Media Bias [Merged]
- Thread starter Cloud Cover
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,086
- Points
- 1,160
Reform the CBC
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Reform/5636064/story.html
Jason Clemens, Financial Post · Nov. 1, 2011
The nation's public broadcaster, the CBC, has attracted a lot of attention over the last few weeks. All the discussion is occurring within an Ottawa environment where at least $4-billion (probably more now, given the slowing economy) has to be found over the next three years for the government to balance its budget as planned. Unfortunately, the discourse about the CBC tends to be overly emotive and ideological rather than practical.
To objectively evaluate the CBC within the broader context of government services and programs that are all facing potential budget cuts (transfers to individuals and the provinces have been exempted), one should compare the broadcaster's goals against its performance.
But within what framework? In 1994, the Chrétien Liberals introduced a yearlong process of review for all government spending, which led to the historic 1995 budget. The spending review was based on six tests:
1) Serve the public interest.
2) Necessity of government involvement.
3) Appropriate role for the federal (or provincial) government.
4) Scope for public-private partnerships.
5) Scope for increased efficiency.
6) Affordability.
The CBC's stated mandate is to "inform, enlighten and entertain" viewers and listeners about our nation, its culture and identity. Although debatable, there is a cogent, reasonable argument to be made that a nation's government should undertake action to promote its values, culture and history. Such an argument would satisfy the first three tests listed above.
The satisfaction of the first three tests, however, doesn't logically lead to the need for a state broadcaster with all its fixed costs and bricks and mortar. The CBC received $1.16-billion in 2010 from the federal government, representing about two-thirds of its revenues. The practical question is whether alternatives to the status quo could achieve better results in terms of educating and enlightening Canadians about their culture, history and national identity at the same or even lower cost to taxpayers.
Tests four through six pose a serious, even existential challenge for the CBC in its current form. First, there are now a number of private companies that the CBC directly competes with, including large national organizations, such as CTV and Global, as well as many niche players. This suggests both private-sector alternatives (test #4) and room for efficiency gains (test #5) from changing the status quo at the CBC.
In addition to private-sector competitors, there is also the issue of existing alternative mechanisms to achieve the CBC's stated goal. One existing option, for instance, is the Canada Media Fund (CMF), a public-private partnership. The CMF already has processes in place to fund worthy (admittedly a subjective process) programs, including, by the way, programs broadcast by the CBC. Here is a clear alternative to the CBC model: Private companies apply to the CMF for funding to develop, produce, market and air programs. Such an approach would insulate the government from almost all the fixed costs associated with maintaining a national broadcaster.
Another serious problem for the CBC in terms of value to taxpayers is viewership (test #6). Simply put, it's hard to achieve CBC's mandate if no one is watching or listening. Examining the top 30 shows in any given week as compiled by the BBM is quite informative about this problem. Over the last year (period ending Oct. 16), the CBC had 163 programs in the top 30 (total of 1,560).
However, 57 of the 163 programs were hockey. Hockey would absolutely continue without the CBC. Sixteen of the remaining programs were Jeopardy!, 11 were Wheel of Fortune, and 14 were the Movie of the Week, which is more often than not an American movie. It's rather hard to explain how these programs advance or even resemble the stated mandate of the CBC.
That leaves 65 shows (4.2%) in the top 30 for the entire year. And the remaining shows are dominated by titles like Dragon's Den and the Rick Mercer Report. Canadians just don't seem to watch the CBC and when they do, it's not entirely clear that what they're watching is about their culture and heritage.
Another problem for the CBC is its cost. Currently, the CBC costs taxpayers about $69 per year. To put this into perspective, a cable customer in Ontario purchasing the basic package from one of the large providers gets more than 50 regular stations, plus 45 or so HD stations, plus over 75 radio stations for $36 per month. The magnitude of the value difference, particularly when one considers that most Canadians do not watch the CBC, outside of hockey, is striking.
One of the critical factors of success in the Chrétien spending review was that no area of government was exempt. Given the deficit and the scarcity of taxpayer-provided resources, CBC must be part of the current federal government's review. But the choice is not whether the federal government can or should support educational efforts about the country's history, culture and identity. Rather, the question is whether there's a better way to achieve those goals than spending more than $1.1-billion per year to maintain a national broadcaster. The evidence suggests, quite strongly, that a number of lower-cost options could achieve similar, if not better, results than the CBC.
- Jason Clemens is the director of research at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and co-author of the award-winning book, The Canadian Century (2010).
