Comments on: A future for the CBC: multi-channel, subscription-based

By: James Connors

James Connors — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:07:32 +0000

When you publish someone’s name, make sure you spell it correctly; “Adrienne Arsenault.” My apologies to Ms. Arsenault.

By: James Connors

James Connors — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:43:00 +0000

If Harper and Cannon and Mackay and etc. – or Mr. Coyne – are interested in what’s going on in Pakistan in relation to the Afghanistan mission they should probably have been watching CBC News this week; specifically Adrian Arsenault’s on the ground reports. Here’s an example:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/popup_nlp.html?http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/news/features/arsenault-taliban090401.wmv

Today’s report from Karachi is equally singular. This on the spot reporting, intelligent and thought provoking is entirely absent from CTV, Global, or any of the United States networks. This quality of work alone makes the case, in my view, that the CBC is unique and the value it provides to Canadians cannot and will not be replaced should Canadians have to rely on private sector or subscription news sources.

Over to you Mr. Coyne.

By: Jdbar

Jdbar — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:23:52 +0000

I actually like that commercial, if only because it dares to be politically incorrect enough to portray a woman as the road-raging maniac.

By: Joefission

Joefission — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:53:20 +0000

Not that this is the central point of discussion but why pick on Rick, Glak? Rick Mercer’s show has a huge following among my twenty-something friends which makes it an exception in CBC programming. Rick spends time with politicians of all stripes, Olympians, artists, students, the military, businessmen and blue-collar folks and treats all with the same mix of respect and gentle kidding. In his travels he performs capably one of the core missions of the CBC: He makes all of Canada seem connected like distant family and illuminates just how blessed we are to live here with each other. In what seem like pretty dark times, RMR reminds me that not all the news is negative.

By: Pat Armstrong

Pat Armstrong — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:46:34 +0000

Lucy:

I’m with you!

Pat

By: Lucy

Lucy — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:08:47 +0000

Well Glak…it is because so much of the information on the CBC is very valuable and maybe, just maybe, so many of the Canadians that would never subcribe to it (if that became the delivery system), might stumble upon one of the amazing programs and actually learn something “by accident”!

And how odd that you refer to Rick Mercer in such a negative light…what exactly has he and his 30 minute programs done to deserve that? Perhaps you enjoy the kind of trash spewed out by Fox and the Red Eye comedy show instead. If that is the case, there is little need to dialogue further.

By: glak from planet zork

glak from planet zork — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:17:07 +0000

Lucy-

Why do you want a 100% of the tax payers forced to support a non-essential entity who’s viewership is in the rating basement. Because you like that miserable little troll Rick Mercer, isn’t enough for me.
I have no problem with a continuation of a non- commercial CBC radio, but even its leftist perspective must be addressed.

By: Bill-Muskoka (NAM)

Bill-Muskoka (NAM) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:44:38 +0000

As to some other comments. If I want ‘intelligent TV’ I watch PBS, National Geographic, Discovery, History, A&E, Discovery Civilization for real informative programs, and in High Definition. We also watch TSN in HD for curling.

The CSI (original and Miami, not NY) shows get watched, but again in HD and they are really worth it, especially ‘CSI: Miami’ which has matured into top grade entertainment

The Montreal and Halifax Comedy Fests are also regullar programs we will either watch or record on our DVR. We tried HBO and it is crude and not at all funny to our tastes.

Jon Stewart is ALWAYS recorded and watched the next day and is the best satire and news show on TV IMHO. I stopped watching Colbert because there is just too much nauseating Colbert!

’24′ gets watched as do a few other dramatic shows, as well as ‘Dancing with the Stars.’ Forget the Survivor and Idol shows…BORING and mind numbing.

None of the above are on CBC!

The rest of TV is, as was said decades ago, ‘A Vast Wasteland!’ of meaningless tripe and fluff. All the channels we have with satellite and so few worth tuning to. Sad!

