# Poll Blasts CBC Use Of Tax Dollars In Court



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Trying to hide how they spend our money by using our money . . .*



> OTTAWA - A majority of Canadians - 64% - believe the CBC should not spend tax dollars to fight its legal battle with Canada's independent ombudsman, who investigates transparency complaints, according to a poll by the research firm Abacus Data.
> 
> "Sixty-four percent of Canadians say it is wrong, only 10% say it is right.*I think on this issue, the CBC is clearly on the wrong side of public opinion," Dr. David Coletto, who leads Abacus Data's team of consultants and strategists, said.
> 
> ...


Poll blasts CBC use of tax dollars in court


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I find it amazing that the NDP supporters in the poll seem to vote against transparency--which seems to be a motherhood issue with them.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

And I suppose that the same group would oppose our federal govt. doing exactly the same thing using our tax $'s to hide the truth.

This is a typical Sun article. I'm glad it's online as the ink they use is cheap and I always feel dirty after reading a Sun article.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> And I suppose that the same group would oppose our federal govt. doing exactly the same thing using our tax $'s to hide the truth.


Yes, I think you're right.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I would hardly call 15% support. Actually Barf Limburger and maybe Bill O'Reilly are the only other people on the planet that could stretch 15% into being support.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Yes, I think you're right.


Great to see you onside. Now maybe there's hope that Tommy Douglas's file can be released for evaluation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> Great to see you onside. Now maybe there's hope that Tommy Douglas's file can be released for evaluation.


I certainly think the old man's dossier should be released.

eMacMan: My mistake. I misread one of the reports as saying that only 15% of NDP voters opposed the CBC spending that money.

Looking at the full poll elsewhere, a majority in all parties think the CBC is mis-spending that money.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

With resistance like this, they must have a lot of skeletons in the closet they'd prefer never see the light of day. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> With resistance like this, they must have a lot of skeletons in the closet they'd prefer never see the light of day.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


That's my guess too. Imagine if taxpayers actually knew where all those millions go.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I would imagine the same sort of outrage and action on the part of the government would be equal or greater than Tony Clement taking 50 million bucks and blowing who knows where without any paper trail, or accountability.

I guess it boils down to who did the spending.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Time to kill CBC's TV service.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Time to investigate Clement and perhaps lay some charges.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I would imagine the same sort of outrage and action on the part of the government would be equal or greater than Tony Clement taking 50 million bucks and blowing who knows where without any paper trail, or accountability.
> 
> I guess it boils down to who did the spending.


You know, when it's one individual who works for the public blows money with no accountability and refuses to have his or her spending audited, that's one thing... it's one bad apple. I can live with a bad apple or two--sure, ideally we find 'em and toss 'em, or at least limit them, but there's always a bad apple or two.

But when an entire public organization doing it, then something's rotten all the way through. Speaks of an organizational culture that is not focused on its mandate of ultimately serving the public, and that bothers me way more than one bad apple.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> You know, when it's one individual who works for the public blows money with no accountability and refuses to have his or her spending audited, that's one thing... it's one bad apple. I can live with a bad apple or two--sure, ideally we find 'em and toss 'em, or at least limit them, but there's always a bad apple or two.
> 
> But when an entire public organization doing it, then something's rotten all the way through. Speaks of an organizational culture that is not focused on its mandate of ultimately serving the public, and that bothers me way more than one bad apple.


:clap:


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Yeah time to shut down the CBC...what BS.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yeah time to shut down the CBC...what BS.


Exactly. Time to shut down that BS!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. Time to shut down that BS!


Have to break you the news that even our BS PM will not shut it down. Although I'm perfectly willing to pull the trigger on Dawn Cherie.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CBC-TV should be allowed to die, it's a cesspool of left wing propaganda. Only the radio is worth saving.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> You know, when it's one individual who works for the public blows money with no accountability and refuses to have his or her spending audited, that's one thing... it's one bad apple. I can live with a bad apple or two--sure, ideally we find 'em and toss 'em, or at least limit them, but there's always a bad apple or two.
> 
> But when an entire public organization doing it, then something's rotten all the way through. Speaks of an organizational culture that is not focused on its mandate of ultimately serving the public, and that bothers me way more than one bad apple.


You may well be right sonal, but when you have an even bigger entity (this conservative government) who is even more rotten to the core and spending far more money with seemingly little resistance now, I have to say, talk about "shiny ball".

Perhaps we should start looking at the huge sums involved with big corporations and big oil and work our way back to the tony clements squandering money ala adscam. I just find the hollering by conservatives about the CBC a bit rich. If the cons wan to kill cbc altogether, I think they'll find the public backlash will waaaay bigger than any outrage over some misspent funds within the cbc. Look at the meh happening tony clement! Do you expect me to get excited about this ideological witch hunt? Really?

As far as the cbc is concerned perhaps the cuts could start with shutting that mouthpiece cherry up and telling him to get a real job.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Have to break you the news that even our BS PM will not shut it down. Although I'm perfectly willing to pull the trigger on *Dawn Cherie*.


lol.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> Have to break you the news that even our BS PM will not shut it down. Although I'm perfectly willing to pull the trigger on Dawn Cherie.


I'm pretty disappointed in him on this. It would be a slam dunk.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> You may well be right sonal, but when you have an even bigger entity (this conservative government) who is even more rotten to the core and spending far more money with seemingly little resistance now, I have to say, talk about "shiny ball".
> 
> Perhaps we should start looking at the huge sums involved with big corporations and big oil and work our way back to the tony clements squandering money ala adscam. I just find the hollering by conservatives about the CBC a bit rich. If the cons wan to kill cbc altogether, I think they'll find the public backlash will waaaay bigger than any outrage over some misspent funds within the cbc. Look at the meh happening tony clement! Do you expect me to get excited about this ideological witch hunt? Really?
> 
> As far as the cbc is concerned perhaps the cuts could start with shutting that mouthpiece cherry up and telling him to get a real job.


Oh, is the CBC being corrupt a new issue? I started hearing about this a good 10 years ago, and 15 years ago I barely paid attention to politics. 

I don't know, I don't see this so much as 'shiny ball' as I see it as 'it's about time.'


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Personally I don't watch TV because the advertising drives me crazy. I record OTA digital content and edit out or skip over the ads to make viewing palatable. I'm glad there's recognition that CBC radio is still valued by some of the philistines. I'm a huge fan od AS it Happens and various literary shows.

There's a heck of a lot more waste in govt. as exemplified by the Clement boondoggle and the future $30B purchase of manned jet fighters, but I had no part in electing the current band of creeps.

I would be in favour of spending tax payer money to get the millions of tax payer $'s that went into ex BS PM Mulroney.

Life goes on.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Conservative Governments dislike the 'leftist' CBC because it holds them accountable. In fact, I would say they fear it. They would do anything to silence it. 

They do a far greater job than the opposition. 

But I suppose if one doesn't care about those kinds of trivial details.... If one is so trusting of their elected officials that they feel they don't need to be held accountable...

This does work for all parties btw.

Think about it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Conservative Governments dislike the 'leftist' CBC because it holds them accountable. In fact, I would say they fear it. They would do anything to silence it.
> 
> They do a far greater job than the opposition.
> 
> ...


I've thought about it....

Now, axe the CBC. The fact that it's government-supported does not make it any more valuable than any other news source.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

silly poll. I'm sure if anyone takes a poll on governement spending money on legal costs most will be against it in virtually all cases.

Why not a Poll on this :

Ont. government spent millions in autism legal battle - Toronto - CBC News

or a Poll on this :

Legal bill to battle Khadr $1.3 million and counting - thestar.com

?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I've thought about it....
> 
> Now, axe the CBC. The fact that it's government-supported does not make it any more valuable than any other news source.


I thought someone of your ilk would want to keep a scrutinizing eye on your elected officials. The CBC is this regard is good money spent. Advertisers aren't the ones calling the shots. We've seen what happens when that is the case.

