we're even. You go back to your arrogance and I'll go back to my partisan ways. Please don't feel the need to correct me in the future.


I will say whatever I damn well please, as clearly you do as well. beejacon


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

There was a poll conducted at CNEWS asking what readers wanted to do about the CBCs financial crisis. These were the results:










Now I have no idea what the political slant is of CanoeNews readers but those numbers would pretty much reflect my experience with people I know.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> They can however deny them bridge financing which which could force them to sell off assets, slash programming and close down remote facilities.
> 
> I agree that the CBC has become a bloated bureaucracy that needs fixin'. I also agree that they should pare back their commercial interests and concentrate on their public broadcasting mandate. My beef is with those who claim the majority of us don't want or appreciate the CBC. Put your stats where your mouth is. I work and travel across this great land of ours frequently and see and hear quite a different story.
> 
> Ultimately, all we have in this thread is an allegedly biased poll that shows 76% support our public broadcaster. Everything else is anecdotal.


I really don't think the cons have the stomach to deny the CBC the additional funding. Consider the recent arts funding backlash. 

As a Crown Corporation, the CBC can not go to a private lender, so the government will likely give them what they want.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I should think that if the CBC appealed to the public for out-of-pocket support, it would be reduced to two guys and a girl, talking in turn through passing car radios using an old Mr. Microphone rig.


Now, that's funny! :lmao:

...and probably closer to the truth than most of us would like to admit.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

More telling than any poll, what are Canadians actually watching? CBC is barely on the radar for TV audience stats.

*Top Programs – Total Canada (English*)
Based on preliminary program schedules and audience data, Demographic: All Persons 2+
Rank Program Broadcast
Outlet Weekday Start End Total 2+
AMA(000)

1 ACADEMY AWARDS CTV
2 ACADEMY PRE-SHOW CTV
3 HOUSE Global
4 GREY'S ANATOMY CTV
5 AMERICAN IDOL 8 AP CTV
6 AMERICAN IDOL 8 AR CTV
7 C.S.I. CTV
8 CRIMINAL MINDS CTV
9 C.S.I. NEW YORK CTV
10 SURVIVOR:TOCANTINS Global
*11 H.N.I.C. GAME #1 CBC*
12 ER CTV
13 LAW AND ORDER:SVU CTV
14 NCIS Global
15 AMAZING RACE 14 CTV
16 CTV EVENING NEWS CTV
17 C.S.I. MIAMI CTV
18 24 Global
19 TWO AND A HALF MEN CTV
20 BONES Global
21 CTV NATIONAL NEWS CTV
22 W-FIVE CTV
23 THE BACHELOR City TV 
24 FLASHPOINT CTV
25 YOUNG & THE RESTLESS Global
*26 NATIONAL NEWS CBC*
27 GLOBAL NATIONAL Global
27 GHOST WHISPERER CTV
*29 JEOPARDY CBC*
30 LAW AND ORDER CTV

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> More telling than any poll, what are Canadians actually watching? CBC is barely on the radar for TV audience stats.
> 
> *Top Programs – Total Canada (English*)
> Based on preliminary program schedules and audience data, Demographic: All Persons 2+
> ...


I am surprised that American Idol or The Batchelor even made the list.tptptptp Only possible explanation is that most Americans fail to turn off the box when absolutely nothing interests them.beejacon


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> I am surprised that American Idol or The Batchelor even made the list.tptptptp Only possible explanation is that most Americans fail to turn off the box when absolutely nothing interests them.beejacon


:lmao: :lmao: You under estimate the appeal of these programs. (Also remember these are Canadian viewers  ) I personally don't watch the Bachelor programs and their ilk  (there are however a lot of voyeurs out there), but I have watched the Idol franchise (American and Canadian) since their inception. 

If you don't watch it is probably because you haven't watched it or started watching late in the process, i.e. missing the early auditions. (You may of course simply not like that sort of thing.) The early audition programs are without doubt the best and most interesting. Once you have watched those you get hooked because it is like watching sports, you get your favorites and you become interested in how they will do. Not to mention some of the talent is actually quite good. 