By: Bill-Muskoka (NAM)

Bill-Muskoka (NAM) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:30:06 +0000

Andrew,

You and Peter Mansbridge were the only reasons I watched the CBC, but I have stopped even watching that. The ‘National’ comes on too late and interferes with other Prime Time shows. I now watch Global National for the news, mostly for the visuals because the rest is far easier to read and watch online! Chantel Hebert is nothing but another Quebecois with an agenda and she is hard to look at as well. The rest of the ‘At Issue’ panel, excepting Kady O’Mally, are also boring. Kady is a fireball and easy to listen to.

The CBC could best be used nowadays for airing their Pet Moron Don Cherry. Maybe rename it to the ‘Canadians Beating Canadians’ network. Hockey is anything but a sport. The WWE would be proud.

Mercer’s show is good for the Rant, beyond that…BORING! Now that Air Farce is gone that leaves THH22M which is not even funny anymore.

Sorry, but the CBC is not what it used to be and need be no more.

By: Terry

Terry — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:00:23 +0000

Yes, but they don’t do it at my expense. There’s the rub. The New York Times is an unrepentant liberal paper, and the Wall Street Journal is an unrepentant conservative one. They both have their biases, but they are both excellent papers. You just have to remember their agenda.

The problem with the CBC is not their agenda, it is the fact that I have to participate in it. So when a CBC radio host or featured guest calls people who believe abortion is immoral neanderthals, or that people who read or own a bible are ignorant, or that my catholic church is ghoulish, I remember and store it in my box o’ grudges about how I think my tax dollars shouldn’t have gone to that. I also make unflattering comparisons to the CBC to the various propaganda networks of the Soviet Bloc.

I have no grudges with Air America, though I’m sure the exact same things are said on that network. I have no grudges because I don’t have to listen to it, and their executives aren’t entitled to my tax dollars to live a comfortable life while they are demonizing me and mine to my fellow Canadian citizens.

By: Lucy

Lucy — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:30:06 +0000

Two points:

1. I noticed your haircut right away and thought you looked younger and more handsome than you have looked in many, many months. For a change, you didn’t look tired. (I have not missed a single episode of AT ISSUE in years.)

2. Leave the CBC alone! I like it just the way it is. It is my only source for news on television. (I get other perspectives online.) ALL the DOCUMENTARIES are FANTASTIC and I never miss The Fifth Estate, Marketplace, The Nature of Things, Rick Mercer…well, you get the idea.

By: Jones

Jones — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:41:21 +0000

Andrew,

why do you not go after the comments of your colleagues on these subjects. Chantel feels it is her duty to remind English Canada that we are held hostage in our own country by the Bloc and Quebec on a weekly basis. Her comments on the show about Radio Canada and Stephen Harper were irrelevant to the conversation and just reinforces her own agenda. As for Alan, he is a train wreck as well. Each week we watch him long for the days of Pierre Elliot where the Liberals ruled the country and taxpayer money was held to the highest bidder. Their comments were outdated, lacked any substance or vision, and they attacked your comments without batting an eye. The future of the CBC is either PBS style funding (donations by viewers) or Pay-feed, where you can watch, download, podcast, stream, or other available forums. I agreed with you 100%, to bad the other 2 on the show have old style Liberal and Bloc mentalities.

By: Samantha

Samantha — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:25:36 +0000

I disagree whole-heartedly. The CBC attracts journalists who want to delve deeper into stories than other outlets are willing/able to go. It is an institution and the fact that it is free to all Canadians is paramount.
I believe Coyne would agree that though, as he says, “government should do only what government can do”, you won’t find the same level of investigative journalism on private networks, and were you to find one that did, there is the inevitability of that source being compromised by ownership (ie. 60 Minutes constantly producing stories stemming from books published by fellow Time-Warner owned firms, as well as CNN cross-over content).

So perhaps in the case of quality programming, only the government, through its publicly funded television, can produce the high level of journalism that this country both desires and requires.