Let's nip the Clement style pork barrelling in the bud first and see how many shekels that saves us.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There is nothing 'silly' about Canadians finally waking up to the fact that the CBC-TV network is a secretive leftist news propaganda corporation. I've known that for years.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I've thought about it....
> 
> Now, axe the CBC. The fact that it's government-supported does not make it any more valuable than any other news source.


Unfortunately for you and Steve H, the CBC is still highly valued by many Canadians. Harper can't afford the political backlash of axing it or selling it off, he still has to keep his "I'm a reasonable centrist" fig leaf in place. If he did all that was dear to his heart right away the rightest righties would be happy and subsequently lose the next election. 

But don't despair MF, your boy is crafty, he's got plans ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> There is nothing 'silly' about Canadians finally waking up to the fact that the CBC-TV network is a secretive leftist news propaganda corporation. I've known that for years.


it isn't a secretive leftist organization at all. The simple truth is, 60+% of Canadians are center to left, and cbc being a national media organization reflects this. So I don't think it's "Canadians", it's merely some Canadians who are center to right, which are in the minority in this country, and always will be.

I have no problem with ensuring the cbc spends wisely. But this is an ideological witch hunt if I ever saw one. Even SH knows it'd political suicide to kill the cbc.

As I said, lets start with axing Don Cherry and see where this goes. I don't think we need coach's corner at all.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> As I said, lets start with axing Don Cherry and see where this goes. I don't think we need coach's corner at all.


Don Cherry is the CBC's most honest personality, unlike Peter Mansbridge.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Don Cherry is the CBC's most honest personality, unlike Peter Mansbridge.


Don Cherry is a loud mouthed bigot and those are his good points.

Bye bye grapes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Don Cherry is a loud mouthed bigot and those are his good points.
> 
> Bye bye grapes.


Peter Mansbridge is a loud mouthed leftist bigot and those are his good points.

Bye Bye Baldy.

It should be noted that this post makes about as much sense as the one directly above.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Peter Mansbridge is a loud mouthed leftist bigot and those are his good points.
> 
> Bye Bye Baldy.
> 
> It should be noted that this post makes about as much sense as the one directly above.


Hmm, for starters, wasn't there some comment about visors and French guys? Maybe to you folk out there on the prairie that's acceptable..

Now I don't recall Mansbridge making a similar type of ignorant statement.... Oh that's right, he's not a loud mouth bigot.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> There is nothing 'silly' about Canadians finally waking up to the fact that the CBC-TV network is a secretive leftist news propaganda corporation. I've known that for years.


no, it's a silly poll for the reasons i already stated. most people do not want the government spending money in courtrooms, the specifics are secondary.

if the poll was : is the CBC a "secretive leftist news propaganda corporation" then i'm positive the results would be vastly different.

----

regarding don cherry, he can stay. even though he is completely ignorant about politics, i like him when he talks hockey (which is what the CBC pays him to do).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> regarding don cherry, he can stay. even though he is completely ignorant about politics, i like him when he talks hockey (which is what the CBC pays him to do).


No, you still don't get it. It's what *WE* pay him to do.

Got it now?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Hmm, for starters, wasn't there some comment about visors and French guys? Maybe to you folk out there on the prairie that's acceptable..
> 
> Now I don't recall Mansbridge making a similar type of ignorant statement.... Oh that's right, he's not a loud mouth bigot.


great point. Some things are acceptable to some I guess.

I guess Mansbridge just simply leaning to the left is enough to get his arse canned and rammed through that big door eh?

Seriously though. I really hate don cherry. I do. But he's popular amongst his viewers (such as they are), so I don't think he should be canned any more than mansbridge. Well, as long as he doesn't keep blowing underhanded cow patties on the quebec digs etc.

My comment about don cherry is really a reaction to slamming out a popular national media organization simply because a minority are upset because some parts are perceptibly "leftist". Well, since the overwhelming majority of Canada is leftist, well, then the cbc well represents canada.

Though I can see why this would greatly upset conservatives to no end. But, don't get ridiculous, really.

Fine, make cbc more accountable money wise. I get that. But it's clear the focus on the cbc's mismanagement when we have a government spending itself (and us) into utter oblivion right now is just rich. Really... rich. 

I think that's a really easy concept to grasp.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Hmm, for starters, wasn't there some comment about visors and French guys? Maybe to you folk out there on the prairie that's acceptable..
> 
> Now I don't recall Mansbridge making a similar type of ignorant statement.... Oh that's right, he's not a loud mouth bigot.


Show me where I made any comment about French guys? Talk about ignorant comments. :roll eyes:

And your comment about we who live in another part of the country is as bigoted as the CBC.

So somehow Toronto is soooo superior is it? Bull****e.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Peter Mansbridge is a loud mouthed leftist bigot and those are his good points.
> 
> Bye Bye Baldy.
> 
> It should be noted that this post makes about as much sense as the one directly above.


Agreed.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> No, you still don't get it. It's what *WE* pay him to do.
> 
> Got it now?


i understand that the CBC gets money from tax revenue (like many other organizations). However, the CBC is still who pays him.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Show me where I made any comment about French guys? Talk about ignorant comments. :roll eyes:
> 
> And your comment about we who live in another part of the country is as bigoted as the CBC.
> 
> So somehow Toronto is soooo superior is it? Bull****e.


I think sinc, don cherry made the comments. But he's is very well known to do this.

Mansbridge however, in spite of possibly being politically different than you, has not. (Not that I know of)


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Show me where I made any comment about French guys? Talk about ignorant comments. :roll eyes:
> 
> And your comment about we who live in another part of the country is as bigoted as the CBC.
> 
> So somehow Toronto is soooo superior is it? Bull****e.


Settle down there big fella. We were talking about Cherry, _not you._ Re-read my post.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*PBS model suggested for the CBC*



> OTTAWA - Most Canadians would like to see the CBC reformed to operate as a non-for-profit broadcaster like PBS, according to a new poll completed for QMI Agency.
> 
> Research firm Abacus Data conducted an online survey and found that 53% of participants want to see CBC's operating costs cut and for the broadcaster to operate through advertising and viewer contributions. PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service, is an American non-profit television network which operates under this model.


PBS model suggested for the CBC


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> *PBS model suggested for the CBC*
> 
> 
> 
> PBS model suggested for the CBC


All the PBS channels I watch contain no advertisements. I'm all for eliminating advertising but the issue of a donation funded CBC has been kicked around for years and it simply will not happen. Even the minority supported majority CON govt. knows this.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

CBC Radio is great. Far better than the tv. 

Anything produced by Sun News was designed to convince people with brains smaller than that of a snail. Abacus Polling Agency said it so we have to believe it!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Adrian. said:


> CBC Radio is great. Far better than the tv.
> 
> Anything produced by Sun News was designed to convince people with brains smaller than that of a snail. Abacus Polling Agency said it so we have to believe it!


No doubt that radio is superior to TV on the english CBC. French CBC produces some excellent content but most people can't bother to watch in english Canada.

As far as the Sun goes they are owned by Peladeau and part of the Sun newspaper chain.
I recognize that they and Shaw (Canwest), BCE (CTV), and Rogers (CITY) all have a vested interest in bashing the CBC and eliminating it. They're all CONS to boot.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bottom line, it'd be fun to watch if SH tries to eliminate it. It's well known the political fallout from that, so, make our day mr. harper... make our day!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If Sun-TV can support its own operations, certainly the "vastly superior" CBC-TV could do the same.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> As far as the Sun goes they are owned by Peladeau and part of the Sun newspaper chain.
> I recognize that they and Shaw (Canwest), BCE (CTV), and Rogers (CITY) all have a vested interest in bashing the CBC and eliminating it. They're all CONS to boot.


Just what part of this don’t you get?



