11 ms·

CBC asks for $400M in increased government funding to go ad-free

122 points by I-M-S 10y ago

falsedan 10y ago
I'm old enough to remember the "it's your 8c/day" slogan for the (AU) ABC. CBC is proposing $46/year, which is only 12c. Pretty good deal!
samstave 10y ago
Assuming that CBC were to get this, how does this not make CBC a literal paid-mouthpiece for whatever the government might ask? Assume that the CBC is ad-free with this money(grant?) then what stipulations may the government make regarding what they may or may-not run? I am fine with things being ad-free, it just seems like a request like this would be rife with manipulation/corruption... even if not day-one -- but even within five years - the narrative is then owned.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > up from the current $34 per Canadian it currently receives, they are publicly funded anyway. edit: They also have a separate recommendation http://future.cbc.ca/recommendations.html http://future.cbc.ca/recommendations.html > Depoliticize CBC/Radio-Canada funding so that it is predictable and stable, tied to the existing five-year licence cycle, indexed to inflation, and separated from the election and annual government budget cycles. This would be similar to how the BBC now operates. Indexation is critical – without it, inflation of just 1.5% per year would erode the new government funding of $150 million to zero in just six years.
  - samstave 10y ago
    Thanks - I am ignorant of the .ca market/regulation space...
- Waterluvian 10y ago
  The government already gives the CBC much more than 400M/year. And so far it seems to be fine.
  - samstave 10y ago
    Thanks - completely ignorant to the situation there...
- jdc 10y ago
  Wouldn't that make every ad funded newspaper and TV channel a paid mouthpiece of its advertisers?
  - samstave 10y ago
    Well, technically they tacitly are... meaning that if the advertiser didn't like what they were saying, the advertiser can pull funding... but if the funder (sans ads) is a state/government agent, then its much less desirable.
    - derrickdirge 10y ago
      But if the public doesn't like how the government is running a public institution, they can elect different public officials. To have anything resembling a similar amount of say about how a privately funded media company operates, I have to boycott all of its advertisers, which likely entails long-term lifestyle changes.
  - ars 10y ago
    What is your reason for thinking they aren't? Advertisers are almost completely in charge of what shows makes it to TV - that's what they do at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upfronts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upfronts - they show advertisers proposed shows and the ad execs pick which ones make it to market. The advertisers can't pick the specific content of news type shows, but they can pick which news shows are broadcast in the first place.
- Dobbs 10y ago
  What about the BBC they seem to walk the tightrope of being funded by the government while still being about as balanced as a news org can be.
- rpeden 10y ago
  Well, if you ask some of my more hardcore conservative relatives, they'll say the CBC is so slanted to the left that it should have all of its funding revoked. Personally, I've voted Conservative, Liberal, and NDP in various elections at various times. Every election, I print out each party's platform, make notes, watch the debates, and only then make a decision. Approaching the CBC from that perspective, I've found them to be quite fair overall. They actually seem a bit hostile to whoever is currently governing. I've seen the hosts of some of CBC's political shows give government ministers and MPs from all parties a hard time, asking them tough questions and pointing out when they contradicted themselves. I think you concern is valid, but I haven't observed it happening even though CBC already receives lots of government funding.
PierreRochard 10y ago
$400,000,000 per year to produce audio content? Seems high. NPR is at $140,000,000.
- Waterluvian 10y ago
  CBC is also a premium quality television channel and news/media website. I believe CBC Radio is already ad free. The only ads I hear on it are ads for its own programming.
  - criddell 10y ago
    > The only ads I hear on it are ads for its own programming. I wonder if they would also eliminate their house ads?
    - Waterluvian 10y ago
      I hope not. They're not really ads so much as information. They're incredibly short and don't feel like ads. It's basically a, "Tonight at 8 we talk with some professor about some current event."
- notatoad 10y ago
  CBC produces at least 4 radio streams (Radio 1/2/3 in english, and at least one in french), and at least three TV channels (CBC TV, CBC News Network, and Radio-Canada)
  - aroberge 10y ago
    To add to what you already have listed: there is a second radio stream in French (called Espace Musique) as well as a French equivalent to CBC News Network (called RDI for Réseau de l'information). There are also regional broadcast (in both French and English) as well as an international version.
  - remir 10y ago
    There's also ARTV and Explora (both in french).
phaefele 10y ago
I'd be happy to pay my $45.71 per person per year. The BBC makes amazing shows - I don't see that Canada can't do the same. As Canadians, if we believe that we have something to say to the world, we need to fund saying it.
- erkose 10y ago
  There have been some great Canadian shows (e.g. Corner Gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Gas )
  - serge2k 10y ago
    On CTV, a private network.
    - neom 10y ago
      Yeah, Anne of Green Gables was probably a better example. :D
- problems 10y ago
  It provides close to zero value to me, I don't listen to radio at all. What's your proposal to me? I'm supposed to pay $45.71 so other people can listen to the radio ad-free? When they can already listen with ads and basically pay for it themselves?
  - chrisfosterelli 10y ago
    This isn't just radio, this is also their television channel and the news website. I don't use the radio but I easily get $45/yr of value from the news I find through CBC.
    - problems 10y ago
      Sure, but you're currently getting that value, it's still not an increase in value to you of $45/year. And it still doesn't rationalize it for someone like me who doesn't consume CBC content much to pay that. I find they're way too politically slanted in their news coverage and I'd rather deal with the ads than pay them $45/year for the few programs I watch occasionally.