Rex Murphy on why the CBC matters:
http://www.friends.ca/news-item/5067

By: Doug Smith

Doug Smith — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:36:17 +0000

1. I disagree. TV is the most important medium for distributing information. Or perhaps it is the 2nd most important next to the internet. Either way, like it or not it plays an important role in our society. I suppose communication gurus will have a more accurate POV on this but I’m guessing this is correct.
2. See above. I think it’s important that the Canadian population is plugged-in so to speak. It helps prevent mass ignorance. Unfortunately tv also serves as a distraction that probably is at odds with the idea of keeping people properly informed on the world. I’m not saying tv or cbc is perfect in this respect, but the best we currently have.
3. You’re correct
4. I mostly agree

I grew up in a rural community and for the better part of 15 years or so we only had 2 channels, ctv and cbc. Cable and satellite have changed the situation but you see where this ends up. Either a person pays, or they only get cbc & ctv. As it stands I don’t have too many qualms against ctv but let’s ignore that for a second. If a person thinks that tv is an important vehicle for distributing information, that all people should have access to this information, and that all people should get this information for free because it helps have a better society, then I think cbc has an important role to play.

By: kc

kc — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:20:06 +0000

LOL Jack! Beware those sneaky cons – glak will probably bring along his raygun.

By: kc

kc — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:14:49 +0000

Have to agree with you on the programming Terry. I grew up with BBC, it really is much better. Why can’t the CBC produce a better product? Can’t agree with you on the leftie bit, not entirely anway. It would be better if they made more of an effort to bring in more diverse views, But yr wrong in the sense that i’ll lay odds the CBC makes more effort to offer opposing pov than just about any private network you care to name.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:07:15 +0000

Her “type” also outnumbers yours about 50-1 in Canada.

By: kc

kc — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:05:47 +0000

Gd for you guys!!!

By: kc

kc — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:02:56 +0000

Somehow we have to be prepared to bear the cost of defending our culture. Can it be achieved through the pbs model?? But name me one major western democracy that doesn’t defend its culture, one way or another. I just can’t shake the feeling that consevtives just don’t care at all.

By: Pat Armstrong

Pat Armstrong — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:41:02 +0000

This is off-topic I know – but generally speaking, journalists/columnists are not well-paid. Like many artists – they do not retire in style unless they write best-sellers like Stephen King.

Also off-topic – sort-of – it sure is interesting to hear other opinions on a topic that’s dear to my heart. CBC? I’ve been mad at the producers many times but I admire and respect the people who bring us great documentaries and programs of substance and merit and interest. Okay. Maybe they don’t all appeal to all of you – but you have to admit we “socialists” also have a right to good TV, or a hearty laugh [Rick Mercer] or some solid dramatizations [even a Canadian story or two.]

Pat

By: peimac

peimac — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:17:57 +0000

If they want to kill it off, then do it quick and tastefully. Not that will happen as years of bad management and gradually strangling cuts force viewers of mind and taste away. Hmmm upon further inspection this has been taking place for most of my lifetime and still the debate of CBC’s relevance continues. It was never meant to make money, it should never have been competing for advertising dollars. It should have been held to Canadian content only. It was never possible but cabinet interference should have been prevented.
Alas the bloated corpse of The Canadian Broadscorping Castration will slug forward providing fodder for politics and critics.

By: glak from planet zork

glak from planet zork — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:14:00 +0000

I’d like to respond to each of your 4 points Doug.
1. TV is only as important if you watch it and take everything as gospel. Magazines also disseminate news, so maybe you could renew my Macleans subscription,
2. What makes you think it’s up to your fellow citizens to furnish you with TV. Whether it’s Toronto or Butthole, Sask. you can purchase a news source.
3. No one, let me repeat that, no one can force you to buy cable service or any other private service.
We are however extorted by the Government to support the CBC.
4. The private news outlets have “delivered the news” long before Mother Corp. came to be. Sometimes they get it wrong, but usually they are pretty good at reporting accurately, if a view of competing reporters is unencumbered.
If airwaves are open to fair competition, regulation and cost there is no reason Canadians can’t get the best for their hard earned ( and in the case of Macleans columnists, ridiculously over compensated) dollars.