> Research firm Abacus Data conducted an online survey and found that 53% of participants want to see CBC's operating costs cut and for the broadcaster to operate through advertising and viewer contributions. PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service, is an American non-profit television network which operates under this model.
> 
> *Abacus asked 1,003 people questions online between Aug. 12-15 about the broadcaster. A small group of Canadians surveyed - 27% - believed funding for the broadcaster should be increased, while 39% believed the broadcaster should be sold off.*


Railing about the Sun or Cons has nothing to do with the facts and shooting the messenger does nothing but suggest a misinterpretation of the issue.

It’s average CANADIANS polled who want the change, not the Sun or Conservatives.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> Just what part of this don’t you get?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe that you don't get it and your reliance on material that originates from the country's dirtiest newspaper owned and operated by someone with vested CON interests attests to that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> I believe that you don't get it and your reliance on material that originates from the country's dirtiest newspaper owned and operated by someone with vested CON interests attests to that.


Like I noted, you don't get it. Being blinded by obvious outright hatred of a media outlet, a party and refusing to acknowledge the facts is well, you know.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> Like I noted, you don't get it. Being blinded by obvious outright hatred of a media outlet, a party and refusing to acknowledge the facts is well, you know.


I will not even agree to disagree with you because it isn't the first time we have disagreed and it like will not be the last time either. We have differing perspectives and I can accept your ignorance.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Calling SINC ignorant is not respectful. Stop spreading hatred.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Calling SINC ignorant is not respectful. Stop spreading hatred.


Accusing me of hatred is disrespectful. I hate nothing, I do however detest many things.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> I will not even agree to disagree with you because it isn't the first time we have disagreed and it like will not be the last time either. We have differing perspectives and I can accept your ignorance.


Whatever it is, your outright rejection of the poll results, that are the opinion of average Canadians polled (and so obviously not the Sun nor the Cons), shows either bias or a complete lack of understanding of the facts.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

What jimbo is saying is that if you are paid to do a poll by Sun you are one of their paid shills and the data would be skewed in advance. Not biased at all on his part though...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So, if the Globe and Mail or the National Post or the Toronto Star hired the same polling firm on the same subject with the same result, their polls would be valid? Incredible thought process.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> Whatever it is, your outright rejection of the poll results, that are the opinion of average Canadians polled (and so obviously not the Sun nor the Cons), shows either bias or a complete lack of understanding of the facts.


Your lack of understanding is best illustrating by simply going to the pollster's web site and taking note that they are the official pollster for Sun news.

A little further research and you will find that their CEO has strong ties to the CON party bred from the UofC. He failed to complete his doctorate though.

No bias there eh? Check the facts. Wake up.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Your lack of understanding is best illustrating by simply going to the pollster's web site and taking note that they are the official pollster for Sun news.
> 
> A little further research and you will find that their CEO has strong ties to the CON party bred from the UofC. He failed to complete his doctorate though.
> 
> No bias there eh? Check the facts. Wake up.


Any polling firm that would 'make up' results to suit its owner or the client it serves would be out of business.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Any polling firm that would 'make up' results to suit its owner or the client it serves would be out of business.


I would agree. Unfortunately that doesn't happen.

The truth will be in the puddin' as they say. I'd be interested in the response should Harper try to privatize the CBC. I recall what happened when the last conservative government tried to cut the cbc down.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> What jimbo is saying is that if you are paid to do a poll by Sun you are one of their paid shills and the data would be skewed in advance. Not biased at all on his part though...


I'm sure screature that you realize that the way questions are asked will skew data. I have participated in phone polls where I refused to answer a question because of its wording and or lack of options in one of those a, b, c, or d scenarios.

I'm a bit of an optimist that people over 40 in this country would develop media literacy to see through the veneer of an agenda regardless of where you place yourself on the political spectrum.

One thing I like about the CBC is it is a counter balance to private interests that tend to support corporate bias, Liberal or Con.

The CBC has a mandate and it has been underfunded since Chretien's first term. It would be a big mistake if it were to be dismantled. I believe the majority of Canadians would agree with this.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Your lack of understanding is best illustrating by simply going to the pollster's web site and taking note that they are the official pollster for Sun news.
> 
> A little further research and you will find that their CEO has strong ties to the CON party bred from the UofC. He failed to complete his doctorate though.
> 
> No bias there eh? Check the facts. Wake up.


Wake up to the connections between Frank Graves EKOS and the Liberal Party... and all pollsters have their own personal biases... are we then to assume that all the data that they collect will reflect that bias?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> I'm sure screature that you realize that the way questions are asked will skew data. I have participated in phone polls where I refused to answer a question because of its wording and or lack of options in one of those a, b, c, or d scenarios.
> 
> I'm a bit of an optimist that people over 40 in this country would develop media literacy to see through the veneer of an agenda regardless of where you place yourself on the political spectrum.
> 
> ...


The mandate is open to interpretation and on what basis do you say it has been "under funded" just a personal belief or do you have some sort of analysis to back that up and if so based on what assumptions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> One thing I like about the CBC is it is a counter balance to private interests that tend to support corporate bias, Liberal or Con.


The CBC has a consistent leftist bias that's readily apparent. Why should public funds pay an organization to skew in any direction? How about if the CBC conducts itself in unbiased fashion?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Wake up to the connections between Frank Graves EKOS and the Liberal Party... and all pollsters have their own personal biases... are we then to assume that all the data that they collect will reflect that bias?


Quite simply - yes. I'm amazed that people don't connect the dots that the Liberal party is run by one group of businessmen and the CONS are run by another group. They own most of if not all of the major media outlets in this country. Sure they are competing business clubs and maybe the LIBS have a bit more of a social justice agenda than the CONS but basically when it comes to most economic matters there is very little difference between the two.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> The mandate is open to interpretation and on what basis to you say it has been "under funded" just a personal belief or do you have some sort of analysis to back that up and if so based on what assumptions.


Yes funding has never returned to what it was prior to 1993 when the cuts were first implemented. Sorry I don't have a link and there might be a pro-rated adjustment to account for inflation over the nearly two decades built into that statement.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Your lack of understanding is best illustrating by simply going to the pollster's web site and taking note that they are the official pollster for Sun news.
> 
> A little further research and you will find that their CEO has strong ties to the CON party bred from the UofC. *He failed to complete his doctorate though.*
> 
> No bias there eh? Check the facts. Wake up.


Linkie? I can find no such claim anywhere.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The CBC has a consistent leftist bias that's readily apparent. Why should public funds pay an organization to skew in any direction? How about if the CBC conducts itself in unbiased fashion?


I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said, but if the CBC has a leftist 'bias', it reflects the majority of canadians' voting preferences.

Perhaps if canadians voted right wing in the 60% range the public broadcaster would start to have a right wing bias.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Linkie? I can find no such claim anywhere.


Take a look at his linkedin profile.

Take a look at this: http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/files/publicpolicy/Flanagan & Coletto ONLINE 3.pdf

Note who the co-authour is.

And there is more.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes funding has never returned to what it was prior to 1993 when the cuts were first implemented. Sorry I don't have a link and there might be a pro-rated adjustment to account for inflation over the nearly two decades built into that statement.


It was over-funded before.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes funding *has never returned to what it was prior to 1993* when the cuts were first implemented. Sorry I don't have a link and there might be a pro-rated adjustment to account for inflation over the nearly two decades built into that statement.


Not true first of all (CBC funding: thank you, Mr. Harper), you shouldn't believe everything you read at Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and second by referring to year over year "funding dollars" does not mean they are underfunded. Relative to what, not just another years funding but relative to value or worth, so again I ask based on what assumptions do you say they are "under funded"


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Take a look at his linkedin profile.
> 
> Take a look at this: http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/files/publicpolicy/Flanagan & Coletto ONLINE 3.pdf
> 
> ...