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Reform/5636064/story.html
Jason Clemens, Financial Post · Nov. 1, 2011
The nation's public broadcaster, the CBC, has attracted a lot of attention over the last few weeks. All the discussion is occurring within an Ottawa environment where at least $4-billion (probably more now, given the slowing economy) has to be found over the next three years for the government to balance its budget as planned. Unfortunately, the discourse about the CBC tends to be overly emotive and ideological rather than practical.
To objectively evaluate the CBC within the broader context of government services and programs that are all facing potential budget cuts (transfers to individuals and the provinces have been exempted), one should compare the broadcaster's goals against its performance.
But within what framework? In 1994, the Chrétien Liberals introduced a yearlong process of review for all government spending, which led to the historic 1995 budget. The spending review was based on six tests:
1) Serve the public interest.
2) Necessity of government involvement.
3) Appropriate role for the federal (or provincial) government.
4) Scope for public-private partnerships.
5) Scope for increased efficiency.
6) Affordability.
The CBC's stated mandate is to "inform, enlighten and entertain" viewers and listeners about our nation, its culture and identity. Although debatable, there is a cogent, reasonable argument to be made that a nation's government should undertake action to promote its values, culture and history. Such an argument would satisfy the first three tests listed above.
The satisfaction of the first three tests, however, doesn't logically lead to the need for a state broadcaster with all its fixed costs and bricks and mortar. The CBC received $1.16-billion in 2010 from the federal government, representing about two-thirds of its revenues. The practical question is whether alternatives to the status quo could achieve better results in terms of educating and enlightening Canadians about their culture, history and national identity at the same or even lower cost to taxpayers.
Tests four through six pose a serious, even existential challenge for the CBC in its current form. First, there are now a number of private companies that the CBC directly competes with, including large national organizations, such as CTV and Global, as well as many niche players. This suggests both private-sector alternatives (test #4) and room for efficiency gains (test #5) from changing the status quo at the CBC.
In addition to private-sector competitors, there is also the issue of existing alternative mechanisms to achieve the CBC's stated goal. One existing option, for instance, is the Canada Media Fund (CMF), a public-private partnership. The CMF already has processes in place to fund worthy (admittedly a subjective process) programs, including, by the way, programs broadcast by the CBC. Here is a clear alternative to the CBC model: Private companies apply to the CMF for funding to develop, produce, market and air programs. Such an approach would insulate the government from almost all the fixed costs associated with maintaining a national broadcaster.
Another serious problem for the CBC in terms of value to taxpayers is viewership (test #6). Simply put, it's hard to achieve CBC's mandate if no one is watching or listening. Examining the top 30 shows in any given week as compiled by the BBM is quite informative about this problem. Over the last year (period ending Oct. 16), the CBC had 163 programs in the top 30 (total of 1,560).
However, 57 of the 163 programs were hockey. Hockey would absolutely continue without the CBC. Sixteen of the remaining programs were Jeopardy!, 11 were Wheel of Fortune, and 14 were the Movie of the Week, which is more often than not an American movie. It's rather hard to explain how these programs advance or even resemble the stated mandate of the CBC.
That leaves 65 shows (4.2%) in the top 30 for the entire year. And the remaining shows are dominated by titles like Dragon's Den and the Rick Mercer Report. Canadians just don't seem to watch the CBC and when they do, it's not entirely clear that what they're watching is about their culture and heritage.
Another problem for the CBC is its cost. Currently, the CBC costs taxpayers about $69 per year. To put this into perspective, a cable customer in Ontario purchasing the basic package from one of the large providers gets more than 50 regular stations, plus 45 or so HD stations, plus over 75 radio stations for $36 per month. The magnitude of the value difference, particularly when one considers that most Canadians do not watch the CBC, outside of hockey, is striking.
One of the critical factors of success in the Chrétien spending review was that no area of government was exempt. Given the deficit and the scarcity of taxpayer-provided resources, CBC must be part of the current federal government's review. But the choice is not whether the federal government can or should support educational efforts about the country's history, culture and identity. Rather, the question is whether there's a better way to achieve those goals than spending more than $1.1-billion per year to maintain a national broadcaster. The evidence suggests, quite strongly, that a number of lower-cost options could achieve similar, if not better, results than the CBC.
- Jason Clemens is the director of research at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and co-author of the award-winning book, The Canadian Century (2010).
- Reaction score
- 1,086
- Points
- 1,160
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/cbc-exploring-jack-layton-biopic-has-familys-support/article2238530/
G & M 16 Nov 11
CBC exploring Jack Layton biopic, has family's support
I wonder if the neighborhood clinic scene will be X rated?