simonhamp 10y ago
Interesting cover: 'the advertising revenue would go to privates'. Aside of the obvious (private) joke, that simply sounds like bold-faced wealth redistribution in the wrong direction: get the gov (at the expense of the taxpayer) to sub the movement of money to the private sector. Not that consumers really benefit financially either way. Still the rich get richer.
- taurath 10y ago
  To me, the question is: Does the public want an information service that isn't beholden to their advertising money, but instead beholden to their chosen representatives, and are they willing to pay for it? Thats the basis of pretty much all government services, and even government itself. Its not for their direct financial benefit, just as purchasing a cable subscription isn't to one's direct financial benefit. But its moving where the money goes towards something more accountable to the people.
  - branchless 10y ago
    Exactly. It's a serious problem in the UK but I don't think the BBC is exempt. We have private papers like The Telegraph, whose chief political editor resigned due to pressure from advertisers: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-... But the BBC is part of the establishment, regularly running property porn shows and glossing over the financial crisis. I have no solution, I just wanted to point out that national broadcasters are not "for the people" all the time. The BBC basically got beaten down by Blair who made the BBC chase ratings which was the perfect way to dumb it down and neuter it after they opposed the Iraq war. Having a "popular" national broadcaster is truly pointless because if they can compete on ratings they can derive their revenue from adverts. Just another thing in the UK that has been subtly eroded.
- I-M-S 10y ago
  Take a look at Chapter 3 of a well-researched Strategy CBC issued at http://future.cbc.ca/ http://future.cbc.ca/ - the whole advertising business model for traditional media is breaking down. Without government funding of content that matters, there's a risk of being left in the world where a handful of Silicon Valley corporations make billions in advertising profits from people sharing self-made fake news. These corporations are not subject to any policy frameworks many nations have, like mandatory quota of locally-produced content, nor are they obliged to pay any taxes to the country whose media landscape they disrupt. From here you can make an argument for redirecting the ad money to CBC's private Canadian competitors, as they are going to need all the help they can get to survive.
walterbell 10y ago
From a 2007 article about the cancellation of a critically acclaimed CBC show, http://thetyee.ca/Entertainment/2007/12/03/NoIntelligence/ http://thetyee.ca/Entertainment/2007/12/03/NoIntelligence/ "The CBC was born out of similar circumstances many years ago when there was a media monopoly and a feeling amongst people that it was necessary to have an alternate source of information and intelligence for the Canadian people. And now in exactly the same times I think it is really essential. The CBC is a threat because it's able to warn us of things that are going on in Canada that some of the other private corporate interests in Canada wouldn't want to warn us of because they may benefit from them. "So I think we are really on that train. But I do think that there are a lot of people out there who are passionate about the CBC and curious about what's going on too because there have been so many changes, a lot of them not for the better. And we frankly need to figure out some way to get more funding back into the corporation while at the same time looking who in the CBC is making the big decisions."
canada_dry 10y ago
Part of me loves the idea of a commercial free CBC, but I wonder whether it will make them just another bloated bureaucracy - less hungry and also much less likely to bite the hand that feeds them.
- neom 10y ago
  CBC has a pretty good history of pushing back against both itself and the government, I've never felt the CBC was corrupt or a government mouthpiece, I do worry about that last point also though.
  - MrBlue 10y ago
    CBC employees were targeted by their employer for making critical comments about Harper on their personal social media accounts.
    - neom 10y ago
      Link?
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  By that reasoning they are currently much less likely to bite the hands of all of their corporate advertisers. Is a broadcasting company that's accountable to private corporations really preferable to one that's accountable to the public?
  - josho 10y ago
    That's easily solved by securing their funding for several years into the future (possibly to the next government). That way the government can't retaliate for any hard hitting journalism.
neom 10y ago
Personally I think this is great and I think CBC does a pretty good (loved DNTO) job. However, the comments section of that CBC article seem to drastically disagree unfortunately. :(
- criddell 10y ago
  What would you say to the people calling for the dismantling of the CBC?
  - neom 10y ago
    It's hard because I see both sides of the coin, I worry about the same worry that most people point at, bureaucracy, blah blah blah. It's just that without a Canadian voice in the world, I feel we'll lose a lot, much of the original CBC programing (especially radio) talk a lot about what it means to be Canadian, where we came from. My parents and parents parents and I were all born in North Western Ontario and I feel like there was something special about listening to the CBC and understanding the culture.
    - CountSessine 10y ago
      without a Canadian voice in the world Why do people say this? CBC doesn't speak to the world; where are their broadcast towers in Europe or elsewhere? They're a Canadian broadcaster whose habit is to talk at the Canadian public in a voice betraying contempt and impatience. The CBC certainly doesn't speak for me.
      - neom 10y ago
        People immigrate to and travel to Canada buddy. :)
kitcar 10y ago
Note the CBC already has $675 million in funding from the Federal Budget - this is on top of that. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/liberals-pledge-675-million-in-cbc-funding/article29354285/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/liberals-p...
- criddell 10y ago
  Yeah, but for ad-free Beachcombers, it might be worth it.