Not talking about his political proclivities they are not in dispute I am talking about your claims he failed to complete his PHd.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> Being blinded by obvious outright hatred of a media outlet


just to clarify, were you talking about jimbotelcom or yourself?

you do seem to be obsessed with hatred for the CBC.....


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Not true first of all (CBC funding: thank you, Mr. Harper), you shouldn't believe everything you read at Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and second by referring to year over year "funding dollars" does not mean they are underfunded. Relative to what, not just another years funding but relative to value or worth, so again I ask based on what assumptions do you say they are "under funded"


Underfunded given the CBC's mandate as a national network which you find vague. The company is regulated to broadcast it's TV signal form coast to coast to coast regardless of population densities. A properly funded CBC would stop broadcasting foreign TV shows and promote Canadian content. My ideal would be to do so without advertising.

It's a tough slog for the CBC to do what it does in english Canada. I'm sure you are aware of the superior content on the french network. The english network requires a funding boost to produce more content just to break even with the amount of native content with the french network.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Quite simply - yes. I'm amazed that people don't connect the dots that the Liberal party is run by one group of businessmen and the CONS are run by another group. They own most of if not all of the major media outlets in this country. Sure they are competing business clubs and maybe the LIBS have a bit more of a social justice agenda than the CONS but basically when it comes to most economic matters there is very little difference between the two.


Well then, if that is what you believe, there is no relative or objective value to your claim of lack of validity to the Ababcus poll as one is simply left to have to choose who they *want* to believe and you have no position to berate SINC because who he chooses to believe differs from who you choose to believe.

So time to get off your high horse and stop pretending to have some superior point of observation.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Not talking about his political proclivities they are not in dispute I am talking about your claims he failed to complete his PHd.


Ha his linkedin profile is not up to date but I now found a link where it states he completed his PHd in June 2010. My error.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Underfunded given the CBC's mandate as a national network which you find vague. The company is regulated to broadcast it's TV signal form coast to coast to coast regardless of population densities. * A properly funded CBC would stop broadcasting foreign TV shows* and promote Canadian content. My ideal would be to do so without advertising.
> 
> It's a tough slog for the CBC to do what it does in english Canada. I'm sure you are aware of the superior content on the french network. The english network requires a funding boost to produce more content just to break even with the amount of native content with the french network.



Never said the mandate was vague but that it is open to interpretation, which it is and always has been.

Just to be clear:



> "...the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;
> 
> ...the programming provided by the Corporation should:
> 
> ...


All of these points (except for being in both Official Languages) are very much open to interpretation and especially the bold ones. 

There is nothing in the mandate that stipulates there should be no foreign programming.

So in your estimation there is nothing of value in foreign programming, nothing that Canadians would find of value? So all the CBC should be is a jingoistic protectionist broadcaster in your view?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Well then, if that is what you believe, there is no relative or objective value to your claim of lack of validity to the Ababcus poll as one is simply left to have to choose who they *want* to believe and you have no position to berate SINC because who he chooses to believe differs from who you choose to believe.
> 
> So time to get off your high horse and stop pretending to have some superior point of observation.


SINC can fend for himself and does so. I only wish to point out that the rather strong bias built into the Sun chain given it's agenda and obvious (to me) bias especially in relation to the CBC. He accused me of hatred as did MF, I used the word ignorant in response. Again, I hate no one. Hate is too strong a word. Heck, SINC in an indirect manner called me an a-hole some time ago, I've been called worse and don't run to the moderator looking for a penalty to be assessed.

I have to return to work, it's been a slice, but I gotta get on my horse and mosey.

Get along littl' doggie get along.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Ha his linkedin profile is not up to date but I now found a link where it states he completed his PHd in June 2010. My error.


Huh??



> David Coletto's Summary
> 
> Dr. David Coletto leads Abacus Data’s team of research consultants and strategists, delivering strategic advice and research design expertise to some of Canada’s leading corporations, advocacy groups,and political leaders. His team helps clients connect and engage with Canadian millennials (those born after 1980) and develop evidence-based strategies to enhance corporate consciousness and responsibility. Coletto helps organizations navigate, understand, and most importantly relate to this growing and influential market.
> 
> *Earning a doctorate in Political Science from the University of Calgary in 2010*, Coletto’s dissertation research centred around candidates who run in Canadian general elections and looked at how the qualities of candidates and the local conditions in which they run affect the outcome of the campaign. He challenged the orthodoxy that Canadian elections are decided only by national factors and demonstrated that local factors, like the candidate, can have a major impact on the performance of political parties in constituency elections. His research on Canadian elections and political parties has been cited in the Globe and Mail, the National Post, and the Toronto Star.


David Coletto
LinkedIn


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Never said the mandate was vague but that it is open to interpretation, which it is and always has been.
> 
> Just to be clear:
> 
> ...


There is value in much foreign film certainly. I find little value in bang the gong game shows and most U.S. sitcoms. I don't like jingoistic blind nationalist BS like the way CTV broadcast the Olympic game coverage. I think Canadian's can produce excellent TV content if we have a platform to display it.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Huh??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry should have said his CV here not linkedin.

http://www.davidcoletto.com/CV.pdf


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The CBC has been running foreign content since 1952--its first year of broadcasting.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

It has been claimed by many CBC supporters that it reflects the values of 60%+ of Canadians. 
-it keeps an eye on the big bad right.
-it is of great value to Canadians and worth watching.

If this is all true then the CBC has nothing to fear becoming a private broadcaster.

With the CBCs claimed popularity, it should do amazingly well as a private broadcaster getting its funding like every other Canadian broadcaster is forced to do or adopting a PBS model. As it is now, not only are they deep in the public trough, they also have the unfair advantage to compete against free enterprise for advertising revenue and bidding on programming (ie Hockey games, Olympics etc.) Sorta like someone opening a burger stand next door to your restaurant only all his employees and expenses are being paid for with tax dollars while you have to foot the bill yourself. It seems the only fair and logical thing to do is sell the CBC or cut it loose to join the rest of the industry.
As a private broadcaster, they could continue to maintain their left wing bias and hold the right to the fire. If 60% of canadians are on the left or lean heavily in that direction, it would be in their best interest to do so.

If the CBC is as good and popular as the left tells us, it should have nothing to fear getting out of the public trough and standing on its own two feet like all other media outlets are forced to do.

I see it as a win win situation.
It would level the uneven playing field for private broadcasters. Save Canadian tax payers billions per year. Allow Canadians the freedom to pay for television they actually want and continue to serve as the watchdogs of the right as a private entity. The only reason I can think of that people would reject this idea is that they fear the CBC is truly something Canadians don't want and its death would be imminent cut free from the tax payer nipple.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^^

:clap:


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

The CBC will continue to be supported by Canadians in spite of the bashing it's taking from individuals who dislike its mandate and its funding model. Just recently it has received a 1 year extension to broadcast analogue signals in under serviced areas across Canada, which has sent the corp sector (Sun, Shaw, BCE, etc.) into a tizzy over what they perceive to be an unfair subsidy.

I uphold the fact that the CBC provides a welcome counter balance to vested interest of media barons and increased owner concentration in the country. The concern in this area is well known and nothing new as witnessed by the work of the Davey and Kent commissions. The rational for public support of the CBC is supported by all political parties and given we haven't had a further study of media concentration since 1981 any move to cutoff the CBC would be viewed as idiotic.

In recent times it has been It's very difficult to get a critical and reality based assessment of our political economy. I thought this current article may be of interest to some members here:

The Canadian economic miracle, exposed


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Was that article from the CBC? Oh no! A privately owned newspaper!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Was that article from the CBC? Oh no! A privately owned newspaper!


That article was funded by the media barons at CanWest. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Was that article from the CBC? Oh no! A privately owned newspaper!


The author has been a frequent guest on "The House". Nothing unusual about a free lancer publishing in privately owned newspapers or appearing on public broadcasts. 

