A
aesop081
Guest
BravoCharlie said:On a lighter note
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_should_the_government
:
I'm not sure what your eye are rolling for ?
Media Bias [Merged]
- Thread starter Cloud Cover
- Start date
I'm not sure what your eye are rolling for ?
- Reaction score
- 1,106
- Points
- 1,160
- In a week-long series, the National Post takes stock of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and asks: Where does it go from here? More on links.
See also: My Days at the Corp by George Jonas
http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
National Post 14 Mar 09
http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
CBC tunes in to a new reality
By Craig Offman
About two months ago, the CBC had a revealing dust-up with a local paper. On Jan. 19, the Moncton Times and Transcript criticized the way in which Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister treated contestant Camille Labchuk.
Though the program forbade contestants with political experience, it permitted the former Green Party candidate to compete, only to disqualify her hours before announcing the semi-finalists. “If this was really reality TV,” wrote columnist Rod Allen, “the producers should be playing with their own money rather than yours.”
Unable to let this awkward comment go, CBC spokesman Jeff Keay offered up an awkward phrase of his own.
The $50,000 prize comes from advertising revenue, not from taxpayers, he explained — adding that CBC TV is a “publicly subsidized commercial network.”
The term might be a tongue-mangler, but it does spell out CBC TV’s dilemma — one that has intensified in recent weeks.
As governments and advertisers slash their budgets, critics and supporters both wonder why we need a taxpayer-sponsored broadcaster that buys U.S. programs such as Jeopardy! and The Martha Stewart Show. Shouldn’t the Great Canadian Edifier produce more multi-culti shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? And really, what does the cloying Single Girl add to the public discourse?
A year from now all these eternal beard-stroking questions about Canadian culture might seem quaint: a more apt question might be whether the CBC will fall apart.
As potential layoffs loom and programs are cancelled, union employees are talking as though the end of the CBC is nigh.
Late last month, Hubert T. Lacroix, president and chief executive of the CBC, hinted at a more dire scenario in which he’d sell off the TV division.
“We will, of course, look at every option to increase our revenues to minimize the impact on our programs and our people,” he told a soldout crowd at Toronto’s Empire Club on Feb. 26, adding that one effective measure would be “downgrading or selling parts or the whole of some of our TV or radio services.”
Hoping at the time that the federal government would help cover a $60-million budget gap, Mr. Lacroix might have been speaking out of desperation. Three weeks later, the situation has worsened.
This past Monday, Ottawa rejected the possibility of a bridge loan or advance on future subsidies. It also turned down the CRTC’s proposal to impose conditions on how much domestic broadcasters could spend on U.S. programming, leaving the CBC to face stiffer competition for fewer ad dollars. “[Canadian] broadcasters have their own business model,” said Heritage Minister James Moore. “They keep their business models going forward as best they can. Far be it for me to second-guess how to run a broadcast network and programming.”
The much-heralded “factual programming” department, which was supposed to beef up Englishlanguage television’s bottom line, also suffered a series of high-profile setbacks in the past two years, beginning with the Gill Deacon Show. Highly publicized and made-over several times over the course of one season, the program was cancelled.
On Tuesday, the network announced it was cancelling Fashion File and ending production on Steven & Chris, the show that took Ms. Deacon’s slot.
But it’s not just the CBC that is about to hit a wall. Broadcasters are hurting everywhere. Advertising revenues are plummeting. Networks in Canada and the United States are cutting their budgets, shuttering stations and shrinking head counts.
The stock of CBS, the most-viewed broadcaster in the United States, has dropped 50% in the past two months.
Reliant on advertising, CBC TV faces the same challenges. “They’re in the same boat as CTV or Global,” said Stephen Tapp, a former top executive at CHUM. “No broadcaster can live the same way they did five years ago.”
Public broadcasting is also in major flux. “Almost everywhere there is a lack of imagination, a failure to articulate what public broadcasting should look like,” said Michael Tracey, the author of The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting. “They don’t have a f----n clue.”