  - stevewillows 10y ago
    Bring back Danger Bay and I'm in!
figjamjam 10y ago
For those who are unaware; the UK TV tax of roughly $15 a month. I never signed up. I'd get a threatening call from the BBC every 6 months trying to shake me down with threats of fines and jail time. I told them that I didn't have TV or the internet at home. Their response was internet on the phone or at work was sufficient to be liable. I told them to b*gger off and they did. For 6 months. In general; I'm not a fan of states forcing people to pay for things they don't want.
- jtchang 10y ago
  I'm positive that my taxes go to things I don't want as well as things I do.
  - figjamjam 10y ago
    Agreed, I now live in a tax haven. It's every bit as awesome as I imagined it to be :) I wouldn't mind paying some tax but there is a point where you're paying for your own propaganda / chains.
    - branchless 10y ago
      Tax haven "nice" or tax haven "we pay for our services by either depleting bountiful natural resources / mental regime / letting others avoid tax and taking a cut" ?
      - figjamjam 10y ago
        The government makes it's money via property and consumption taxes. And there is no military to fund. The economy is also helped by foreign tax avoidance. Interestingly; you'll find that the US is now by far the biggest enabler of foreign tax avoidance in the world. So I'm not sure what moral conclusion you're trying to allude to. At least here the same tax avoidance schemes are available to everyone.
        SpaceRaccoon 10y ago
MegaDeKay 10y ago
I wonder what it would cost them to broadcast over the air instead? They stopped doing so in the transition from analog to digital, leaving people like me without cable to do without our "public broadcaster". Now pardon me while I select from the other two major (private) broadcasters that somehow managed to transition over.
- remir 10y ago
  Where are you located? Here in Montréal, you can watch HD TV over the air using a ATSC tuner. The picture quality is excellent, better than HD cable even.
  - MegaDeKay 10y ago
    Saskatchewan. The only CBC transmitter left in the province is in Regina and I am nowhere near in range. All the rest of the transmitters in the province in the link below were analog and have been decomissioned. At least Global and CTV broadcast digital OTA and the picture quality is indeed excellent. http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/explore/strategies/dtv/coverage-maps/ http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/explore/strategies/dtv/cov...
appleiigs 10y ago
The whole thing is baffling to me. First, why wouldn't they just keep the ads and ask for more funding. It would be a smaller ask. Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media? Maybe the GlobeandMail should ditch their crappy pay wall or maybe the National Post shouldn't auto-play videos. Third, if CBC had no ads, it'll be a better experience and it would gain customers from the privates. It's a fairer playing field if CBC has to fund itself. The whole problem of govt funded corps is that they have an unfair advantage against privates, but they're saying the opposite? (I guess it's not as bad as the NDP in Alberta taking $1.3B of taxpayer money and giving it to the electricity producers.)
- rooster8 10y ago
  I'm guessing they're facing conflicts of interest that they would not have to deal with if they were not beholden to advertisers.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Because then you've got the worst of both worlds - you're still going cap-in-hand looking for money but you're also delivering a product covered in advertising that most people don't want. Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media? The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is publicly owned. Doing basic research is a great way to avoid looking foolish before commenting on the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporat...
  - appleiigs 10y ago
    My question was why do the want to fund private media. If you read the article it says "Critics have said that the CBC is taking ad revenue away from private media that are struggling financially." I wasn't asking why taxpayers were funding the CBC, a public company. EDIT: regarding "worst of both worlds", CBC gets to fulfill it's mandate at a cheaper cost with ads.
    - JamisonM 10y ago
Tiktaalik 10y ago
On this topic I spotted this tweet with a graph comparing per capita expenditure on public broadcasting. Canada is at the bottom along with the USA. https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status/803353503225630720 https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status/803353503225630720
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  Yep, and yet you couldn't even imagine that to be true if you saw half of comments around yours, and the immense right wing belly-aching and shitposting of a similar nature that occurs all over the comment boards of Canadian news articles.
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  Additionally this graph explains why I've watched more fan translated Danish shows than Canadian TV. Low funding does not yield good TV.
redthrowaway 10y ago
Why on Earth the taxpayer is subsidizing the CBC to crowd out private media is beyond me. It's not 1930. We don't need a state broadcaster to serve an otherwise unserved nation. To the extent the CBC does have a legitimate function, that function most certainly does not include sports, dramas, comedies, etc. By all means, let them adopt the PBS/NPR model. But get them out of the private market, and put my tax dollars to better use.
- wapz 10y ago
  In Japan we're required to pay for TV for NHK. If you live in apartments that get the premium channels you're required to pay for it, too (about $250/year). The regular broadcast is around $135/year I believe.
codeinchaos 10y ago
having worked within the CBC, I don't trust the leadership at all! mis-management of funds is a CBC tradition and pastime! they continue to struggle to understand the digital era, and the executives have gone on record plenty of times in their own town halls expressing their confusion and dismissal of "that thing called the internet". and while the CBC continues to compare itself to BBC at every turn, that is not a fair comparison, more like a toad contemplating itself a deer.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  Well, the BBC does receive three times the public funding, so it's really not a fair comparison.