I have been interviewed by the Sun and the CBC on matters local here in Ottawa and I run my own business.

Do you have a problem with that?

Honestly, it maybe time for a perc number 1.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> That article was funded by the media barons at CanWest.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Yes and the CBC has shows with Mr. Coyne, Mr. Leary, Rex Murphy.....so?

You object to CBC's overall editorial content as being too left of centre. I dislike the Sun's editorial content. So?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes and the CBC has shows with Mr. Coyne, Mr. Leary, Rex Murphy.....so?
> 
> You object to CBC's overall editorial content as being too left of centre. I dislike the Sun's editorial content. So?


Actually I have no problem with the CBC having a left wing bias. That was clear in my post. It does serve the public to have someone watching the government from the Left. Thats why I also welcome sunTV since we finally have someone thats willing to roll over some stones on the left. I just have problem with tax payers being forced to pay for the CBC and the fact it has an unfair advantage against private enterprise. Not to mention their refusal to be held to account for just how they're spending our tax dollars.
How would you feel about Sun's editorial content if the government gave them a billion or so a year to produce it?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually I have no problem with the CBC having a left wing bias. That was clear in my post. It does serve the public to have someone watching the government from the Left. Thats why I also welcome sunTV since we finally have someone thats willing to roll over some stones on the left. I just have problem with tax payers being forced to pay for the CBC and the fact it has an unfair advantage against private enterprise. Not to mention their refusal to be held to account for just how they're spending our tax dollars.
> How would you feel about Sun's editorial content if the government gave them a billion or so a year to produce it?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


But the govt., municipal, provincial, and federal does give money to the Sun in the form of advertising. What would the sum total be of the public sector's advertising bill? Many millions I suspect.

Do you use the same criteria on transparency when you look at the Huntsville boondoggle among others?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> But the govt., municipal, provincial, and federal does give money to the Sun in the form of advertising. What would the sum total be of the public sector's advertising bill? Many millions I suspect.


Sigh... 
So this somehow levels the playing field for you? The CBC gets the same plus a billion or two to pay all the bills besides. I'd be quite happy if the government funded the CBC just as you describe their funding of Sun Media above.



> Do you use the same criteria on transparency when you look at the Huntsville boondoggle among others?


If there has been a boondoggle in Huntsville then I expect the government to be investigated and if wrong doing is found, people prosecuted. The fact the government is conservative means nothing to me. They should be held accountable no less than the CBC should be held accountable for its actions with our dime. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Agree that the CBC should be held accountable. Refusing an audit just stinks.

I don't have a problem with the CBC. I don't care if they are left/right or upside-down. I don't have a strong opinion on whether they should be dismantled or not--have not really thought deeply about that. But I have heard stories from former CBC employees about what a mess they are as an organization, and I don't like that they going to court to prevent having to show where their funding has gone. That should be transparent.

(I also don't like SunTV, but that's more of an issue of personal taste... they are free to do whatever they like, I just don't watch that channel.)


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> It has been claimed by many CBC supporters that it reflects the values of 60%+ of Canadians.
> -it keeps an eye on the big bad right.
> -it is of great value to Canadians and worth watching.
> 
> ...


Strawman argument. There's a certain stability over time that only a government funded, arms length model can provide, particularly during this industry's transition to digital and alternative distribution. Advertising revenue falters through no fault of the station... Next thing you know they are closing their doors. Market arguments always boil down to the same nonsense: "it should do just fine in the private sector". Well the private sector isn't doing so well at the moment either.

Why the heck does everyone assume this has anything to do with the "quality" of their programming (whatever that means)? Or their ability to hold out the hat or drum up the right kind of sponsorship.

Here's an example, CBC turns into a publicly traded company that, let's call them, Red's Telecoms Corp (who has already been extorting Canadians for years) puts their pile of cash to good use and buys controlling share of CBC, vote to change the content to a "low overhead", high advertising model. People tune out, Red's claims it's no longer relevant and shuts the door, liquidating the CBC's assets. They then reopen it as a shell of it's former self and cash in on the CBC's good name and the marketing of nostalgia. But they certainly won't be adding any new jobs to canada after the initial layoff.

Political bias is irrelevant. It's about the bottom line of the shareholder, and that's not you.

Through no fault of Red's (they are simply eliminating the competition) they've single handed wiped out a moderately profitable station in exchange for instant shareholder gratification.

Do you honestly think that cutting the CBC loose is going to do anything to your taxes? The way our government is run, you'll see a pennies on the dollar return to price it competitively, the money goes to a brief and I'll advised public relations bid to buy the vote and you'll never hear of it again. Your taxes will inevitably increase during after the conservatives once again spend their way into the abyss to the tune of fiscal conservatism.

So yes, totally agree they should be accountable, to some degree over their spending, as much as any arms length institution is. And I don't think a single penny should be spent fighting to keep records secret.

But privatizing? Forget it.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> Sigh...
> So this somehow levels the playing field for you? The CBC gets the same plus a billion or two to pay all the bills besides. I'd be quite happy if the government funded the CBC just as you describe their funding of Sun Media above.
> 
> 
> ...


Yes it levels the playing field for me given that there is no interest by the Canadian media barons to produce as much or more native content than the CBC and they are completely unwilling to broadcast OTA into our less densely populated regions in this country. This is done to honour the CBC's mandate.

The auditor general outlined the boondoggle and the government said they would never do it again. How convenient that this info was not released after the fed election. I'm happy to see you will be equally critical of our federal government. All is not lost.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Some great news here. A fine example of the private sector partnering with the public sector to bring us Olympic coverage. Bravo CBC:clap::clap::clap:

CBC, Bell join forces to bid for 2014 and 2016 Olympics


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> I thought this current article may be of interest to some members here:
> 
> The Canadian economic miracle, exposed


He isn't any economist (and he isn't) if he thinks GDP growth, unemployment figures and deficit numbers are the only indicators of importance when analysing the performance of an economy... his analysis is to say the least extremely simplistic.

Just for starters, lets have a look at some of the comparative inflation rates in some of those countries that he thinks is performing better than Canada shall we?

*2009*

*Canada - 0.3*

Australia - 1.8
Austria - 0.5
Chile - 0.4
Czech Republic - 1.0
Denmark - 1.3
Iceland - 12.0
Israel - 3.3
Korea - 2.8
Luxembourg - 0.4
Mexico - 5.3
Netherlands - 1.2
New Zealand - 2.1
Norway - 2.2


This is just a sample and example. The information on the main economic indicators are all there for those who want to look at them at Economics: Key Tables from OECD


There are no less than 21 factors that indicate an economy's performance and they all interact with one another and must be analysed as a whole to judge the performance of an economy. So while he can say:



> Not that I blame the government for hoodwinking Canadians.


With his less than lame analysis he is doing exactly what he charges the government with... promoting an agenda and providing the "evidence" to "support" it while remaining silent on or disregarding other factors.

So the article is not very interesting to me beyond pointing out and proving that Dan Gardner is a journalist (and not a very good one at that if this is an example of work that is typical of him, IMO) and not an economist.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Law degree among others. Quite a distinguished journalist, but you don't have to like him.