U.S. public broadcasters such as National Public Radio will lay off 7% of its workforce and PBS’s New York flagship is laying off 14%. Britain’s Channel 4, a publicly owned, commercial broadcaster, is teetering on bankruptcy. Speculation grows that it might merge with the BBC’s profitable Worldwide division.
A media professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Mr. Tracey said that the CBC and its counterparts have turned to “crude populism” as a way to lure viewers away from speciality channels — or from YouTubing, Facebooking and Twittering away their time. He also said that they have made the mistake of pushing a brand, which is an increasingly weak approach for a media property.
In recent years, analysts have stressed that viewers are less loyal to channels than to programs, partly because of digital recording and pirated downloads. “Public broadcasting is not a brand,” Mr. Tracey said. “It is an institution.” This past January, Nicolas Sarkozy tried to rescue the dwindling fortunes of his country’s own broadcaster. France Télévisions, which also relied somewhat on ad revenue, has mostly gone public, a transformation that the French President called a “cultural revolution.”
Mr. Sarkozy has explained that he wants the revamped service to “rival the quality of the BBC.” Others say he wants to bolster privately owned television channels with the redirected revenue. The government has scrapped prime-time advertising on the public channels and introduced new taxes on commercial-TV advertising revenue and Internet and telephone providers. Combined, the measures would raise nearly $1-billion, which presumably would go toward subsidizing the network.
In Canada, the government has not taken any aggressive steps to overhaul the broadcaster. Two years ago, Robert Rabinovitch, Mr. Lacroix’s predecessor, asked Bev Oda — the minister of Canadian Heritage at the time — for a long-term plan, which would have set out the expectations for the public broadcaster and provided the financial means to meet them on a five-year basis. It never happened.
Bolstered by about $600-million in ad revenue, the corporation receives almost $1.1-billion to subsidize its 29 services, including English television, which receives 38% of the funding; its francophone counterpart takes in 25%.
But as a whole, the CBC remains relatively underfunded.
According to a 2008 study conducted by the media research firm Nordicity Group, the CBC’s $34 annual per-capita subsidy is the thirdlowest among 18 Western countries — less than half of its French counterpart’s, which is $77.
The BBC, a state-owned entity, directly taxes its citizens for the service.
The CBC, on the other hand, has to service two language groups across five time zones. Unlike the BBC, which is typically led by a board-appointed media veteran, the CBC is often led by a political appointee. Like most of his predecessors, Mr. Lacroix has never had a top job in a media company. At the same time, he is accountable only to the Prime Minister.
“There is an absence of accountability to the board,” said Ian Morrison, the spokesman for the CBC watchdog group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. “At the same time, there is no arm’s-length relationship with the government.”
Mr. Morrison suggested a BBC-like model in which the board, composed of TV veterans, nominates the president, who reports back to the board. But he is pessimistic about the possibility. “It’s too radical a change. I can’t see it happening.”
At the same time, radical changes to English-language TV two years ago have not made an overall difference.
Hoping to attract more viewers before prime time, it controversially bought the rights to U.S. game shows such as Wheel of Fortune. Aiming at a younger, hipper demographic, it developed shows such as the The Border, Intuition and the Douglas Coupland-inspired jPod. Going more urbane and affluent, it produced the Gill Deacon Show and The Hour.
In prime time, at least, the changes have paid off. The market share during that period has jumped to 8% - 9% in the first six months versus the previous season, but the bump hasn’t lifted the rest of English TV.
According to the CBC’s Jeff Keay, there has been a 2% increase in total viewership over the past three years.
Ad and program sales in the past two years have been flat at $329-million, up only around 2% from 2005. During the same period, the network’s costs have increased by 2%. “The best measure of how we’re doing is in the prime-time slot,” said Richard Stursberg, the CBC’s executive vice-president of English services. “I’m thrilled with how far we’ve come.” So far, the CBC has reacted tentatively to its cold, fiscal reality with nip-and-tuck adjustments, cancelling programs while refraining from large-scale layoffs.