- MrBlue 10y ago
  This exactly. My GF works at the CBC which gives me some insight to what's going on behind closed doors and let me tell you that I've never seen such incompetence and mismanagement at the management level. An additional $400M will go up in smoke the minute the cheque clears with very little to show.
  - josho 10y ago
    Having worked at large corporations myself I can assure you that the CBC does not have a monopoly on mismanagement. Yet somehow despite corporations mismanagement they still are more productive than many a small business.
    - adgezaza 10y ago
      ^ this guy is paid by the tax payers
- adgezaza 10y ago
  having also worked in CBC digital, this is very true.
ar15saveslives 10y ago
...then another $400M, and another, and another. Never ending story.
tfw62192 10y ago
Canada just HAS to go and do EVERYTHING right...
tunap 10y ago
The price sounds low. My initial question, "doesn't NHL advertising alone come close to this?" seems to be answered already. Not anymore. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-tv-broadcasters-see-revenue-shrink-cbc-hit-by-loss-of-nhl-rights/article29860418/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-tv...
bmh100 10y ago
Let's look at the full "Creative Canada" proposal [1]. After reading through the full document, the arguments for moving away from advertising seem to focus on financial stability (page 6) [1]: "Depoliticize CBC/Radio-Canada funding so that it is predictable and stable, tied to the existing five-year licence cycle, indexed to inflation, and separated from the election and annual government budget cycles. This would be similar to how the BBC now operates. Indexation is critical – without it, inflation of just 1.5% per year would erode the new government funding of $150 million to zero in just six years." Yet, let's also look at the cultural arguments being made (page 29) [1]: "Our focus would be more firmly on the needs of citizens, creators and our industry partners without the constant preoccupation of monetizing each of our initiatives. It would create greater opportunities to find and nurture new talent. It would create more room for distinct Canadian programming, made by Canadians, featuring Canadians and telling the stories Canadian creators want to tell. We would focus less on commercial return and more on cultural impact, exploring more ways to help Canadian content and creators thrive and grow. We would be able to commission programming that takes risks and has the time to find an audience without being overly driven by the need to deliver immediate success." Advertising can take many forms. Let's take a closer look at the BBC, whose model is frequently referenced. Does this proposed "ad-free" model include a restriction on the shows themselves to avoid product placement? Does this include an obligation to blur, mute, bleep, or cut brands? The BBC allows product placement [2]. Does this proposed model restrict sponsorships and sponsored messages? The BBC also allows sponsorships, sponsorship credits, and limited messages by sponsors [2]. Now, with broader questions: will there be a ban on home shopping shows (think QVC)? Will there be a ban on infomercials? Will overlay commercials (the small banners that run during shows) be banned? If other forms of advertising, such as those permitted by BBC, are still allowed, the broadcaster will still have commercial pressures. If shows are allowed to sell product placement and sponsorships, Canadian creators will still be under pressure for short-term monetization. What restrictions does CBC actually propose? I wish I could answer, but there are none. Without closing the earlier mentioned loopholes, CBC will not be ad free and will therefore be unable to fully achieve its cultural goals. [1]: http://future.cbc.ca/images/acreativecanada.pdf http://future.cbc.ca/images/acreativecanada.pdf [2]: http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-504-3931 http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-504-3931
dugditches 10y ago
The saddest thing is the only good content on CBC radio now is 'From The Archives' where they play old recordings. Content on CBC just isn't what it used to be. All the local anchors try to hard to be hip and with it. Gone are the days of Peter Gzowski.
kobayashi 10y ago
For those of you who are outside of Canada, and even for the many within, please take some time to consider the possibility that the CBC is not a benevolent public broadcaster, and is perhaps not actually putting out high-quality, unique, and novel information that would be inaccessible to Canadians without its public subsidies. Tristin Hopper[0] does a wonderful job of explaining a centrist's argument against funding the CBC/the CBC's modus operandi. [0] Tristin Hopper: Maybe CBC could use its resources to do something other than steal other people’s ideas http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tristin-hopper-maybe-cbc-could-use-its-resources-to-do-something-other-than-steal-other-peoples-ideas http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=ne...
throwaway23421 10y ago
oh hey an even more thoroughly government controlled media outlet. their reporting is so biased and so far politically left its embarrassing to listen to. fuck those guys
stevewillows 10y ago
In my view, the CBC is stronger with reporting than it is with the cheesy, low-budget original programming -- and I think they should focus on that. When it comes to programming, I get that they want to have a 'Canadian voice' -- but the shows are always so cheesy. I'd rather they air some of the stronger programming from the BBC. I'm not in-the-know, but they really messed up by losing Hockey Night in Canada.
datamingle 10y ago
Why don't they just have an optional premium subscription that makes it ad-free.
vivekd 10y ago
As a Canadian I oppose this, and not because I'm worried about money or taxes. I oppose this because the CBC provides news and entertainment in a way that directly competes with Canada's privately owned news and TV networks. As the government owned network grows private sources will lose their audience and voice, and Canadians will only be left with one voice, the government's voice. Further, unlike the BBC, the CBC answers directly to parliament. This means that the ruling party has direct control over the network and, should they desire, they can make it show only news and programs favorable to them. This makes the CBC a threat to Canadian democracy.