Trained in law (LL.B., Osgoode Hall Law School, Class of '92) and history (M.A., York University, '95), Dan first worked as a political staffer to a prominent politician. In 1997, he joined the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen. His writing has won or been nominated for most major prizes in Canadian journalism, including the National Newspaper Award, the Michener Award, the Canadian Association of Journalists award, the Amnesty International Canada Media Award for reporting on human rights, and a long list of other awards, particularly in the field of criminal justice and law. Today, he is an opinion columnist who refuses to be pigeonholed as a liberal or a conservative and is positively allergic to all varieties of dogma. If you must label him -- and he'd rather you didn't -- please call him a "skeptic."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Law degree among others. Quite a distinguished journalist, but you don't have to like him.
> 
> Trained in law (LL.B., Osgoode Hall Law School, Class of '92) and history (M.A., York University, '95), Dan first worked as a political staffer to a prominent politician. In 1997, he joined the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen. His writing has won or been nominated for most major prizes in Canadian journalism, including the National Newspaper Award, the Michener Award, the Canadian Association of Journalists award, the Amnesty International Canada Media Award for reporting on human rights, and a long list of other awards, particularly in the field of criminal justice and law. Today, he is an opinion columnist who refuses to be pigeonholed as a liberal or a conservative and is positively allergic to all varieties of dogma. If you must label him -- and he'd rather you didn't -- please call him a "skeptic."


I'm fully aware of his Bio. I don't know the guy so I can't like him or dislike him. I dislike his "analysis" and conclusions for the reasons I have already stated.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> I'm fully aware of his Bio.


Super.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes it levels the playing field for me given that there is no interest by the Canadian media barons to produce as much or *more native content* than the CBC and they are completely unwilling to broadcast OTA into our less densely populated regions in this country. This is done to honour the CBC's mandate.
> 
> The auditor general outlined the boondoggle and the government said they would never do it again. How convenient that this info was not released after the fed election. I'm happy to see you will be equally critical of our federal government. All is not lost.


If you want "native" content, many of the commercial speciality channels produce much more "native" content than does the CBC.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> If you want "native" content, many of the commercial speciality channels produce much more "native" content than does the CBC.


You may be right but then you have to subscribe to one the media barons access services.
I'm strictly OTA and netflix, and supplemented by online purchases.

The only thing I miss about a cable or sat connection is live coverage of Canadien's games, but I'm finding I can always find an internet stream for the matches I really enjoy.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

It's heartwarming to me that CBC will possibly return to broadcasting the Olympics in Sochi where we can all unite behind Canada and watch Bobby Clobber score in overtime to win gold!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

A further thought on cable and sat accesses - one of the main reasons outside of lack of value for the monthly bill was that the providers ram specialty channels down your throat for channels you don't want through their horrible packages and bundles. For example, when I only wanted BBC news, I also received Fox and CNN news when I didn't want them. I didn't like subsidizing the news channels I didn't like. Yes I could programme the receiver to skip over them, which I did, but it bothered me that I had to pay for them. I disconnected over 2 years ago and basically no regrets.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

jimbotelecom said:


> A further thought on cable and sat accesses - one of the main reasons outside of lack of value for the monthly bill was that the providers ram specialty channels down your throat for channels you don't want through their horrible packages and bundles. For example, when I only wanted BBC news, I also received Fox and CNN news when I didn't want them. I didn't like subsidizing the news channels I didn't like. Yes I could programme the receiver to skip over them, which I did, but it bothered me that I had to pay for them. I disconnected over 2 years ago and basically no regrets.


I'll agree with you here.

I wish I could just pay for about a dozen channels and damn the rest. If it were not for the wife and kids that enjoy watching TV, I'd have no satellite or cable in the house. Nobody likes to be forced to pay for stuff they think is crap and have no use for anyhow.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> It has been claimed by many CBC supporters that it reflects the values of 60%+ of Canadians.
> -it keeps an eye on the big bad right.
> -it is of great value to Canadians and worth watching.
> 
> ...


Actually the point was given CBC's apparent bias reflecting a majority of Canadian's views, it's unlikely the conservative pipe dream of wiping their hated CBC and their nasty habit of outing BS government antics (unlike sunTV who'll continue to lick their behinds like the good little conservatives they are) so in short, your little diatribe of unicorns and rainbows is not going to amount to much. Unless you're a die hard conservative and truly hate the CBC, of which you would be in a small minority.

cheers indeed!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> A further thought on cable and sat accesses - one of the main reasons outside of lack of value for the monthly bill was that the providers ram specialty channels down your throat for channels you don't want through their horrible packages and bundles. For example, when I only wanted BBC news, I also received Fox and CNN news when I didn't want them. I didn't like subsidizing the news channels I didn't like. Yes I could programme the receiver to skip over them, which I did, but it bothered me that I had to pay for them. I disconnected over 2 years ago and basically no regrets.


With Videotron once you have your basic channels (which are the usual suspects) you have an a la carte option, no package and you just pay for the channels you pick. The only catch is I think there is a 10 channel minimum if I recall correctly, it has been so long ago now and we wanted more than 10 channels so I'm not sure right now.

Also there is a Canadian content requirement (something that you would be in favour of by the sound of it)... I think it is something like 1 in 3 or 4 channels have to be Canadian. (This is a CRTC imposition I believe.)


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> Hmm, for starters, wasn't there some comment about visors and French guys? Maybe to you folk out there on the prairie that's acceptable..
> 
> Now I don't recall Mansbridge making a similar type of ignorant statement.... Oh that's right, he's not a loud mouth bigot.





> On the January 24th edition of Coach's Corner, Don Cherry stated that most players who wear visors in the NHL are "Europeans and French guys." The controversy that ensued resulted in Mr. Cherry being put on a 7 second tape delay for future broadcasts of Coach's Corner. Although I do not agree with Mr. Cherry on a lot of issues (ie. I think that Peter Forsberg is the "toughest" player in the NHL), I was dumbfounded to see how many individuals in government and the media were quick to criticize him for his comments. I was particularly surprised by the fact that I did not see a single critic (or other party for that matter) take the time to determine if what Mr. Cherry said was, in fact, false. I took the time to do this. Many of you may be surprised to learn that Mr. Cherry was right when he said that most players who wear visors in the NHL are "Europeans and French guys."
> 
> In order to determine this question, I grouped players into the following categories (goalies were removed from the sample altogether):
> 
> ...


Don Cherry Was Right? French Players wear Visors!

the comment might offend your sensibilities, but at the time it was made it wasnt an inaccurate statement


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> With Videotron once you have your basic channels (which are the usual suspects) you have an a la carte option, no package and you just pay for the channels you pick. The only catch is I think there is a 10 channel minimum if I recall correctly, it has been so long ago now and we wanted more than 10 channels so I'm not sure right now.
> 
> Also there is a Canadian content requirement (something that you would be in favour of by the sound of it)... I think it is something like 1 in 3 or 4 channels have to be Canadian. (This is a CRTC imposition I believe.)


I'm aware of Videotron's more reasonable approach. Bell's sat service in Quebec a mere 10km from where I live also has an a la carte retail approach like Videotrons. Not in Ontari-ari-ari-o though. I wrote the CRTC about this discriminatory policy over a year ago on this very issue and all I received was that Bell is complying with its license.

Canadian content is not the issue....it's all the stuff I really didn't want....the golf channel, the backgammon channel, the car wreck derby channel, etc.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

I love how the Right's answer to everything is to privatize it.

Priorities change when the goal becomes profits. Some things work under that model. Other things suffer. The CBC would most definitely suffer and change into just another corporate media outlet.

Don't we have enough of those already?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

i-rui said:


> Don't we have enough of those already?


Nope. Room enough for one more...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> I love how the Right's answer to everything is to privatize it.
> 
> Priorities change when the goal becomes profits. Some things work under that model. Other things suffer. The CBC would most definitely suffer and change into just another corporate media outlet.
> 
> Don't we have enough of those already?


maybe the right can take their stupidity of privatizing anything in their path and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Truthfully we've seen enough of that stupidity of fire saling stuff to their buddies only to se taxpayers get shafted yet again by it later.