Yes there are elements that I could do without, the "antics" of the judges would be the first thing to go if I had a say. Talent competitions have been around and popular for a very long time, Idol is just a talent competition (of course specifically singing talent) on steroids. You learn to ignore the elements that you don't like and find unappealing and pay attention to the real talent and become interested in how they will do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> More telling than any poll, what are Canadians actually watching? CBC is barely on the radar for TV audience stats.


So essentially, when you remove JEOPARDY from the list, the only Canadian produced CBC series to make the top 25 is the news. 

So if you reduced the CBC to producing only THE NATIONAL, it would still achieve exactly the same ratings and audience penetration. By all means, let's see what happens if the CBC concentrates on THE NATIONAL alone--and dumps everything else. 

When the CBC is competing with private broadcasters to show NHL hockey or American programs like JEOPARDY, you know it's outlived its mandate. It can't even decide if it wants to be popular, prosperous, or elitist any more.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The viewing audience polls of watched programming speak more loudly than any bent poll by the Friends of CBC. Bottom line is most people don't watch CBC programming other than the news and hockey. Like I said, remove all tax dollars and let 'em sink or swim fundraising on their own. Be a public broadcaster or not, but stop imitating one with my tax dollars.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: It sort of reminds me of Guy Caballero from SCTV rubbing his hands with glee over the idea that SCTV might become a privately-owned broadcaster..."but fully publicly funded...hee, hee, heee...yesssssss, I like that idea!"


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> I am surprised that American Idol or The Batchelor even made the list.tptptptp Only possible explanation is that most Americans fail to turn off the box when absolutely nothing interests them.beejacon


Only because American Idol and The Batchelor weren't on when they did the Nielson sweeps. I think Mamma's Boys could have entirely shoved all but Futility Night In Canada (if it is the Leafs game) off of the list completely.

At one time, the CBC could get ratings because they were the only game in town. When my dad was growing up, they had a choice between CBC Charlottetown and CBC Halifax. These days, there are a lot more choices, well, until the American's discontinue broadcast TV in a few months.

I used to watch a fair amount of CBC, especially their newscasts, but the good journalists like Knowlton Nash and Barbara Frum are long gone - replaced with swarmy Peter Mansbridge and their band of Fiberal leaning zealots, barely counterbalanced by the wet diaper attempt as something branded as "right wing" by Rex Murphy.

Their product is no longer up to grade. And I think the problem stems from a perverted korporate kultur where the workers get the shaft while the big wigs raid the piles of cash. The word is out, and they can no longer attract decent talent - the talented would rather have some cool gig somewhere else than to be ground down by the CBC. Plus, if one does not speak French, then forget it, you just aren't getting in with all of the Jim Crow Apartheid they expouse.

Time for the Government to let this White Elephant pass into extinction, since the CBC hasn't has anything good since The Friendly Giant left the building...


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> At one time, the CBC could get ratings because they were the only game in town. When my dad was growing up, they had a choice between CBC Charlottetown and CBC Halifax. These days, there are a lot more choices, well, until the American's discontinue broadcast TV in a few months.


Actually was wondering about the polls, if they polled say southern Ontario then sure they would get a particular skew to the results since more people would be on cable or have better access to the US market. Now if they polled say Yellowknife where CBC might be the only game in town that would be a lot different unless someone had a dish or cable.

From what I've been seeing here so far is the folks who would kill the CBC are from the more populated regions of the country, I'd be real curious what folks would say from parts of the country where the CBC either radio or TV was the only game in town.....

Btw what are you talking about "discontinuing broadcast TV"? If you mean the switch to digital it's already started though not moving as fast they want and has been pushed back to around June 12th.

And that btw does not mean a discontinuation of broadcast TV just that you will need either a TV capable of receiving a digital signal or a converter box that will let you see the signal on your old analog device.

Granted nobody really gave a lot of thought to the whole thing from the looks of things stateside or the number of people who would be affected.... Despite DTV Delay, Viewers May Still Lose Picture : NPR

If you are on cable TV there will be no difference.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

MacGuiver said:


> More telling than any poll, what are Canadians actually watching? CBC is barely on the radar for TV audience stats.


Hmm interesting of that entire list I only watch 2 programs on it. Missed the Oscars because I was sick though that would not have been on the top of my viewing list anyway.