G & M 16 Nov 11
CBC exploring Jack Layton biopic, has family's support
I wonder if the neighborhood clinic scene will be X rated?
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 13,211
- Points
- 1,140
PJGary said:
I had nNo idea who Cthulhu is but do now.
I would think if CBC had someone playing the part of the PM the actor would have horns and hooves..... >
- Reaction score
- 2,897
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 1,472
- Points
- 1,090
milnews.ca said:
So let me see if I understand:
CBC: Only a judge can order the release of the documents.
Courts: Release the documents.
CBC: We will not release the documents.
So who's going to be the first to go to jail?
- Reaction score
- 2,897
- Points
- 1,260
Unless the committee caves, of course.....ModlrMike said:
I wonder who in government decided this? This doesn't sound like a decision a committee chair would be freelancing....
- Reaction score
- 19,361
- Points
- 1,360
Sounds like Lacroix is changing his tune. This is the first I've heard of his overall r'aison d'être on the "we won`t provide any information" issue as being related primarily to the protection of journalistic sources...
Regards
G2G
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 2,897
- Points
- 1,260
Good catch on the use of the term "sources" (although it's been used in another paraphrase situation by QMI media earlier this month).Good2Golf said:
The legislation reads as follows ....
.... but it sounds more gallant to say they're protecting "sources" rather than methods or practices.
- Reaction score
- 5,064
- Points
- 1,060
I'm not sure if it was ever really about seeing the content.
I'm hoping that it was a way of putting into the public record, the arrogance and secrecy, practiced by this taxpayer funded, Crown corporation.
I hope that it's all part of a larger plan to build a case, and gather evidence, ending in a very public inquiry into the anti taxpayer, anti government, money wasting elitist practices carried out by said organization.
I really hope it ends in the total dissolution and sell off of the CBC before the next election.
I'm hoping that it was a way of putting into the public record, the arrogance and secrecy, practiced by this taxpayer funded, Crown corporation.
I hope that it's all part of a larger plan to build a case, and gather evidence, ending in a very public inquiry into the anti taxpayer, anti government, money wasting elitist practices carried out by said organization.
I really hope it ends in the total dissolution and sell off of the CBC before the next election.
- Reaction score
- 19,361
- Points
- 1,360
milnews.ca said:
Interesting that in the QMI piece, Lacroix is quoted as relating the need for protection as related to "news", yet that distinction (as opposed to non-news programming, etc...) has never been made to my knowledge regarding refusal to provide requested information.
So does the CBC feel it can block any information requests because some of its operations are related to those of a "news organization"?
So if I read this correctly, other Government of Canada organizations must provide ATI'd information, including classified (when appropriately redacted) material (DND, CSIS, CSE, RCMP, etc...) , yet the CBC believes it doesn't have to provide any requested material? ???
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Hébert: Defensiveness not helping CBC/Radio-Canada
November 25, 2011
Chantal Hébert
MONTREAL—For the past decade, my working week has begun with an early morning trek to a Radio-Canada Montreal studio to talk about national politics on C’est bien meilleur le matin, the French-language network’s popular morning show.
I’m in by seven and usually out an hour later. We cover two issues in separate segments. For getting up at 5 a.m. to read every major paper in sight and drink enough coffee to sound marginally more awake than the show’s listeners, I get $250 (before taxes).
For the past five years, I have been a panelist on Radio-Canada television’s Les Coulisses du Pouvoir. The show is broadcast live about once every three Sundays. Otherwise it is taped on Fridays — when overtime is not an issue.
We normally cover three topics inspired by the week’s developments on Parliament Hill and in the National Assembly. In exchange for routinely turning my working week into six days along with keeping an eye on two capitals, I get $300.
The CBC’s At Issue panel is in its tenth year. For most of that decade, I took part in the mid-evening discussion from a hole in the wall of Radio-Canada’s Montreal basement. The booth was so spartan that it was known as Soviet TV.
More recently, I have been flying to Toronto where the set for The National is significantly more convivial. As a bonus, I actually get to see Peter Mansbridge and my fellow panelists. The rate for a regular At Issue panelist these days is $500. It has gone up along with the panel’s audience. A decade ago, it was about half of that.
As far as I can tell, my honorariums fall squarely within the fork established by the public broadcaster for its guest contributors.
I also know first-hand that there is more money to be made performing the same work for the private networks.
Seven years ago, Quebecor invited me to move over to its expanding media empire. I did not want to leave the Star but another major consideration was that I would have had to give up the significant side benefits attendant to a CBC/Radio-Canada gig.