But when Mr. Lacroix and his management present a strategy to the board of directors next Monday and Tuesday in Toronto, all that might change. During his Empire Club address, Mr. Lacroix hinted at a grim future — with or without dismembering the corporation. According to his talking notes, the CBC might insert more U.S. content into its prime-time schedule or shrink its geographic coverage, both of which would weaken the corporation’s case as the purveyor of all things Canadian and, in turn, diminish its case for taxpayer money. Losing government money at such a delicate time would mean even less funding for original programming, already a major cost centre.
Early last year, when advertising was more robust, Nordicity concluded that low ad budgets combined with the expectations of U.S.-style production values create “a poor economic environment for television programming in Canada.”
It concluded that “Canadian programming cannot be profitable without government intervention.”
Mr. Lacroix also has to consider downsizing expenses. “I’m hearing that they might want to lay off 600 or 700 people with some seniority,” surmised Mr. Morrison. It’s a figure that’s bandied about a lot.
Earning somewhere about$80,000$90,000 year, the unionized employees would likely require 18 months worth of severance pay. In total, this would cost about $500-million.
University of Calgary media professor Bart Beaty said that given the fact that salaries take up 12% of the operating budget, layoffs are inevitable. “They’re stretched to finish things like the high-definition layout,” he said, referring to an offering that has reached selected markets across the country, excluding his hometown. “It’s ridiculous. You can watch Leafs games in HD, but in Calgary, the fourth-largest market, you can’t watch the Flames in HD. They expect us to be happy about this?”
Co-author of Canadian Television Today, Mr. Beaty said this is a pivotal time for large-scale transformation, a reinvention of the CBC’s business model. Some experts think the CBC should shed its dramatic programming, which is relatively expensive to produce, and become more news oriented.
Others point to the “radio” model. Similar to the Sarkozy approach, it would mean a total retrenchment from advertising, but this would leave the CBC with even less money and make it more reliant on the government — unless a Sarkozy-like redistribution were arranged.
There is also a chance the BBC model would work: put a professional in charge and provide a 10-year mandate.
“A mandate helps safeguard independence,” said Mr. Stursberg, adding that the process of scripting, producing and editing can take up to three years. “With only one year, it’s difficult to do your financing in an orderly way.”
A new president every two years or three years is also a liability: The learning curve kicks in when they’re halfway through his tenure. Mr. Beaty said that in the nearterm, at least, the CBC could be doing a better job on digital technology. There aren’t enough podcasts. You can’t download content onto your phone.
Former CHUM executive Stephen Tapp also says that the CBC could focus more on its digital platforms, offering more broadband video and mobile content. “It’s a different world now,” Mr. Tapp said. “You have to follow the audience around. They’re not going to follow you.”
See also: My Days at the Corp by George Jonas
http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
National Post 14 Mar 09
http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
CBC tunes in to a new reality
By Craig Offman
About two months ago, the CBC had a revealing dust-up with a local paper. On Jan. 19, the Moncton Times and Transcript criticized the way in which Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister treated contestant Camille Labchuk.
Though the program forbade contestants with political experience, it permitted the former Green Party candidate to compete, only to disqualify her hours before announcing the semi-finalists. “If this was really reality TV,” wrote columnist Rod Allen, “the producers should be playing with their own money rather than yours.”
Unable to let this awkward comment go, CBC spokesman Jeff Keay offered up an awkward phrase of his own.
The $50,000 prize comes from advertising revenue, not from taxpayers, he explained — adding that CBC TV is a “publicly subsidized commercial network.”
The term might be a tongue-mangler, but it does spell out CBC TV’s dilemma — one that has intensified in recent weeks.
As governments and advertisers slash their budgets, critics and supporters both wonder why we need a taxpayer-sponsored broadcaster that buys U.S. programs such as Jeopardy! and The Martha Stewart Show. Shouldn’t the Great Canadian Edifier produce more multi-culti shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? And really, what does the cloying Single Girl add to the public discourse?
A year from now all these eternal beard-stroking questions about Canadian culture might seem quaint: a more apt question might be whether the CBC will fall apart.
As potential layoffs loom and programs are cancelled, union employees are talking as though the end of the CBC is nigh.
Late last month, Hubert T. Lacroix, president and chief executive of the CBC, hinted at a more dire scenario in which he’d sell off the TV division.