By: glak from planet zork

glak from planet zork — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:15:03 +0000

I don’t know a thing about you DG other than the above comment, but I have enough to profile you.
Tell me where I get it wrong and how the CBC doesn’t reflect your bias.
Your soft pro-choice, lean towards Darwin, recycle because you think we can forestall global warming (sorry, what’s this seasons catch phrase, oh! ya! climate change), cool with gay marriage,believe everything can be solved with gender equity, think PET was the best PM ever, still think Mary Walsh is funny and your sure Don Cherry is the anti-Christ.
The difference between folks like you and folks like me is, I know I’m bias, but I don’t want my taxes paying for yours to prevail.

By: Doug Smith

Doug Smith — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:15:26 +0000

Just to compare some of the news coverage, here is something I saw recently on the local news. It was reported that a local condo developer was decreasing the price of a new project from $1000/sq.ft (!!!) to closer to $500/sq.ft. The news said this was because of dropping labour costs and material costs, as told to them from the developer.

Yeah, right. Labour and materials amounted to $500/sq.ft. What the local news failed to mention was that the developer had to amend the purchase contracts, likely because of delays and change in financing. Without lowering the selling price, they would have massive rescissions and the project would be canned. But the “news” couldn’t report even the most obvious of truths but instead decided to be a shill for the developer.

That is just one reason why CBC is a better (and important) newscaster.

I posted earlier and sort of pondered whether CBC is worth its price and now that I’ve thought about it a bit more, I have to say yes.
1. television is an important media for disseminating information to people (I wasn’t immediately aware of this, but a bit of thought makes it obvious)
2. given #1, it is important for all Canadians to have tv service
3. we shouldn’t have to feel roped into giving $50/month to cable companies to watch one or two stations
4. we cannot rely on other news outlets to deliver the news, as shown in one simple recent example above.

By: oompus boompus

oompus boompus — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:01:32 +0000

The people are not cultural nationalists. They’re just people. That’s why they overwhelming prefer to watch US programming – because that programming is relatively free of govt-mandated B.S. such as nationalism, socialism, national-socialism, communism, multi-cult PC carpola, mediocre Can-Con productions, and so on.

The so-called cultural nationalists are really just rent-seekers who want to make a comfortable living without having to participate in the rough-and-tumble world of the free market.

The reason why politicians prefer to serve the rent-seekers instead of serving “the people” is that when someone is happy doing their own thing on their own time with their own money, they couldn’t be bothered with politicians – sucking up to them, writing them letters, giving them money, volunteering on campaigns, voting, etc. More happy people means less need for politicians and their, ah, services. In other words politicians are also rent-seekers who dislike the thought of earning an honest living in the real world and who wish to use the power of the state to tilt the world in their favor.

The political rent-seekers band together with the cultural-nationalist rent-seekers in order to concoct a story that freedom to speak and freedom to choose are actually very harmful – and if not forbidden outright then they must be improved upon by forcing people to support, with their money if not their ears and eyes, whatever the rent-seekers decide they wish to produce. What they wish to produce is, inevitably, the kind of material that reinforces their own socialist, nationalist, elitist and obscurantist outlook. Which is precisely the reason why nobody wants to watch it or listen to it.

By: Deborah Garceau

Deborah Garceau — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:20:09 +0000

I find it most interesting that the negative comments about the CBC come from those who do not WATCH! Begs the question just how would they know?
I am a faithful viewer, my opinion CBC has the most unbiased news reporting af any of the broadcasters. I I also get my US news from the News Hour also a public broadcaster!
The CBC provides entertainment programs that are also high quality – Davinci’s Inquest (I do know it is no longer on the air) Heartland, Wild Rose etc etc
The CBC provides a most important function for Canadians – leave it alone Conservatives and the like!

By: glak from planet zork

glak from planet zork — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:28:34 +0000

Possibly a more neutral spot, JM. Perhaps the Feschuk compound. My second has reminded me to find a starter. I’m partial to Wells tossing one of his famous embroidered hankies. And of course there must be spoils, say the lovely O’Malley hand (or keyboard) which ever she’ll give up.