One of those is the chance to work with media colleagues who are at the top of their game and passionate about engaging their audience on current affairs.
If Radio-Canada stopped broadcasting tomorrow, the rest of Canada would become a black news hole in Quebec. Alone among the country’s French-language news organizations, it has journalistic antennas across Canada.
For Quebecor’s money-making TVA flagship, Canada stops on Parliament Hill and, outside of exceptional circumstances, the world does not extend beyond Washington — the only two non-Quebec locales where it maintains bureaus.
To paper over the gaps in its federal coverage, Quebecor’s TVA network uses pundits like my friend, the ubiquitous politician-turned-media-star Jean Lapierre.
And then there is a reason why the At Issue panel is introduced as Canada’s most watched political panel: it is the only one to run in evening prime time on a national general television network.
Over the past year, Quebecor has filed hundreds of access to information applications related to the inner workings of the CBC — including the honorariums of guest panelists like myself.
In many instances, it would have been quicker to just pick up the phone and ask. The Globe and Mail did just that when it published a story about the At Issue panel some months ago.
That being said, the public broadcaster might want to reconsider its bunker-style approach to such queries. It contributes mightily to the birth of over-the-top urban legends.
When Radio-Canada offered former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe a weekly gig this fall, a predictable volley of outrage-filled columns followed.
Floating outlandish numbers, they portrayed his assignment as a raid on the public purse.
In fact, had the plan not been aborted, Duceppe would have received $300 a week — a bargain basement rate for a commentator with his public affairs knowledge and experience.
With more transparency, CBC/Radio-Canada would not so often needlessly hang itself out to dry.
Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1092746--hebert-defensiveness-not-helping-cbc-radio-canada
November 25, 2011
Chantal Hébert
MONTREAL—For the past decade, my working week has begun with an early morning trek to a Radio-Canada Montreal studio to talk about national politics on C’est bien meilleur le matin, the French-language network’s popular morning show.
I’m in by seven and usually out an hour later. We cover two issues in separate segments. For getting up at 5 a.m. to read every major paper in sight and drink enough coffee to sound marginally more awake than the show’s listeners, I get $250 (before taxes).
For the past five years, I have been a panelist on Radio-Canada television’s Les Coulisses du Pouvoir. The show is broadcast live about once every three Sundays. Otherwise it is taped on Fridays — when overtime is not an issue.
We normally cover three topics inspired by the week’s developments on Parliament Hill and in the National Assembly. In exchange for routinely turning my working week into six days along with keeping an eye on two capitals, I get $300.
The CBC’s At Issue panel is in its tenth year. For most of that decade, I took part in the mid-evening discussion from a hole in the wall of Radio-Canada’s Montreal basement. The booth was so spartan that it was known as Soviet TV.
More recently, I have been flying to Toronto where the set for The National is significantly more convivial. As a bonus, I actually get to see Peter Mansbridge and my fellow panelists. The rate for a regular At Issue panelist these days is $500. It has gone up along with the panel’s audience. A decade ago, it was about half of that.
As far as I can tell, my honorariums fall squarely within the fork established by the public broadcaster for its guest contributors.
I also know first-hand that there is more money to be made performing the same work for the private networks.
Seven years ago, Quebecor invited me to move over to its expanding media empire. I did not want to leave the Star but another major consideration was that I would have had to give up the significant side benefits attendant to a CBC/Radio-Canada gig.
One of those is the chance to work with media colleagues who are at the top of their game and passionate about engaging their audience on current affairs.
If Radio-Canada stopped broadcasting tomorrow, the rest of Canada would become a black news hole in Quebec. Alone among the country’s French-language news organizations, it has journalistic antennas across Canada.
For Quebecor’s money-making TVA flagship, Canada stops on Parliament Hill and, outside of exceptional circumstances, the world does not extend beyond Washington — the only two non-Quebec locales where it maintains bureaus.
To paper over the gaps in its federal coverage, Quebecor’s TVA network uses pundits like my friend, the ubiquitous politician-turned-media-star Jean Lapierre.
And then there is a reason why the At Issue panel is introduced as Canada’s most watched political panel: it is the only one to run in evening prime time on a national general television network.
Over the past year, Quebecor has filed hundreds of access to information applications related to the inner workings of the CBC — including the honorariums of guest panelists like myself.
In many instances, it would have been quicker to just pick up the phone and ask. The Globe and Mail did just that when it published a story about the At Issue panel some months ago.
That being said, the public broadcaster might want to reconsider its bunker-style approach to such queries. It contributes mightily to the birth of over-the-top urban legends.