“We will, of course, look at every option to increase our revenues to minimize the impact on our programs and our people,” he told a soldout crowd at Toronto’s Empire Club on Feb. 26, adding that one effective measure would be “downgrading or selling parts or the whole of some of our TV or radio services.”
Hoping at the time that the federal government would help cover a $60-million budget gap, Mr. Lacroix might have been speaking out of desperation. Three weeks later, the situation has worsened.
This past Monday, Ottawa rejected the possibility of a bridge loan or advance on future subsidies. It also turned down the CRTC’s proposal to impose conditions on how much domestic broadcasters could spend on U.S. programming, leaving the CBC to face stiffer competition for fewer ad dollars. “[Canadian] broadcasters have their own business model,” said Heritage Minister James Moore. “They keep their business models going forward as best they can. Far be it for me to second-guess how to run a broadcast network and programming.”
The much-heralded “factual programming” department, which was supposed to beef up Englishlanguage television’s bottom line, also suffered a series of high-profile setbacks in the past two years, beginning with the Gill Deacon Show. Highly publicized and made-over several times over the course of one season, the program was cancelled.
On Tuesday, the network announced it was cancelling Fashion File and ending production on Steven & Chris, the show that took Ms. Deacon’s slot.
But it’s not just the CBC that is about to hit a wall. Broadcasters are hurting everywhere. Advertising revenues are plummeting. Networks in Canada and the United States are cutting their budgets, shuttering stations and shrinking head counts.
The stock of CBS, the most-viewed broadcaster in the United States, has dropped 50% in the past two months.
Reliant on advertising, CBC TV faces the same challenges. “They’re in the same boat as CTV or Global,” said Stephen Tapp, a former top executive at CHUM. “No broadcaster can live the same way they did five years ago.”
Public broadcasting is also in major flux. “Almost everywhere there is a lack of imagination, a failure to articulate what public broadcasting should look like,” said Michael Tracey, the author of The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting. “They don’t have a f----n clue.”
U.S. public broadcasters such as National Public Radio will lay off 7% of its workforce and PBS’s New York flagship is laying off 14%. Britain’s Channel 4, a publicly owned, commercial broadcaster, is teetering on bankruptcy. Speculation grows that it might merge with the BBC’s profitable Worldwide division.
A media professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Mr. Tracey said that the CBC and its counterparts have turned to “crude populism” as a way to lure viewers away from speciality channels — or from YouTubing, Facebooking and Twittering away their time. He also said that they have made the mistake of pushing a brand, which is an increasingly weak approach for a media property.
In recent years, analysts have stressed that viewers are less loyal to channels than to programs, partly because of digital recording and pirated downloads. “Public broadcasting is not a brand,” Mr. Tracey said. “It is an institution.” This past January, Nicolas Sarkozy tried to rescue the dwindling fortunes of his country’s own broadcaster. France Télévisions, which also relied somewhat on ad revenue, has mostly gone public, a transformation that the French President called a “cultural revolution.”
Mr. Sarkozy has explained that he wants the revamped service to “rival the quality of the BBC.” Others say he wants to bolster privately owned television channels with the redirected revenue. The government has scrapped prime-time advertising on the public channels and introduced new taxes on commercial-TV advertising revenue and Internet and telephone providers. Combined, the measures would raise nearly $1-billion, which presumably would go toward subsidizing the network.
In Canada, the government has not taken any aggressive steps to overhaul the broadcaster. Two years ago, Robert Rabinovitch, Mr. Lacroix’s predecessor, asked Bev Oda — the minister of Canadian Heritage at the time — for a long-term plan, which would have set out the expectations for the public broadcaster and provided the financial means to meet them on a five-year basis. It never happened.
Bolstered by about $600-million in ad revenue, the corporation receives almost $1.1-billion to subsidize its 29 services, including English television, which receives 38% of the funding; its francophone counterpart takes in 25%.
But as a whole, the CBC remains relatively underfunded.
According to a 2008 study conducted by the media research firm Nordicity Group, the CBC’s $34 annual per-capita subsidy is the thirdlowest among 18 Western countries — less than half of its French counterpart’s, which is $77.