Jeopardy and very occasionally Flashpoint. Typically am watching the Discovery channel unless at work where we are flipping between CNN, Global, CTV and CBC.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Niteshooter said:


> From what I've been seeing here so far is the folks who would kill the CBC are from the more populated regions of the country, I'd be real curious what folks would say from parts of the country where the CBC either radio or TV was the only game in town.....
> 
> Btw what are you talking about "discontinuing broadcast TV"?


I mean that it should just turn into a vast repeater network, It could broadcast its repeat digital signal anywhere in the country, through the remaining antennas, on cable and over the internet.

The CBCs version of its glorious history suggests that the CBC was a ratings king through the 1950s, but that was largely only true in markets like Winnipeg where no other U.S. signals existed. That type of situation scarcely exists any more.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> :lmao: :lmao: ....
> If you don't watch it is probably because you haven't watched it or started watching late in the process, i.e. missing the early auditions. ...


Actually I have, but quickly noticed that half an hour of programming was being stretched to 2 or even 3 hours, Funny as it may sound I can up with much better ways to waste my time. Also I'm not too fond of loud background music being used to cover-up rather mediocre singing which pretty much sums things up once they get past the rather painful a Capella stage. beejacon


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> I mean that it should just turn into a vast repeater network, It could broadcast its repeat digital signal anywhere in the country, through the remaining antennas, on cable and over the internet.
> 
> The CBCs version of its glorious history suggests that the CBC was a ratings king through the 1950s, but that was largely only true in markets like Winnipeg where no other U.S. signals existed. That type of situation scarcely exists any more.


Yeah except that the CBC's network has already been set up to do just what you mention above....CBC Radio Networks

But the problem with canned content is where is it being canned? Here in Southern Ontario? 

That would be really relevant to the folks in Calgary, Montreal or Vancouver let alone the east coast. If I lived in Vancouver do I really care about shootings on the TTC?

Maybe my problem is I don't watch a lot of the crap that is carried on the major US networks, hmmm come to think of it I don't watch any of it.......and I'm not even from the Peg.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Niteshooter said:


> But the problem with canned content is where is it being canned? Here in Southern Ontario?
> 
> That would be really relevant to the folks in Calgary, Montreal or Vancouver let alone the east coast. If I lived in Vancouver do I really care about shootings on the TTC?


Leave radio alone and cut out all CBC local coverage for TV--just have national.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Leave radio alone and cut out all CBC local coverage for TV--just have national.


You do realize that there already is such coverage, it's called CBCNewsWorld....

Anyhow I don't think that is a great idea, do we really want local news to be only covered by 1 maybe two outlets nationwide? Plus even less Canadian content? I kind of like the Mercer report.

*Plus the fact that you ignore my main point which is whether or not folks who live out of range of US stations will have access to any TV stations other than satellite.*

Global is probably going to go belly up sometime soon since Canwest is in the crapper financially. So that leaves CTV who gutted City when it took it over 2006. 

Plus CBC isn't just english language, you have the French language arm of the CBC which has some very good programming including kids programming.

I dunno maybe some of you folks like the mind numbing dreck that is being pumped up to us from the States on primetime broadcast television I don't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Niteshooter said:


> Anyhow I don't think that is a great idea, do we really want local news to be only covered by 1 maybe two outlets nationwide?


Yes. _I_ do at least. If you want the CBC outlet covering local news, let them sell advertising to cover their costs--and YOU buy the products advertised to keep them on the air. Sounds like a fair deal to me.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> So essentially, when you remove JEOPARDY from the list, the only Canadian produced CBC series to make the top 25 is the news.


Man, I can't believe you guys missed the Canadian show Flashpoint! Flashpoint's got to be the best current Canadian show on that list. And on top of it a Torontonian missed it! It's filmed in Toronto after all.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I lament the CBC's inability to compete on programming levels with the US, but I think Canada would do itself a HUGE disservice if they let CBC television go. As pointed out earlier, get ready to kiss CTV goodbye if the recession drags on much longer, so CBC, like em or not, would be your only Canadian content provider left.