122 points by I-M-S 10y ago

I'm old enough to remember the "it's your 8c/day" slogan for the (AU) ABC. CBC is proposing $46/year, which is only 12c. Pretty good deal!

samstave 10y ago

Assuming that CBC were to get this, how does this not make CBC a literal paid-mouthpiece for whatever the government might ask? Assume that the CBC is ad-free with this money(grant?) then what stipulations may the government make regarding what they may or may-not run? I am fine with things being ad-free, it just seems like a request like this would be rife with manipulation/corruption... even if not day-one -- but even within five years - the narrative is then owned.

serge2k 10y ago
> up from the current $34 per Canadian it currently receives, they are publicly funded anyway. edit: They also have a separate recommendation http://future.cbc.ca/recommendations.html http://future.cbc.ca/recommendations.html > Depoliticize CBC/Radio-Canada funding so that it is predictable and stable, tied to the existing five-year licence cycle, indexed to inflation, and separated from the election and annual government budget cycles. This would be similar to how the BBC now operates. Indexation is critical – without it, inflation of just 1.5% per year would erode the new government funding of $150 million to zero in just six years.
- samstave 10y ago
  Thanks - I am ignorant of the .ca market/regulation space...
Waterluvian 10y ago
The government already gives the CBC much more than 400M/year. And so far it seems to be fine.
- samstave 10y ago
  Thanks - completely ignorant to the situation there...
jdc 10y ago
Wouldn't that make every ad funded newspaper and TV channel a paid mouthpiece of its advertisers?
- samstave 10y ago
  Well, technically they tacitly are... meaning that if the advertiser didn't like what they were saying, the advertiser can pull funding... but if the funder (sans ads) is a state/government agent, then its much less desirable.
  - derrickdirge 10y ago
    But if the public doesn't like how the government is running a public institution, they can elect different public officials. To have anything resembling a similar amount of say about how a privately funded media company operates, I have to boycott all of its advertisers, which likely entails long-term lifestyle changes.
- ars 10y ago
  What is your reason for thinking they aren't? Advertisers are almost completely in charge of what shows makes it to TV - that's what they do at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upfronts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upfronts - they show advertisers proposed shows and the ad execs pick which ones make it to market. The advertisers can't pick the specific content of news type shows, but they can pick which news shows are broadcast in the first place.
Dobbs 10y ago
What about the BBC they seem to walk the tightrope of being funded by the government while still being about as balanced as a news org can be.
rpeden 10y ago
Well, if you ask some of my more hardcore conservative relatives, they'll say the CBC is so slanted to the left that it should have all of its funding revoked. Personally, I've voted Conservative, Liberal, and NDP in various elections at various times. Every election, I print out each party's platform, make notes, watch the debates, and only then make a decision. Approaching the CBC from that perspective, I've found them to be quite fair overall. They actually seem a bit hostile to whoever is currently governing. I've seen the hosts of some of CBC's political shows give government ministers and MPs from all parties a hard time, asking them tough questions and pointing out when they contradicted themselves. I think you concern is valid, but I haven't observed it happening even though CBC already receives lots of government funding.

PierreRochard 10y ago

$400,000,000 per year to produce audio content? Seems high. NPR is at $140,000,000.

Waterluvian 10y ago
CBC is also a premium quality television channel and news/media website. I believe CBC Radio is already ad free. The only ads I hear on it are ads for its own programming.
- criddell 10y ago
  > The only ads I hear on it are ads for its own programming. I wonder if they would also eliminate their house ads?
  - Waterluvian 10y ago
    I hope not. They're not really ads so much as information. They're incredibly short and don't feel like ads. It's basically a, "Tonight at 8 we talk with some professor about some current event."
notatoad 10y ago
CBC produces at least 4 radio streams (Radio 1/2/3 in english, and at least one in french), and at least three TV channels (CBC TV, CBC News Network, and Radio-Canada)
- aroberge 10y ago
  To add to what you already have listed: there is a second radio stream in French (called Espace Musique) as well as a French equivalent to CBC News Network (called RDI for Réseau de l'information). There are also regional broadcast (in both French and English) as well as an international version.
- remir 10y ago
  There's also ARTV and Explora (both in french).

phaefele 10y ago

I'd be happy to pay my $45.71 per person per year. The BBC makes amazing shows - I don't see that Canada can't do the same. As Canadians, if we believe that we have something to say to the world, we need to fund saying it.

erkose 10y ago
There have been some great Canadian shows (e.g. Corner Gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Gas )
- serge2k 10y ago
  On CTV, a private network.
  - neom 10y ago
    Yeah, Anne of Green Gables was probably a better example. :D
problems 10y ago
It provides close to zero value to me, I don't listen to radio at all. What's your proposal to me? I'm supposed to pay $45.71 so other people can listen to the radio ad-free? When they can already listen with ads and basically pay for it themselves?
- chrisfosterelli 10y ago
  This isn't just radio, this is also their television channel and the news website. I don't use the radio but I easily get $45/yr of value from the news I find through CBC.
  - problems 10y ago
    Sure, but you're currently getting that value, it's still not an increase in value to you of $45/year. And it still doesn't rationalize it for someone like me who doesn't consume CBC content much to pay that. I find they're way too politically slanted in their news coverage and I'd rather deal with the ads than pay them $45/year for the few programs I watch occasionally.