The BBC, a state-owned entity, directly taxes its citizens for the service.
The CBC, on the other hand, has to service two language groups across five time zones. Unlike the BBC, which is typically led by a board-appointed media veteran, the CBC is often led by a political appointee. Like most of his predecessors, Mr. Lacroix has never had a top job in a media company. At the same time, he is accountable only to the Prime Minister.
“There is an absence of accountability to the board,” said Ian Morrison, the spokesman for the CBC watchdog group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. “At the same time, there is no arm’s-length relationship with the government.”
Mr. Morrison suggested a BBC-like model in which the board, composed of TV veterans, nominates the president, who reports back to the board. But he is pessimistic about the possibility. “It’s too radical a change. I can’t see it happening.”
At the same time, radical changes to English-language TV two years ago have not made an overall difference.
Hoping to attract more viewers before prime time, it controversially bought the rights to U.S. game shows such as Wheel of Fortune. Aiming at a younger, hipper demographic, it developed shows such as the The Border, Intuition and the Douglas Coupland-inspired jPod. Going more urbane and affluent, it produced the Gill Deacon Show and The Hour.
In prime time, at least, the changes have paid off. The market share during that period has jumped to 8% - 9% in the first six months versus the previous season, but the bump hasn’t lifted the rest of English TV.
According to the CBC’s Jeff Keay, there has been a 2% increase in total viewership over the past three years.
Ad and program sales in the past two years have been flat at $329-million, up only around 2% from 2005. During the same period, the network’s costs have increased by 2%. “The best measure of how we’re doing is in the prime-time slot,” said Richard Stursberg, the CBC’s executive vice-president of English services. “I’m thrilled with how far we’ve come.” So far, the CBC has reacted tentatively to its cold, fiscal reality with nip-and-tuck adjustments, cancelling programs while refraining from large-scale layoffs.
But when Mr. Lacroix and his management present a strategy to the board of directors next Monday and Tuesday in Toronto, all that might change. During his Empire Club address, Mr. Lacroix hinted at a grim future — with or without dismembering the corporation. According to his talking notes, the CBC might insert more U.S. content into its prime-time schedule or shrink its geographic coverage, both of which would weaken the corporation’s case as the purveyor of all things Canadian and, in turn, diminish its case for taxpayer money. Losing government money at such a delicate time would mean even less funding for original programming, already a major cost centre.
Early last year, when advertising was more robust, Nordicity concluded that low ad budgets combined with the expectations of U.S.-style production values create “a poor economic environment for television programming in Canada.”
It concluded that “Canadian programming cannot be profitable without government intervention.”
Mr. Lacroix also has to consider downsizing expenses. “I’m hearing that they might want to lay off 600 or 700 people with some seniority,” surmised Mr. Morrison. It’s a figure that’s bandied about a lot.
Earning somewhere about$80,000$90,000 year, the unionized employees would likely require 18 months worth of severance pay. In total, this would cost about $500-million.
University of Calgary media professor Bart Beaty said that given the fact that salaries take up 12% of the operating budget, layoffs are inevitable. “They’re stretched to finish things like the high-definition layout,” he said, referring to an offering that has reached selected markets across the country, excluding his hometown. “It’s ridiculous. You can watch Leafs games in HD, but in Calgary, the fourth-largest market, you can’t watch the Flames in HD. They expect us to be happy about this?”
Co-author of Canadian Television Today, Mr. Beaty said this is a pivotal time for large-scale transformation, a reinvention of the CBC’s business model. Some experts think the CBC should shed its dramatic programming, which is relatively expensive to produce, and become more news oriented.
Others point to the “radio” model. Similar to the Sarkozy approach, it would mean a total retrenchment from advertising, but this would leave the CBC with even less money and make it more reliant on the government — unless a Sarkozy-like redistribution were arranged.
There is also a chance the BBC model would work: put a professional in charge and provide a 10-year mandate.
“A mandate helps safeguard independence,” said Mr. Stursberg, adding that the process of scripting, producing and editing can take up to three years. “With only one year, it’s difficult to do your financing in an orderly way.”