If it chafes any of you that Canada is largely thought of by Americans and others around the world (when it is thought of at all) like this:









Just think of the reputation we'll have when it's shown that we can't even sustain a _single_ television network, and have to rely on our "big brother" for all our TV. Talk about a "junior" country ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Niteshooter said:


> Actually was wondering about the polls, if they polled say southern Ontario then sure they would get a particular skew to the results since more people would be on cable or have better access to the US market. Now if they polled say Yellowknife where CBC might be the only game in town that would be a lot different unless someone had a dish or cable.


All kinds of things can skew polls, especially if they are published by "Friends Of Canadian Broadcasting", which should be the first hint that something is rotten in Denmark.

I think the problems with the CBC have less to do with programs or popularity - but stem entirely from the environment of nepotism and incest, where people gain promotion through politics and personal connections rather than through any kind of merit or ability.

There is a huge disconnect between the workers that do all of the work, and the administration that feasts on giant steak dinners while raking in megacash. It is the same affliction that has corroded our society in general, where "administration" is living in some different bizarro world, scoring huge pay and huge perks, while doing little or no actual work. They comprise a class of people who use their positions to self-agrandize themselves, and are entirely capable of enrobing themselves in their positions when times are good, while washing their hands the minute some problem arises. They simply can not actually manage - they have no vision next to that of scoring some more loot, or engaging in some more glad handling, and possibly scoring another filthy lucre position on a board of directors - where they can engage in the same malfeasance.

The CBC is entirely guilty of being a feeding trough, where political buddies score the huge bucks making "decisions" that pretty much say "hey, go watch TV elsewhere, because this is crud". And the CBC is not the only font for this corrosion - Corporate America is rife with it, companies are rife with it, Government is rife with it. And the sad thing is, we are being overhauled by foreigners that do not engage in it, and that list is endless - the industries we have lost to pretty much anyone else that comes by and sets up shop. And it has happened to the CBC - where they are being overhauled by pretty much every other broadcaster these days. They simply end up not losing out all that badly because they can tap the Government for loot, and the fact that the Networks have some sort of parity when it comes to stupidity and bad decision making.



> I'd be real curious what folks would say from parts of the country where the CBC either radio or TV was the only game in town.....


They wouldn't want to see it go - because it is the only game in town. However, I think that people are opposed to the CBC not because of their mandate, or that they score Government funding, but because they are lead by the corrupt, and continually engage in taking up any Fiberal cause. And I am not just talking about bias - the people that I know that are card carrying Liberals think the CBC is just sick with Fiberalism.

The CBC was the only media that thought the world of Dion, and they saw the Coalition as being the Saviour Incarnate - which was just sickening for an apparatus that is supposed to act as a sober fifth estate, sitting back and reporting the facts, rather than being a tool of Dion and his filthy crowd. The CBC is also heavily pro-French, and loves any kind of policy that extends the reach of Jim Crow in this nation. You would think that the National Broadcaster might actually have a slant towards Nationalism - but in the case of the CBC, editorial policies are entirely directed at glad handling and scoring loot - while subjugating their workers to profane and degenerate actions and moving their acts of discrimination forward with their own comprehensive Jim Crow policies.



> And that btw does not mean a discontinuation of broadcast TV just that you will need either a TV capable of receiving a digital signal or a converter box that will let you see the signal on your old analog device.


Thus, broadcast TV is dead because one can not watch it on a regular TV. And the whole digital thing, well, it will be "broadcast" for a short time, until they con everyone, then it will be all about censorship, and removing yet another freedom whenever someone decides to flip a switch. It is just a big scam to score cash, since everyone has a few TVs kicking around, and thus, the manufacturers obviously have to have some scheme to cash in.

Fortunately, TV is so bad these days that the change to "Digital" means little, except that I will end up having to download more shows - that I can watch at my leisure. It will also mean that many rural users will end up with no television - so I guess it is a boon for radio broadcasters.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

As I review that list of "Winners" I realize that Canadians are using their TVs to replace barbiturates. When you think of it; what you have is an highly effective, low cost, non-addictive sleeping aid. 

I seriously doubt that it helps the advertisers as I frequently dozed off as my wife watched the academy awards waking up quite refreshed with no desire to buy anything.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Just think of the reputation we'll have when it's shown that we can't even sustain a _single_ television network, and have to rely on our "big brother" for all our TV. Talk about a "junior" country ...