simonhamp 10y ago

Interesting cover: 'the advertising revenue would go to privates'. Aside of the obvious (private) joke, that simply sounds like bold-faced wealth redistribution in the wrong direction: get the gov (at the expense of the taxpayer) to sub the movement of money to the private sector. Not that consumers really benefit financially either way. Still the rich get richer.

taurath 10y ago
To me, the question is: Does the public want an information service that isn't beholden to their advertising money, but instead beholden to their chosen representatives, and are they willing to pay for it? Thats the basis of pretty much all government services, and even government itself. Its not for their direct financial benefit, just as purchasing a cable subscription isn't to one's direct financial benefit. But its moving where the money goes towards something more accountable to the people.
- branchless 10y ago
  Exactly. It's a serious problem in the UK but I don't think the BBC is exempt. We have private papers like The Telegraph, whose chief political editor resigned due to pressure from advertisers: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-... But the BBC is part of the establishment, regularly running property porn shows and glossing over the financial crisis. I have no solution, I just wanted to point out that national broadcasters are not "for the people" all the time. The BBC basically got beaten down by Blair who made the BBC chase ratings which was the perfect way to dumb it down and neuter it after they opposed the Iraq war. Having a "popular" national broadcaster is truly pointless because if they can compete on ratings they can derive their revenue from adverts. Just another thing in the UK that has been subtly eroded.
I-M-S 10y ago
Take a look at Chapter 3 of a well-researched Strategy CBC issued at http://future.cbc.ca/ http://future.cbc.ca/ - the whole advertising business model for traditional media is breaking down. Without government funding of content that matters, there's a risk of being left in the world where a handful of Silicon Valley corporations make billions in advertising profits from people sharing self-made fake news. These corporations are not subject to any policy frameworks many nations have, like mandatory quota of locally-produced content, nor are they obliged to pay any taxes to the country whose media landscape they disrupt. From here you can make an argument for redirecting the ad money to CBC's private Canadian competitors, as they are going to need all the help they can get to survive.

walterbell 10y ago

From a 2007 article about the cancellation of a critically acclaimed CBC show, http://thetyee.ca/Entertainment/2007/12/03/NoIntelligence/ http://thetyee.ca/Entertainment/2007/12/03/NoIntelligence/ "The CBC was born out of similar circumstances many years ago when there was a media monopoly and a feeling amongst people that it was necessary to have an alternate source of information and intelligence for the Canadian people. And now in exactly the same times I think it is really essential. The CBC is a threat because it's able to warn us of things that are going on in Canada that some of the other private corporate interests in Canada wouldn't want to warn us of because they may benefit from them. "So I think we are really on that train. But I do think that there are a lot of people out there who are passionate about the CBC and curious about what's going on too because there have been so many changes, a lot of them not for the better. And we frankly need to figure out some way to get more funding back into the corporation while at the same time looking who in the CBC is making the big decisions."

canada_dry 10y ago

Part of me loves the idea of a commercial free CBC, but I wonder whether it will make them just another bloated bureaucracy - less hungry and also much less likely to bite the hand that feeds them.

neom 10y ago
CBC has a pretty good history of pushing back against both itself and the government, I've never felt the CBC was corrupt or a government mouthpiece, I do worry about that last point also though.
- MrBlue 10y ago
  CBC employees were targeted by their employer for making critical comments about Harper on their personal social media accounts.
  - neom 10y ago
    Link?
derrickdirge 10y ago
By that reasoning they are currently much less likely to bite the hands of all of their corporate advertisers. Is a broadcasting company that's accountable to private corporations really preferable to one that's accountable to the public?
- josho 10y ago
  That's easily solved by securing their funding for several years into the future (possibly to the next government). That way the government can't retaliate for any hard hitting journalism.

neom 10y ago

Personally I think this is great and I think CBC does a pretty good (loved DNTO) job. However, the comments section of that CBC article seem to drastically disagree unfortunately. :(

criddell 10y ago
What would you say to the people calling for the dismantling of the CBC?
- neom 10y ago
  It's hard because I see both sides of the coin, I worry about the same worry that most people point at, bureaucracy, blah blah blah. It's just that without a Canadian voice in the world, I feel we'll lose a lot, much of the original CBC programing (especially radio) talk a lot about what it means to be Canadian, where we came from. My parents and parents parents and I were all born in North Western Ontario and I feel like there was something special about listening to the CBC and understanding the culture.
  - CountSessine 10y ago
    without a Canadian voice in the world Why do people say this? CBC doesn't speak to the world; where are their broadcast towers in Europe or elsewhere? They're a Canadian broadcaster whose habit is to talk at the Canadian public in a voice betraying contempt and impatience. The CBC certainly doesn't speak for me.
    - neom 10y ago
      People immigrate to and travel to Canada buddy. :)

kitcar 10y ago

Note the CBC already has $675 million in funding from the Federal Budget - this is on top of that. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/liberals-pledge-675-million-in-cbc-funding/article29354285/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/liberals-p...