A new president every two years or three years is also a liability: The learning curve kicks in when they’re halfway through his tenure. Mr. Beaty said that in the nearterm, at least, the CBC could be doing a better job on digital technology. There aren’t enough podcasts. You can’t download content onto your phone.
Former CHUM executive Stephen Tapp also says that the CBC could focus more on its digital platforms, offering more broadband video and mobile content. “It’s a different world now,” Mr. Tapp said. “You have to follow the audience around. They’re not going to follow you.”
- Reaction score
- 1,106
- Points
- 1,160
BravoCharlie
Did you read some of the comments to the G & M column? I was a consistant CBC Radio listener.
" - I long for the days of quiet, intelligent Peter Gzowski. He was a political hack, sure, but he had class and was great radio"
- "As It Happens, The House, Basic Black. My all time favourite: Sunday Morning. The hosts with real personalities, all over the political spectrum. Barbara Frum, Ian Brown, Mary Lou Finlay. How did it all go so wrong? "
I forgot about Basic Black on Saturday afternoons. Originated in Wpg until he retired and moved to the BC coast.
How did it go wrong? Smart a**, we know better producers and people like "Ms Tremonti on Radio 1 is unable to hide her bias, .... I listen to her just to see if she will change. Never happens". I do listen to her occasionally to get a dose of puke.
"The new breed of journalist has killed CBC, and it is now going through its death throes. I was a faithful CBC listener, but who really cares anymore - not me! "
Did you read some of the comments to the G & M column? I was a consistant CBC Radio listener.
" - I long for the days of quiet, intelligent Peter Gzowski. He was a political hack, sure, but he had class and was great radio"
- "As It Happens, The House, Basic Black. My all time favourite: Sunday Morning. The hosts with real personalities, all over the political spectrum. Barbara Frum, Ian Brown, Mary Lou Finlay. How did it all go so wrong? "
I forgot about Basic Black on Saturday afternoons. Originated in Wpg until he retired and moved to the BC coast.
How did it go wrong? Smart a**, we know better producers and people like "Ms Tremonti on Radio 1 is unable to hide her bias, .... I listen to her just to see if she will change. Never happens". I do listen to her occasionally to get a dose of puke.
"The new breed of journalist has killed CBC, and it is now going through its death throes. I was a faithful CBC listener, but who really cares anymore - not me! "
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
I stopped listening to CBC Radio when Dr Bundolo's Pandemonium Medicine Show was cancelled.
- Reaction score
- 1,106
- Points
- 1,160
Good one. How about The Frantics?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Allright, I admit that I don't wanti Tremanti. She sucks royally, and I may not be as old as some of you coffin dodgers, and I've been only listening to CBC radio for about 5 years, But AIH, Ideas, even out front are grat weekday evening shows. As I am a supporter of the arts I'll go out and Q does a good job of finding relevant guests and delivers provocative interviews, my complaint there is that Gomeshi seems to have a large ego, he redeems himself by asking controversial questions though.
Age of Persusaion: good, Wire Tap: good, Randy Bachman.....he's boring to listen to but plays good tunes. What about Afghanada, Enright, or Dispatches. All quality programming, and what about all the overnight international coverage. All commercial free. and CCU to boot.
People, are you not tired of being told your inferior every ten minutes by private broadcasting advertisers, For 33$ per year, what else could give you such a return, it's frickin 9 cents a day, suck it up.
Age of Persusaion: good, Wire Tap: good, Randy Bachman.....he's boring to listen to but plays good tunes. What about Afghanada, Enright, or Dispatches. All quality programming, and what about all the overnight international coverage. All commercial free. and CCU to boot.
People, are you not tired of being told your inferior every ten minutes by private broadcasting advertisers, For 33$ per year, what else could give you such a return, it's frickin 9 cents a day, suck it up.
- Reaction score
- 14,477
- Points
- 1,010
I am actually a CBC radio fan. That said, they are screwing up big time with their morning format. And actually I would prefer that CBC follow the PBS/NPR model- take no advertising, some government funding and make the rest up on subscriptions/fund-raising drives. I would pay.