This is the worst argument in favour of CBC I have heard for quite some time. Let's pump this pile of refuse full of cash or we won't have TV at all and then be embarrassed. The fact that the programming is so bad Canadians don't watch it is the embarrassment.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> This is the worst argument in favour of CBC I have heard for quite some time. Let's pump this pile of refuse full of cash or we won't have TV at all and then be embarrassed. The fact that the programming is so bad Canadians don't watch it is the embarrassment.


The one thing that perplexes me about comments like the one above is do we know this for a fact?

If so what sampling of the population do these comments represent? Who conducted the research and where is/was it presented?

As someone else pointed out with the statistics that the 'friends of the CBC' posted they can be skewed. Works both ways.

And is programming that bad, I much prefer the Rick Mercer report to Jon Stewart. 

And going back to that list that was posted, I noticed not one educational show in the bunch with the exception of news/oscars everything was fiction. And NO CSI is far from real, just ask a real Ident specialist....aka CSI.

What exactly is this telling us about the viewers? Granted folks are watching the Octomom, hmmm I'd rather be watching a train wreck. Could this be a possible explanation for the population dumbing down as some would suggest?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CBC's Edmonton station has been consistently on the bottom of the ratings for many years now. It is such a sad station that it is not even carried on Bell satellite, thus we haven't seen the local outlet's news or offerings for more than a dozen years now. 

I tried to tune it in using rabbit ears on a downstairs TV without luck. The french CBC station however, does comes in clear as a bell on rabbit ears, although not speaking french, it is as useless to me as it is to 97% of Albertans.

When CBC ranks last behind Global at #1, CTV at #2, A Channel/ City at #3 and Access Alberta at #4, it is painfully obvious how many folks are not watching CBC in Edmonton. I would think that likely holds true across most of western Canada.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Niteshooter said:


> The one thing that perplexes me about comments like the one above is do we know this for a fact?


We know, as SINC says, that the CBC is a ratings midget.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I like Flashpoint too, for what it's worth. Nicely shot. Decent story lines and a good cast with solid back stories. Show's got legs.

Good article about the Ceeb's dilemma here - it's by the Globe's TV crit John Doyle.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> We know, as SINC says, that the CBC is a ratings midget.


Hmm well that sure backs up your previous comment.....so basically you are saying that SINC's post should be taken as factually correct?

So being the curious type that likes to check out 3 sources I did some googling.

Using keywords such as CBC/Edmonton/sucks/poor ratings/Neilsen, guess what I can't find any
statistical data to back up your comments or SINCs just other online uses saying that the station sucks. Ok fair enough but that doesn't really verify anything to me.

*I did however google, CBC Edmonton not carried on Bell Satellite and found a CRTC ruling stating what signals Bell Satellite Services inc were authorized to distribute.*

Decision CRTC 99-87

*This particular document is almost 10 years old and has nothing to do with ratings so perhaps it was our lovely CRTC which oddly nobody has thought to look at that might be the culprit.*

Appendix to Decision CRTC 99-87
Signals authorized for distribution by Bell Satellite Services Inc./
Canadian television services;
CBRT (CBC) Calgary
CBHT (CBC) Halifax
CFJC-TV (CBC) Kamloops
CBMT (CBC) Montréal
CHEX-TV (CBC) Peterborough
CBKT (CBC) Regina
CBLT (CBC) Toronto
CBUT (CBC) Vancouver
CBWT (CBC) Winnipeg
CFCN-TV (CTV) Calgary
CFRN-TV (CTV) Edmonton
CJCH-TV (CTV) Halifax
CKCO-TV (CTV) Kitchener
CFCF-TV (CTV) Montréal
CKCK-TV (CTV) Regina
CJON-TV (CTV) St. John's
CKCW (CTV) Saint John
CFTO-TV (CTV) Toronto
CHAN-TV (CTV) Vancouver
CHEX-TV (CTV) Victoria
CKY-TV (CTV) Winnipeg
CIFH-TV (Global) Halifax
CKMI-TV-1 (Global) Montréal
CFRE-TV (Global) Regina
CIII-TV (Global) Toronto
CKND-TV (Global) Winnipeg