criddell 10y ago
Yeah, but for ad-free Beachcombers, it might be worth it.
- stevewillows 10y ago
  Bring back Danger Bay and I'm in!

figjamjam 10y ago

For those who are unaware; the UK TV tax of roughly $15 a month. I never signed up. I'd get a threatening call from the BBC every 6 months trying to shake me down with threats of fines and jail time. I told them that I didn't have TV or the internet at home. Their response was internet on the phone or at work was sufficient to be liable. I told them to b*gger off and they did. For 6 months. In general; I'm not a fan of states forcing people to pay for things they don't want.

jtchang 10y ago
I'm positive that my taxes go to things I don't want as well as things I do.
- figjamjam 10y ago
  Agreed, I now live in a tax haven. It's every bit as awesome as I imagined it to be :) I wouldn't mind paying some tax but there is a point where you're paying for your own propaganda / chains.
  - branchless 10y ago
    Tax haven "nice" or tax haven "we pay for our services by either depleting bountiful natural resources / mental regime / letting others avoid tax and taking a cut" ?
    - figjamjam 10y ago
      The government makes it's money via property and consumption taxes. And there is no military to fund. The economy is also helped by foreign tax avoidance. Interestingly; you'll find that the US is now by far the biggest enabler of foreign tax avoidance in the world. So I'm not sure what moral conclusion you're trying to allude to. At least here the same tax avoidance schemes are available to everyone.
      - SpaceRaccoon 10y ago

MegaDeKay 10y ago

I wonder what it would cost them to broadcast over the air instead? They stopped doing so in the transition from analog to digital, leaving people like me without cable to do without our "public broadcaster". Now pardon me while I select from the other two major (private) broadcasters that somehow managed to transition over.

remir 10y ago
Where are you located? Here in Montréal, you can watch HD TV over the air using a ATSC tuner. The picture quality is excellent, better than HD cable even.
- MegaDeKay 10y ago
  Saskatchewan. The only CBC transmitter left in the province is in Regina and I am nowhere near in range. All the rest of the transmitters in the province in the link below were analog and have been decomissioned. At least Global and CTV broadcast digital OTA and the picture quality is indeed excellent. http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/explore/strategies/dtv/coverage-maps/ http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/explore/strategies/dtv/cov...

appleiigs 10y ago

The whole thing is baffling to me. First, why wouldn't they just keep the ads and ask for more funding. It would be a smaller ask. Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media? Maybe the GlobeandMail should ditch their crappy pay wall or maybe the National Post shouldn't auto-play videos. Third, if CBC had no ads, it'll be a better experience and it would gain customers from the privates. It's a fairer playing field if CBC has to fund itself. The whole problem of govt funded corps is that they have an unfair advantage against privates, but they're saying the opposite? (I guess it's not as bad as the NDP in Alberta taking $1.3B of taxpayer money and giving it to the electricity producers.)

rooster8 10y ago
I'm guessing they're facing conflicts of interest that they would not have to deal with if they were not beholden to advertisers.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Because then you've got the worst of both worlds - you're still going cap-in-hand looking for money but you're also delivering a product covered in advertising that most people don't want. Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media? The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is publicly owned. Doing basic research is a great way to avoid looking foolish before commenting on the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporat...
- appleiigs 10y ago
  My question was why do the want to fund private media. If you read the article it says "Critics have said that the CBC is taking ad revenue away from private media that are struggling financially." I wasn't asking why taxpayers were funding the CBC, a public company. EDIT: regarding "worst of both worlds", CBC gets to fulfill it's mandate at a cheaper cost with ads.
  - JamisonM 10y ago

Tiktaalik 10y ago

On this topic I spotted this tweet with a graph comparing per capita expenditure on public broadcasting. Canada is at the bottom along with the USA. https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status/803353503225630720 https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status/803353503225630720

cmrdporcupine 10y ago
Yep, and yet you couldn't even imagine that to be true if you saw half of comments around yours, and the immense right wing belly-aching and shitposting of a similar nature that occurs all over the comment boards of Canadian news articles.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
Additionally this graph explains why I've watched more fan translated Danish shows than Canadian TV. Low funding does not yield good TV.

redthrowaway 10y ago

Why on Earth the taxpayer is subsidizing the CBC to crowd out private media is beyond me. It's not 1930. We don't need a state broadcaster to serve an otherwise unserved nation. To the extent the CBC does have a legitimate function, that function most certainly does not include sports, dramas, comedies, etc. By all means, let them adopt the PBS/NPR model. But get them out of the private market, and put my tax dollars to better use.

wapz 10y ago
In Japan we're required to pay for TV for NHK. If you live in apartments that get the premium channels you're required to pay for it, too (about $250/year). The regular broadcast is around $135/year I believe.

codeinchaos 10y ago

having worked within the CBC, I don't trust the leadership at all! mis-management of funds is a CBC tradition and pastime! they continue to struggle to understand the digital era, and the executives have gone on record plenty of times in their own town halls expressing their confusion and dismissal of "that thing called the internet". and while the CBC continues to compare itself to BBC at every turn, that is not a fair comparison, more like a toad contemplating itself a deer.