Then, concentrate on programming that the commercial broadcasters are not doing- documentaries, in depth reports, concerts, etc. Maybe even sports. Nothing wrong with running comedy and satire, but for cripes sake, Global and CTV do US gameshows like Jeopardy!- CBC doesn't need to.
I also note that Radio NZ is funded less than CBC, per capita. It is as good or better, so it can be done.
Then, concentrate on programming that the commercial broadcasters are not doing- documentaries, in depth reports, concerts, etc. Maybe even sports. Nothing wrong with running comedy and satire, but for cripes sake, Global and CTV do US gameshows like Jeopardy!- CBC doesn't need to.
I also note that Radio NZ is funded less than CBC, per capita. It is as good or better, so it can be done.
- Reaction score
- 1,506
- Points
- 1,090
I agree. CBC should focus on information rather than entertainment. That being said, their current information offerings seem to be so much "zero sum" research in that they appear to ask the question after having determined the answer.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090316/national/cbc_funding
TORONTO - CBC's board of directors met Monday to discuss strategies for the economic downturn as a watchdog group warned against putting ads on CBC Radio - a possibility that the public broadcaster raised last month.
CBC spokesman Marco Dube would not speculate on the nature of the closed-door meeting, expected to continue Tuesday, saying only that a difficult economic climate will force it "to make difficult choices that will affect our people and our programs."
Ian Morrison, spokesman for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, predicted deep cuts to staff and programming, but also said that the broadcaster has been eyeing the ad revenue potential of CBC Radio.
He pointed to a speech CBC president Hubert Lacroix gave to the Empire Club of Canada in February in which Lacroix said the CBC may have to look at "increasing the advertising we accept on the air."
Morrison says that can only mean one thing.
"They're already selling all they can (on television) and they're saying we're not getting as much money for it so where could they "increase advertising we accept on the air?' " asked Morrison, whose group launched an online campaign late last week to protest ads on CBC Radio.
"They only have one other vehicle - radio."
Dube would only say that the two-day meeting was part of an ongoing budget-planning process.
"We are facing difficult choices and we will have to make difficult choices that will affect our people and our programs but until we hear more on that we cannot speculate on anything in particular," he said from Ottawa.
"We will be able to communicate something clearer, probably around the beginning of the next fiscal year (April 1)."
In addition to increased advertising, the CBC has said other budgetary options could including selling off assets, increasing American programming and reducing news coverage.
Morrison said research data indicated radio ads could yield $95 million per year, but it was not clear if that figure accounted for the current recession.
Still, he noted that several obstacles would make it difficult for the CBC to go this route. For one thing, the CRTC mandates that CBC Radio be ad free and Morrison said it was unlikely to change its position. In addition, small-town private radio would likely lobby against increased ad competition and find a sympathetic ear from the Tory government, he said.
Such a move would also undoubtedly raise a firestorm among core listeners.
Morrison said putting ads on CBC Radio would be especially devastating to private radio.
"Private radio is in bad shape right now, so this would cause the bankruptcy of a substantial number of radio stations in smaller and medium size communities."
Morrison blamed much of the CBC's funding woes on the purchase of U.S. game shows "Jeopardy" and "Wheel of Fortune," complaining that the programs haven't delivered big enough audiences and that the corporation locked into an expensive multi-year contracts that it cannot afford.
Lacroix has said that ad revenues have dropped by as much as $60 million this year and will likely only get worse.
_____________________
Well there we go, if the CBC makes this decision, they will most likely loose me as a regular listener. :rage:
TORONTO - CBC's board of directors met Monday to discuss strategies for the economic downturn as a watchdog group warned against putting ads on CBC Radio - a possibility that the public broadcaster raised last month.
CBC spokesman Marco Dube would not speculate on the nature of the closed-door meeting, expected to continue Tuesday, saying only that a difficult economic climate will force it "to make difficult choices that will affect our people and our programs."
Ian Morrison, spokesman for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, predicted deep cuts to staff and programming, but also said that the broadcaster has been eyeing the ad revenue potential of CBC Radio.
He pointed to a speech CBC president Hubert Lacroix gave to the Empire Club of Canada in February in which Lacroix said the CBC may have to look at "increasing the advertising we accept on the air."