When Radio-Canada offered former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe a weekly gig this fall, a predictable volley of outrage-filled columns followed.
Floating outlandish numbers, they portrayed his assignment as a raid on the public purse.
In fact, had the plan not been aborted, Duceppe would have received $300 a week — a bargain basement rate for a commentator with his public affairs knowledge and experience.
With more transparency, CBC/Radio-Canada would not so often needlessly hang itself out to dry.
Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1092746--hebert-defensiveness-not-helping-cbc-radio-canada
CBC's glitzy Strombo party cost $72Gs plus
By Brian Lilley, Parliamentary Bureau
Article Link
OTTAWA - CBC paid more than one-and-a-half times the average income of a working Canadian for a one-night, celebrity-filled party last September.
Called the Hazelton Takeover, the event cost taxpayers more than $72,000, thousands more than CBC president Hubert Lacroix claimed when he appeared before a Commons committee.
The lavish event, held at "Canada's only 5 star hotel" in "the city's finest and most fashionable downtown district," brought CBC host George Stroumboulopoulos together with American and British celebrities during the Toronto International Film Festival.
Lacroix told MPs that the party cost $64,000, but a single invoice from Veritas Communications shows a charge of $72,372.
Other invoices, including one from the Hazelton Hotel, have had all the key information -- including charges -- removed.
According to Statistics Canada's Labour Force Survey, the average wage in Canada for working individuals is $44,252 a year.
The documents were obtained by QMI Agency through an access to information request.
Another document shows a team of four bodyguards were hired to protect Stroumboulopoulos during his party. The costs for the private security team have also been removed.
The contract for renting out Canada's most luxurious hotel for the party were released with all relevant details removed.
CBC claimed the contract was "information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of a government institution."
The documents show that CBC officials hoped to create a buzz about the launch of their new show, George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight.
In the end they reported a three-day spike in Twitter traffic.
More on link
By Brian Lilley, Parliamentary Bureau
Article Link
OTTAWA - CBC paid more than one-and-a-half times the average income of a working Canadian for a one-night, celebrity-filled party last September.
Called the Hazelton Takeover, the event cost taxpayers more than $72,000, thousands more than CBC president Hubert Lacroix claimed when he appeared before a Commons committee.
The lavish event, held at "Canada's only 5 star hotel" in "the city's finest and most fashionable downtown district," brought CBC host George Stroumboulopoulos together with American and British celebrities during the Toronto International Film Festival.
Lacroix told MPs that the party cost $64,000, but a single invoice from Veritas Communications shows a charge of $72,372.
Other invoices, including one from the Hazelton Hotel, have had all the key information -- including charges -- removed.
According to Statistics Canada's Labour Force Survey, the average wage in Canada for working individuals is $44,252 a year.
The documents were obtained by QMI Agency through an access to information request.
Another document shows a team of four bodyguards were hired to protect Stroumboulopoulos during his party. The costs for the private security team have also been removed.
The contract for renting out Canada's most luxurious hotel for the party were released with all relevant details removed.
CBC claimed the contract was "information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of a government institution."
The documents show that CBC officials hoped to create a buzz about the launch of their new show, George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight.
In the end they reported a three-day spike in Twitter traffic.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 5,064
- Points
- 1,060
Sorry. I don't watch\ listen\ support (volutarily)\ care about the Communist Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
Did I miss something else expensive that I paid for, to highlight some other useless, untalented left wing, espousing fawn of neopotisim?
A minion that works for an untouchable, taxpayer funded, national organization?
An organization that is mandated to work for the majority of Canadians, that fails, so very miserably, on so many levels to fulfil that mandate?
The same Mother Corporation that has told the Canadian Parliment and by extention, the Canadian People, to go fuck themselves.
Sorry, I find it really hard to get excited anymore when no one else wants these deadbeats gone.
Did I miss something else expensive that I paid for, to highlight some other useless, untalented left wing, espousing fawn of neopotisim?
A minion that works for an untouchable, taxpayer funded, national organization?
An organization that is mandated to work for the majority of Canadians, that fails, so very miserably, on so many levels to fulfil that mandate?
The same Mother Corporation that has told the Canadian Parliment and by extention, the Canadian People, to go fuck themselves.
Sorry, I find it really hard to get excited anymore when no one else wants these deadbeats gone.
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 710
- Points
- 1,160
Going off-topic here but are bodyguards here in Canada allowed to carry firearms?? Nothing to do with Stroumboulopoulos; just curious.
Similar threads