By: quelips

quelips — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:19:01 +0000

I’ve always enjoyed the CBC programming and while some of the programming may not interest me, I can see that it may have value for others. However, for some years now I can no longer tolerate the CBC as the advertising in my opinion is far more aggressive than many americain stations. Not to mention the repetitive advertising (same commercial every break) that does little more than to make the viewer feel like a product. I also find that since september 11 the CBC seems to go too far in trying to be the ‘voice of canada’. I like the idea of canadian content and am more than willing to spend tax dollars for it, but not when the CBC insists on telling me why and how it is canadian.

By: glak from planet zork

glak from planet zork — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:06:35 +0000

I am, of course, speaking of the royal “from” Mr. Coyne. And don’t get me wrong, I much admire the quality of debate. I’m just say’in.

By: Terry

Terry — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:39:24 +0000

Well, the BBC definitely produces better shows than the CBC does. Dr. Who, Top Gear, The Office, etc. So if my tax dollars have to go to the CBC so that the left has a forum to broadcast their political views at my expense, we should at least get a few decent shows out of it.

I noticed one commentator went back to “The King of Kensington” as an example of a hit show on the CBC. I was born the year that show went off the air, and I am a college educated father with a beard on my chin.

By: Terry

Terry — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:34:24 +0000

It is the “nurtures cultural development” that gets us right wingers in a twist. You see cultural development because it promotes your culture. We don’t see our culture being promoted, so we see our tax dollars going towards propaganda.

By: Andrew Coyne

Andrew Coyne — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:15:52 +0000

Actually, I’m from Winnipeg.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:40:08 +0000

Very good, Sir. Shall we say, in the field behind Aaron Wherry’s blog, at dawn?

By: glak from planet zork

glak from planet zork — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:31:20 +0000

With dueling pistols of course.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:03:19 +0000

But, glak, I do want the CBC to spend your money insulting your life philosophies. How shall we settle this?

By: glak from planet zork

glak from planet zork — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:50:55 +0000

Steyn doesn’t receive my tax dollars in his pay envelope.
The at issue panel has permanent members from Ontario and Quebec only.
I don’t want my country using my money to insult my life philosophies with radio and TV programs I have no say in.
Is any of this untrue or unreasonable?

By: kc

kc — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:58:40 +0000

Right, you’d be just as hot to ban fascism i presume? Stalinsm??? Yeeshh!!! Poor Peter! Never realized he was so sinister i’m sure!

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:58:04 +0000

What about not replacing it with anything KC? Or, if a group in Canada were successful in organizing something along the lines of PBS I wouldn’t be opposed, as long as taxpayer dollars are not involved.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:54:08 +0000

Well said, kc.

By: kc

kc — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:54:04 +0000

Yeah, let’s replace it with neo-fascist clap trap, that’ll work!

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:50:46 +0000

The CRTC and the CBC should both be abolished, nothing but Socialist/Communist propaganda claptrap.

By: Rob WIebe

Rob WIebe — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:46:46 +0000

To do away with bias, we have to open up ownership — to everyone who wants to participate. Letting anyone contribute, opine, report, argue, mash up or comment, there would be no general bias.

By: kc

kc — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:34:38 +0000

Grow up! There’s no such thing as a totally objective pov! No doubt you consider Steyn objective – he isn’t. Are the private networks objective – hardly! And yes i know there’s a difference between a state broadcaster and Steyn.
The cbc does a reasonal job of including a different pov eg., Coyne on its panel programme – it could do itself a favour by bringing in more diverse opinons. Far too many news consumers only want their own biases confirmed anyway – there’s no pleasing everyone.

By: Mulletaur

Mulletaur — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:20:34 +0000

What, like CTV allows you to think for yourself and doesn’t have any bias ? Puhleeze.

By: Mulletaur

Mulletaur — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:19:21 +0000

The worst one is that “you don’t drive like her, so why would you pay the same insurance premiums as her ?” commercial. I have to turn the television off when I see it. Apparently Grey Power doesn’t actually pay out that well either, so I’ve been told.