U.S. television services 
WHDH-TV (NBC) Boston, Massachusetts
WGBH-TV (PBS) Boston, Massachusetts
WXYZ-TV (ABC) Detroit, Michigan
WDIV (NBC) Detroit, Michigan
WUHF (FOX) Rochester, New York
WUTV (FOX) Buffalo, New York
WTOL-TV (CBS) Toledo, Ohio
WUAB-TV (IND) Cleveland, Ohio
WJET-TV (ABC) Erie, Pennsylvania
WSEE-TV (CBS) Erie, Pennsylvania
WICU-TV (NBC) Erie, Pennsylvania


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Niteshooter said:


> Hmm well that sure backs up your previous comment.....so basically you are saying that SINC's post should be taken as factually correct?
> 
> So being the curious type that likes to check out 3 sources I did some googling.
> 
> ...


Those lists of stations mean nothing. Of course I knew Bell can't carry CBC Edmonton. It IS carried on Shaw Cable though and they have 10 times the subscribers of Bell.

What you need to research, if you won't take my word for it, is the BBMs for CBC Edmonton compared to other stations in the market.

That is what I referred to and it is published in local papers twice a year. Damned if I could find it on the net, but I swear CBC has been at the bottom of the heap for 10 years at least.

If anyone knows how to access those figures, be my guest. I know what I have read dozens of time.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Growing up in the 60's & 70's eleven miles north of Montana, we had three TV stations available via antenna: KFBB & KRTV (both from Great Falls, MT) & CBC. Even then, as a young lad, I preferred the American stations over CBC.

I find great difficulty justifying my tax dollars going to Mother Corp...


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

SINC said:


> Those lists of stations mean nothing. Of course I knew Bell can't carry CBC Edmonton. It IS carried on Shaw Cable though and they have 10 times the subscribers of Bell.
> 
> What you need to research, if you won't take my word for it, is the BBMs for CBC Edmonton compared to other stations in the market.
> 
> ...


Actually I beg to differ they substantiate my comment about NOT finding any statistical data to back up your previous comment.



SINC said:


> *CBC's Edmonton station has been consistently on the bottom of the ratings for many years now. It is such a sad station that it is not even carried on Bell satellite, thus we haven't seen the local outlet's news or offerings for more than a dozen years now. *
> 
> I tried to tune it in using rabbit ears on a downstairs TV without luck. The french CBC station however, does comes in clear as a bell on rabbit ears, although not speaking french, it is as useless to me as it is to 97% of Albertans.
> 
> When CBC ranks last behind Global at #1, CTV at #2, A Channel/ City at #3 and Access Alberta at #4, it is painfully obvious how many folks are not watching CBC in Edmonton. I would think that likely holds true across most of western Canada.


Your opening paragraph IMPLIES that because CBC Edmonton has been consistently on the bottom ratings wise it was not carried on Bell satellite which is totally false. It was the CRTC that didn't allow Bell to carry the station based on the only document I can locate.

As far as ratings go, these as I mentioned before can be skewed or could be totally incorrect. A classic case in point was Star Trek the original TV series which was cancelled based on ratings. Paramount went by ratings which indicated that the TV show was doing poorly. In fact it wasn't but the people doing the ratings had sampled the wrong demographic! Had they sampled young males then they would have discovered that they had a huge market. (source Star Trek the motion picture disk 2).

So excuse me for being skeptical but so far I don't see any statistical proof to back up your comments and even if they exist there is a chance they are incorrect.....

I would be a great example of how off the ratings may be for my demographic or just for me in particular. I don't watch any of the junk on that list save 2 shows. So if I was to be part of the weekly ratings poll I wonder how that would skew the results.

One other point nobody seems to have touched upon. The mandate of Canadian broadcasters to produce and air Canadian content......

Kevin


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

eMacMan said:


> As I review that list of "Winners" I realize that Canadians are using their TVs to replace barbiturates. When you think of it; what you have is an highly effective, low cost, non-addictive sleeping aid.
> 
> I seriously doubt that it helps the advertisers as I frequently dozed off as my wife watched the academy awards waking up quite refreshed with no desire to buy anything.