derrickdirge 10y ago
Well, the BBC does receive three times the public funding, so it's really not a fair comparison.
MrBlue 10y ago
This exactly. My GF works at the CBC which gives me some insight to what's going on behind closed doors and let me tell you that I've never seen such incompetence and mismanagement at the management level. An additional $400M will go up in smoke the minute the cheque clears with very little to show.
- josho 10y ago
  Having worked at large corporations myself I can assure you that the CBC does not have a monopoly on mismanagement. Yet somehow despite corporations mismanagement they still are more productive than many a small business.
  - adgezaza 10y ago
    ^ this guy is paid by the tax payers
adgezaza 10y ago
having also worked in CBC digital, this is very true.

ar15saveslives 10y ago

...then another $400M, and another, and another. Never ending story.

tfw62192 10y ago

Canada just HAS to go and do EVERYTHING right...

tunap 10y ago

The price sounds low. My initial question, "doesn't NHL advertising alone come close to this?" seems to be answered already. Not anymore. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-tv-broadcasters-see-revenue-shrink-cbc-hit-by-loss-of-nhl-rights/article29860418/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-tv...

bmh100 10y ago

Let's look at the full "Creative Canada" proposal [1]. After reading through the full document, the arguments for moving away from advertising seem to focus on financial stability (page 6) [1]: "Depoliticize CBC/Radio-Canada funding so that it is predictable and stable, tied to the existing five-year licence cycle, indexed to inflation, and separated from the election and annual government budget cycles. This would be similar to how the BBC now operates. Indexation is critical – without it, inflation of just 1.5% per year would erode the new government funding of $150 million to zero in just six years." Yet, let's also look at the cultural arguments being made (page 29) [1]: "Our focus would be more firmly on the needs of citizens, creators and our industry partners without the constant preoccupation of monetizing each of our initiatives. It would create greater opportunities to find and nurture new talent. It would create more room for distinct Canadian programming, made by Canadians, featuring Canadians and telling the stories Canadian creators want to tell. We would focus less on commercial return and more on cultural impact, exploring more ways to help Canadian content and creators thrive and grow. We would be able to commission programming that takes risks and has the time to find an audience without being overly driven by the need to deliver immediate success." Advertising can take many forms. Let's take a closer look at the BBC, whose model is frequently referenced. Does this proposed "ad-free" model include a restriction on the shows themselves to avoid product placement? Does this include an obligation to blur, mute, bleep, or cut brands? The BBC allows product placement [2]. Does this proposed model restrict sponsorships and sponsored messages? The BBC also allows sponsorships, sponsorship credits, and limited messages by sponsors [2]. Now, with broader questions: will there be a ban on home shopping shows (think QVC)? Will there be a ban on infomercials? Will overlay commercials (the small banners that run during shows) be banned? If other forms of advertising, such as those permitted by BBC, are still allowed, the broadcaster will still have commercial pressures. If shows are allowed to sell product placement and sponsorships, Canadian creators will still be under pressure for short-term monetization. What restrictions does CBC actually propose? I wish I could answer, but there are none. Without closing the earlier mentioned loopholes, CBC will not be ad free and will therefore be unable to fully achieve its cultural goals. [1]: http://future.cbc.ca/images/acreativecanada.pdf http://future.cbc.ca/images/acreativecanada.pdf [2]: http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-504-3931 http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-504-3931

dugditches 10y ago

The saddest thing is the only good content on CBC radio now is 'From The Archives' where they play old recordings. Content on CBC just isn't what it used to be. All the local anchors try to hard to be hip and with it. Gone are the days of Peter Gzowski.

kobayashi 10y ago

For those of you who are outside of Canada, and even for the many within, please take some time to consider the possibility that the CBC is not a benevolent public broadcaster, and is perhaps not actually putting out high-quality, unique, and novel information that would be inaccessible to Canadians without its public subsidies. Tristin Hopper[0] does a wonderful job of explaining a centrist's argument against funding the CBC/the CBC's modus operandi. [0] Tristin Hopper: Maybe CBC could use its resources to do something other than steal other people’s ideas http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tristin-hopper-maybe-cbc-could-use-its-resources-to-do-something-other-than-steal-other-peoples-ideas http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=ne...

throwaway23421 10y ago

oh hey an even more thoroughly government controlled media outlet. their reporting is so biased and so far politically left its embarrassing to listen to. fuck those guys

stevewillows 10y ago

In my view, the CBC is stronger with reporting than it is with the cheesy, low-budget original programming -- and I think they should focus on that. When it comes to programming, I get that they want to have a 'Canadian voice' -- but the shows are always so cheesy. I'd rather they air some of the stronger programming from the BBC. I'm not in-the-know, but they really messed up by losing Hockey Night in Canada.

datamingle 10y ago

Why don't they just have an optional premium subscription that makes it ad-free.

vivekd 10y ago

As a Canadian I oppose this, and not because I'm worried about money or taxes. I oppose this because the CBC provides news and entertainment in a way that directly competes with Canada's privately owned news and TV networks. As the government owned network grows private sources will lose their audience and voice, and Canadians will only be left with one voice, the government's voice. Further, unlike the BBC, the CBC answers directly to parliament. This means that the ruling party has direct control over the network and, should they desire, they can make it show only news and programs favorable to them. This makes the CBC a threat to Canadian democracy.