Morrison says that can only mean one thing.
"They're already selling all they can (on television) and they're saying we're not getting as much money for it so where could they "increase advertising we accept on the air?' " asked Morrison, whose group launched an online campaign late last week to protest ads on CBC Radio.
"They only have one other vehicle - radio."
Dube would only say that the two-day meeting was part of an ongoing budget-planning process.
"We are facing difficult choices and we will have to make difficult choices that will affect our people and our programs but until we hear more on that we cannot speculate on anything in particular," he said from Ottawa.
"We will be able to communicate something clearer, probably around the beginning of the next fiscal year (April 1)."
In addition to increased advertising, the CBC has said other budgetary options could including selling off assets, increasing American programming and reducing news coverage.
Morrison said research data indicated radio ads could yield $95 million per year, but it was not clear if that figure accounted for the current recession.
Still, he noted that several obstacles would make it difficult for the CBC to go this route. For one thing, the CRTC mandates that CBC Radio be ad free and Morrison said it was unlikely to change its position. In addition, small-town private radio would likely lobby against increased ad competition and find a sympathetic ear from the Tory government, he said.
Such a move would also undoubtedly raise a firestorm among core listeners.
Morrison said putting ads on CBC Radio would be especially devastating to private radio.
"Private radio is in bad shape right now, so this would cause the bankruptcy of a substantial number of radio stations in smaller and medium size communities."
Morrison blamed much of the CBC's funding woes on the purchase of U.S. game shows "Jeopardy" and "Wheel of Fortune," complaining that the programs haven't delivered big enough audiences and that the corporation locked into an expensive multi-year contracts that it cannot afford.
Lacroix has said that ad revenues have dropped by as much as $60 million this year and will likely only get worse.
_____________________
Well there we go, if the CBC makes this decision, they will most likely loose me as a regular listener. :rage:
- Reaction score
- 14,477
- Points
- 1,010
There is a limited pool of advertising dollars for radio. And if, as it was pointed out, by CBC commencing radio commercials, it puts the (taxpaying) competition out of business, it is kind of counter-productive.
Besides, as BC rightly points out, it would alienate whatever remains of the core audience. Screwed either way...
Besides, as BC rightly points out, it would alienate whatever remains of the core audience. Screwed either way...
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
- Reaction score
- 1,106
- Points
- 1,160
I believe that the amount that an advertiser pays is linked to the "ratings" from BBM. Consequently, a radio/TV station with the highest share of the market can"demand" the highest dollar for broadcasting the commercial. The Super Bowel is an example. I further believe that if the CBC was to commence adverts on radio we will be subject to the most irritating ads , including continuous repetition of the same ad and "But wait, order now and we will send you two (fill in the blank), all for $19.95 plus S & H.
- Reaction score
- 1,106
- Points
- 1,160
PS. I also enjoy NPR/PBS.
Here in Europe there are only two English choices: BBC and CNN. Consequently, I have become an expert on BBC programming. When it comes to doing programmes on either nature or on history, there is no one who can touch the BBC IMHO. The camera work is outstanding but they are well aware that they are working for a limited audience. The CBC needs to do the same, forget ratings and go for quality programmes that organisations needing to make money cannot do. We already subsidize them to an equivalent amount to the British licensing fee so let them work on their budget. The BBC orchestra still does live concerts: CBC doesn't even have one anymore. Junk the sitcoms and reality shows and produce programmes that introduce Canada to Canadians: geologically and historically, animals and people. Either that, or shut it down.
- Reaction score
- 1,106
- Points
- 1,160
Fine, but can the CBC be trusted? IMHO, no.
The CBC specializes in revisionest history. The CBC salivates over P.E. Trudeau. Remember The Valour and Horror?
The CBC specializes in revisionest history. The CBC salivates over P.E. Trudeau. Remember The Valour and Horror?
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,260
Could you share what you know of the license fee scheme? If I understand correctly, British TV owners pay a one-time or annual license fee, which goes straight into the BBC's kitty? Any other state money go in, or is it all user pay?YZT580 said:
Similar threads