I prefer stock car racing if I need to have a snooze on a Saturday afternoon.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Niteshooter said:


> So excuse me for being skeptical but so far I don't see any statistical proof to back up your comments and even if they exist there is a chance they are incorrect.....
> Kevin


This should eliminate any doubt:


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

SINC said:


> This should eliminate any doubt:


Thanks, I still have some doubts but a lot less.... I wonder how much of an impact the CRT had on the ratings.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All I know is that less than 2% of the audience tunes in to their news and likely even less for the programming unless it is hockey or CFL football. Since TSN has taken most of the hockey and football away from CBC, I see no change in the future. In all my travels in western Canada, and I do a lot, I never hear anyone refer to TV and CBC. Even my wife's relatives who live in rural Saskatchewan watch CTV now. They are in a vacuum and must be a huge drain on the budget for hardly any return.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Last night I watched two programs. The Rick Mercer Report and 22 minutes. One hour total and both CBC. This out of 4 hours of prime time and roughly 30 channels available. There were a couple of hockey games but I am taking a bit of a hockey break. My interest will probably start to snap back when we get to the second or third round of the playoffs. 

BTW the RMR used the old Hockey Night in Canada theme as part of a segment on Ringette. Does this mean the executive producer will be shipped off to jail for copyright violation?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Niteshooter said:


> I prefer stock car racing if I need to have a snooze on a Saturday afternoon.


What about that guy on PBS who used to have the painting show?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Your CBC tax dollars hard at work:

David Akin: This Hour Has 22 Minutes ... and some extremely poor judgment - Full Comment

CBC comedian hijacks McGuinty's news conference - News - 680News - ALL NEWS RADIO

CANOE -- CNEWS - Politics: Comic's attempt to 'punk' McGuinty flops

Very lame and not funny. What was she thinking and did she misrepresent herself and her crew as an accredited journalist instead of a comedian?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What about that guy on PBS who used to have the painting show?


The old German guy? I used to watch him, all the time. 

"Und now ve apply a little magik vite..."


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I went to school with David Akin... he was the EIC of the main university newspaper we attended and so in turn was I.

I read his commentary article and read up elsewhere on the incident it addresses but I couldn't bring myself to watch the actual video... something so hideous about a joke gone awry in bad times.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

kps said:


> The old German guy? I used to watch him, all the time.
> 
> "Und now ve apply a little magik vite..."


I think MacFury is talkin about this guy...
[









Bob Ross is famous for his paintings of "happy little trees". I believe he passed away a few years back. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> I went to school with David Akin... he was the EIC of the main university newspaper we attended and so in turn was I.
> 
> I read his commentary article and read up elsewhere on the incident it addresses but I couldn't bring myself to watch the actual video... something so hideous about a joke gone awry in bad times.


I don't blame you, Max. The video is down right painful to watch and just not funny even if in better circumstances.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I think MacFury is talkin about this guy...
> [
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, that guy...I think I saw him a few times as well. He must have been a protege of the old German guy. lol 

I used to watch "This Old House" on PBS all the time too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's him! Bob Ross. I would also watch William Alexander from time to time, but he was just weird--not a soporific like Bob Ross!


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Max said:


> I went to school with David Akin... he was the EIC of the main university newspaper we attended and so in turn was I.
> 
> I read his commentary article and read up elsewhere on the incident it addresses but I couldn't bring myself to watch the actual video... something so hideous about a joke gone awry in bad times.


Meh. Seems funny to me. People need to lighten up. There was no call for media seriousness when people in the high tech industry lost their jobs during the past 8 years, and a lot of those in high tech were not paid as much as unionized labour in other industries.

So what if an NDP politician was trying to hold the Premier accountable for job losses? The NDP would hold the Premier accountable for any bad news no matter who or what he did.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hey, I have a sense of humour. It's just that watching people really screw up publically often makes me squirm.... especially when an attempt at humour backfires. But whatever turns yer crank, I say.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> What about that guy on PBS who used to have the painting show?


I liked the guy, but since I can't paint worth (you know what) I became a photographer.....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> What about that guy on PBS who used to have the painting show?


That guy ruled! Not as motivational as the dude on the Woodwright's Shop though, because that dude did everything old school...


----------