407 anyone?

oh and let's sell of the lcbo because it's actually making money to pay off some provincial debt the government can't figure how to balance because they're spending too much or are desperate to give their wealthy buddies even more tax cuts while duping the average numbskull into believing it'll trickle down somehow.

sorry but that's about the size of it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> I love how the Right's answer to everything is to privatize it.
> 
> Priorities change when the goal becomes profits. Some things work under that model. Other things suffer. The CBC would most definitely suffer and change into just another corporate media outlet.
> 
> Don't we have enough of those already?





groovetube said:


> maybe the right can take their stupidity of privatizing anything in their path and stick it where the sun don't shine.
> 
> Truthfully we've seen enough of that stupidity of fire saling stuff to their buddies only to se taxpayers get shafted yet again by it later.
> 
> ...


There was a time, along time ago now, when Canada *needed* a nationwide public broadcaster (news and weather reports), and a nationwide public broadcaster made sense to ensure that "everyone" had access to at least one channel whether it be radio or TV...

What exactly are the reasons that now in this day and age, we *need* a *publicly funded through tax dollars* a national public broadcaster...? I'm not being facetious, it's a serious question. Where is the *need* and what are the reasons?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> There was a time, along time ago now, when Canada *needed* a nationwide public broadcaster (news and weather reports), and a nationwide public broadcaster made sense to ensure that "everyone" had access to at least one channel whether it be radio or TV...
> 
> What exactly are the reasons that now in this day and age, we *need* a *publicly funded through tax dollars* a national public broadcaster...? I'm not being facetious, it's a serious question. Where is the *need* and what are the reasons?


Truthfully, we didn't need a public broadcaster in 1952, as the CBC prevented other TV stations from receiving licenses from about 1939 on to protect what it saw as its natural role as a TV broadcaster. We would have had television in Canada much earlier without the influence of the CBC.

I can think of few communities that don't have a wide variety of programming available at this point, except by choice.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Truthfully, we didn't need a public broadcaster in 1952, as the CBC prevented other TV stations from receiving licenses from about 1939 on to protect what it saw as its natural role as a TV broadcaster. We would have had television in Canada much earlier without the influence of the CBC.
> 
> I can think of few communities that don't have a wide variety of programming available at this point, except by choice.


What I am referring to is remote areas, where there was a demonstrable need as private interests could not make money due to the infrastructure expenses. That infrastructure is now in place thanks to public $$$ and I really don't have a problem with that expense...

The CBC as a Crown Corp could still exist as a user based revenue generated Crown Corp like CPC... pay as you go... Those who want the CBC subscribe to it, those who don't, don't.

Just like those who need CPC use it and pay for it accordingly... no public appropriations, self sustaining... The CBC could still be a "national public broadcaster" based on the financial model of the CPC.

Such a scenario would force the CBC to focus on what they do well and what is "necessary". As I said the infrastructure has already been paid for by public $$$... now most of the public money is spent on "content" production, administration and technological upgrades.

Why should the CBC be in the "business" of entertainment production, where there is no such thing as "national" identity (words used based on the so called "mandate" of the CBC) when you can't even get homogeneous/subjective agreement on what constitutes being "entertaining" among individuals let alone a nation as a whole...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The infrastructure? You could pretty much blanket the country with existing satellite coverage. No need for local broadcasters. Let the CBC broadcast 8 hours a day of programs it thinks are worthwhile to meet its mandate, and blast them from the satellite where no cable or internet can carry the signal.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> What exactly are the reasons that now in this day and age, we *need* a *publicly funded through tax dollars* a national public broadcaster...? I'm not being facetious, it's a serious question. Where is the *need* and what are the reasons?


diversity. 

a broadcaster that is not consumed entirely with ratings & profit can offer different programs and take chances that a corporate channel wouldn't.

information.

from a news perspective there is a huge advantage of having a non-corporate owned channel to cover events. would we really expect CTV to cover a negative story on Bell objectively? Canada would suffer if all our media outlets became corporate bullhorns.



screature said:


> Why should the CBC be in the "business" of entertainment production, where there is no such thing as "national" identity (words used based on the so called "mandate" of the CBC) when you can't even get homogeneous/subjective agreement on what constitutes being "entertaining" among individuals let alone a nation as a whole...


culture.

if *anything* encompasses canadian culture it's hockey. if there was no CBC there would not be hockey games broadcast on a public channel. If we were to lose that weekend ritual to paid specialty channels it would damage that link that binds the entire country. Too poor to afford TSN? tough luck.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A broadcaster never consumed with ratings and profit will always be begging for a handout.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The infrastructure? You could pretty much blanket the country with existing satellite coverage. No need for local broadcasters. Let the CBC broadcast 8 hours a day of programs it thinks are worthwhile to meet its mandate, and blast them from the satellite where no cable or internet can carry the signal.


I have to disagree as I think local is what the CBC does best....

I spent time in the James Bay area where the only signal was the CBC and the content was predominately national with a local "twist". They could still broadcast 24hrs a day with a repeated cycle as most specialty channels do, but pay as you go.

BTW "internet" is not strictly speaking broadcast and one of the reasons why I question why the CBC should have anything other than a very basic internet presence.

To my way of thinking the CBC on TV could easily devolve into nothing other than the ""NewsWatch" channel on a pay as you go basis.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> diversity.
> 
> a broadcaster that is not consumed entirely with ratings & profit can offer different programs and take chances that a corporate channel wouldn't.
> 
> ...


Information is more than readily available through numerous other outlets... there is no need there.

All the other things you refer to are not needs, they are wants... so if you want it you pay for it.

Sun TV offers diversity, and a certain culture... do you expect all Canadians to pay for that perspective via tax dollars?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

why did i even bother answering your question?

silly me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> A broadcaster never consumed with ratings and profit will always be begging for a handout.


I think the light is beginning to shine.

more later...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Information is more than readily available through numerous other outlets... there is no need there.
> 
> All the other things you refer to are not needs, they are wants... so if you want it you pay for it.
> 
> *Sun TV offers diversity, and a certain culture... do you expect all Canadians to pay for that perspective via tax dollars?*


you're like kidding... right? Because if you're not uhhh, yeah.

i-rui I think this pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I have to disagree as I think local is what the CBC does best....


If it does local best (I disagree but...) then why should it be nationally funded. Let it be funded by each province to do "local."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

there's an idea. Perhaps if there were no CBC in ALberta we can at least be spared the howling.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> why did i even bother answering your question?
> 
> silly me.





groovetube said:


> you're like kidding... right? Because if you're not uhhh, yeah.
> 
> i-rui I think this pretty much sums it up.


So neither of you have a defensible position that you can clearly and reasonably articulate??? Why am I not surprised.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> If it does local best (I disagree but...) then why should it be nationally funded. Let it be funded by each province to do "local."


There would be local and national affiliates that would contribute to the Crown Corps national bottom line... it would then be up to the CC to maintain the service or not...

And as I said there would be *NO* national funding a la CPC.. pay as you go user based revenues.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> So neither of you have a defensible position that you can clearly and reasonably articulate??? Why am I not surprised.


I'm sorry screature but when someone tries to put out that SunTV offers arts and culture, there -is- no position worth taking in that conversation.

That's a joke. You don't have to dislike sunTV to realize this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CBC viewership continues to decline. It needs to draw up newer, smaller plans for whatever it believes it's supposed to do.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I'm sorry screature but when someone tries to put out that SunTV offers arts and culture, there -is- no position worth taking in that conversation.
> 
> That's a joke.


No one said ARTS.. Ever!!Sun TV offers a certain culture. If you can't see that then you are blind and I can't help you with that.

And that is well beside the point. It was offered up as a reasonable comparison in terms of diversity and culture.... again if you can't see that....

BTW you have watched infinitely more Sun TV than I as I have not watched a single second because I knew from the get go where they were going to be coming from...

So you actually pay to watch Sun TV do you?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> No one said ARTS.. Ever!! It offers a certain culture. If you can't see that then you are blind and I can't help you with that.
> 
> And that is well beside the point. It was offered up as a reasonable comparison in terms of diversity and culture.... again if you can't see that....


I threw in the word arts to see if you'd go ballistic over it. 

Have it your way then  Culture. It still stands. Have you even watched the channel? I have, and there isn't an ounce of 'culture' anywhere in it, and I doubt they're trying to do so in any case.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I threw in the word arts to see if you'd go ballistic over it.
> 
> Have it your way then  Culture. It still stands. Have you even watched the channel? I have, and there isn't an ounce of 'culture' anywhere in it, and I doubt they're trying to do so in any case.


Look at my post again... I wasn't finished when you posted. "Culture" is a broad spectrum just because you don't appreciate it does not mean it isn't culture... You watch much Bollywood do you?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Look at my post again... I wasn't finished when you posted. "Culture" is a broad spectrum just because don't appreciate it does not mean it isn't culture... You watch much Bollywood do you?


sunTV runs bollywood? It seems to be a 24/7 right wing news channel here. And no I don't pay for any TV I get all of it OTA here.

Actually I do watch some bollywood. It's a nice break from the cheeseball hollywood b stuff.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> sunTV runs bollywood? It seems to be a 24/7 right wing news channel here. And no I don't pay for any TV I get all of it OTA here.
> 
> Actually I do watch some bollywood. It's a nice break from the cheeseball hollywood b stuff.


You clearly don't (or would prefer to pretend not to) get the points I am making so lets call it a day and agree to disagree and try and keep things civil... Next...

I like the Bollywood numbers on So You Think You Can Dance but I don't think I could last through a typical 3 hour production though....

The Weather Channel says it is supposed to be a beautiful albeit a relatively cool week-end in my part of the world.... Que the "How's the Weather" thread...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well I wouldn't get into a discussion about say cbc newsworld or ctv news channel because I don't get them and don't watch them, so I wouldn't know what I'm *cough* talking about when it comes to them.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature there was an excellent series of articles in the Globe around mid-August that addressed the future of the CBC on its 75th anniversary. If my memory serves me correctly there was an interview with Lacroix where he discussed funding models and the studies that have been conducted over the years.

Here's a link to one of the series:

The Happy Gang revisited: charting the future of the CBC - The Globe and Mail

I woke up at around 2am this morning and when I can't get back to sleep I usually either read or listen to Radio One overnight. I chose to listen to Radio One which for years now has programming that plays content from various national networks. I love this stuff because the content is excellent and gives me perspectives on all kinds of issues that I wouldn't normally think about or encounter as a media hungry consumer. I absolutely love national public radio. I remember a time close to 20 years ago when I flew down to L.A. for a telecom trade show in advance of the the actual scheduled work days. I had a tent and sleeping bag with me and I checked out Joshua national park and ventured into the mojave desert over the few days I had. I ran into an american native who saw the CBC logo on my cap and commented that he listened to Radio Canada via short wave and that "As It Happens" was his favourite radio show and that he appreciated Canadian views on world events, etc. He invited me to pitch my tent on his property for the night and I shared a great dinner with them. I was a curiosity to them and they had hundreds of questions about Canada. I answered everything as best I could and had a wonderful time and very memorable little trip. It makes me think that public institutions like the CBC are extremely valuable in breaking down barriers and creating dialogue between peoples. To me their value is precious and I am passionate about the CBC and an advocate for it as a result.

One TV show produced by the CBC that stands out is Suzuki's Nature of Things. It's translated into several languages and respected as an outstanding source of Canadian scientific content around the world. I wish that our country could produce more of this type of programming but there are limits to what the CBC can do. I think it does very well inside the country in various media formats like radio, TV, the web and addresses a need where the private sector will not go.

I'm quite well travelled in this country and when ever I'm in a city from St. Johns through to Victoria I tune into CBC for information and content. Even in Alberta CBC TV broadcasts and radio broadcasts rank number one or close to top position for viewers and listeners in Calgary and Edmonton. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the CBC is here to stay as a tax payer funded entity.

Have a great weekend!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> screature there was an excellent series of articles in the Globe around mid-August that addressed the future of the CBC on its 75th anniversary. If my memory serves me correctly there was an interview with Lacroix where he discussed funding models and the studies that have been conducted over the years.
> 
> Here's a link to one of the series:
> 
> ...


As someone who has regularly travelled from sea to shining sea both us and canada and watched every tv channel on the dial over the years, I can say I agree with you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nobody said that the CBC, or is independent producers, never produced a worthwhile show. The question is whether taxpayers should be paying for it. The chappy who is so excited about _The Nature of Things_ should be happy to pay for that show directly through subscriber fees.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and how does one do that through an antenna?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CBC hack: I once knew a boy from Detroit who watched _Mr. Dressup_.
The public: Then the CBC must be saved!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I once knew a boy from Detroit who watched Mr. Dressup.


Tough opening line of a limerick.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hey I saw mr. dressup when I was about 4. probably my first real rock concert.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Tough opening line of a limerick.


There once was a boy from Detroit
Who marketers could not exploit:
"I watch CBC, and I get it for free
It's Canucks who have to pay for it."


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> There once was a boy from Detroit
> Who marketers could not exploit:
> "I watch CBC, and I get it for free
> It's Canucks who have to pay for it."


That final rhyme is maladroit.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> That final rhyme is maladroit.


I was thinking that also but it just didn't seem to fit.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Those inside Detroit pronounce the name as two syllables, so I couldn't really use "maladroit."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Those inside Detroit pronounce the name as two syllables, so I couldn't really use "maladroit."


Ex-ploy-it?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

I'm presently listening to Cross Country Check-Up hosted by Rex Murphy (not my favourite CBC personality) but it's riveting radio focussed on what Newfoundlanders did for all the grounded U.S. citizens on 9/11, memories and the life long friendships that developed after it was all over. In spite of Bush thanking nations like El Salvador, and Botswana and not mentioning Canada in his speech, it is clear Newfoundlanders rose to the occasion and showed their great sense of hospitality to help U.S. citizens in need. This isn't being broadcast on private radio. Bravo CBC:clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well put and you will get no disagreement from me on CBC radio. The TV division though is in trouble and should be using the PBS format if it is to survive. It no longer holds any value for the tax dollars wasted on it to keep a small group of supporters happy.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Some incredible information coming to light including the assertion that Canadian military personel were in charge of NORAD on 9/11. News to me. Thank you to tax payer funded CBC.


----------



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

jimbotelecom said:


> I'm presently listening to Cross Country Check-Up hosted by Rex Murphy (not my favourite CBC personality) but it's riveting radio focussed on what Newfoundlanders did for all the grounded U.S. citizens on 9/11, memories and the life long friendships that developed after it was all over. In spite of Bush thanking nations like El Salvador, and Botswana and not mentioning Canada in his speech, it is clear Newfoundlanders rose to the occasion and showed their great sense of hospitality to help U.S. citizens in need. This isn't being broadcast on private radio. Bravo CBC:clap::clap::clap::clap:


It was an amazing experience, jimbotelecom. Here in NL, we received half of all the passangers who were forced to land somewhere in Canada. Gander, NL had about 65% of those folks (nearly 7,000 in a community of just over 7,000). St.John's received about 30% of the remaining passangers, with the other 5% being split between the other NL airport communities. 

At least Pres. Obama expressed appreciation for what the folks in Canada did on 9/11, and the US Ambassador to Canada was in Gander, NL today ........... along with a few hundred of the nearly 7,000 passangers who were show a degree of compassion and hospitality that day.

Paix, mon ami.

Gander on 9/11 told 'you were the best of us' - Canada - CBC News


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Just listening to this morning's edition of the Current where the CBC reporter who broke the Ted Morton story about the use of dual emails and lack of transparency in Alberta is being interviewed. He is speaking about the methods he used to break the story and why it's important. It certainly doesn't reflect well on FL Morton a leadership candidate in Alberta.
Yet another example of great investigative journalism by the publicly funded CBC.

Bravo! :clap::clap::clap:


----------

