Reimagine the CBC

Haha! Pigs fly!

(though I know we agree on far more about it, including the important stuff,  than we disagree)

It's a fair point that CBC needs to improve its local tv coverage -- or at least find alternatives to work. But in my experience, MSM corps like City TV or CTV has bought up perfectly wonderful local stations and then cancelled all local coverage. I think the MSM is far more dangerous in that respect than the CBC. But that was in Onatrio (I live in Vancouver now). I can't speak to your experience.

6079_Smith_W. I'm saying that for the cost to run CBC - the approximately $1B - they should be able to put up more bricks and mortar tv stations in smaller markets and be intensely local to reflect the population in the regions.That could be considered part of their mandate whereas their private competitors don't necessarily have that same priority because of profit motives.

Catchfire. I agree that the big corporations that own those networks you mentioned did a lot of chopping but if you look, you'll see they've also restored some of that as well. For eg. CTV launched local morning shows this past January in almost all of its major markets. That's in addition to 5:00 pm, 5:30 pm and 6:00 pm and 11:00 pm newscasts. Citytv does intensely local breakfast tv five days a week in all of its markets and restored Toronto newscasts recently too.

I'm not saying that the CBC totally sucks at it. I mean I watch my local CBC station when I want some more depth but for quick bites the other guys are better.

Yes some of what you are talking about is useless filler but it is also the pressure on those stations to report the facts accurately and quickly. The audience doesn't always need to, or even want to, dissect a story.

I don't believe that news managers, producers and reporters deliberately decide every day, that they should numb or terrify their audience. If that's the case why does the CBC engage in this game too?

There is an instenseness and urgency to report because the public is hooked on this stuff. I don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg in that particular argument but I know if the eyeballs aren't watching in the private sector that means it's bad news.

Whether it is a helicopter view from the sky or it's a live cam at say, the Vancouver Stanley Cup riot...

We all watch. Compelling tv and radio often has a sense of urgency. Are the pictures coming out of Syria without a whole lot of background or context any less compelling than a car crash or a tragedy in your local market? The CBC is playing this game too.

Well people have a choice about watching and listening to American networks or not. The CBC hasn't given me that choice about paying for this information. Higher standards? True. But along with that goes arrogance and snobbery, and lack of local engagement.

I know that the CBC is already going to be busy trying to react to all the local programming being put on by its competitors but it might already be a little late. Some networks have done local engagement and culture for a long time. Now CTV has entered the fray. These things cannot be looked at in a vacuum.

The only thing I can take out of all this is that those useful idiots over at that Quebec-based tabloid-bot network prodded the CBC to get off its heels and act like what it was supposed to be doing in the first place.

I don't live in any of the MTV cities either. I've lived in a town of 1200 in northern Alberta and a city of 50,000 in northwest Alberta as well. I've never had a problem finding local tv programming from private networks or stations. In fact my own station in Lloydminster was easily viewable on two different over the air channels and focused exclusively on local programs. If it didn't it would never have survived.

We didn't focus on, as you put it "ribbon cuttings or ambulance chasing" or "Cops" episodes as news. That seems to be an oversimplification of what a newscast looks like and again, insults the audience. I think you demonize the private networks by invoking the American boogeyman as a threatening figure looming in the CBC sphere.

Seems to me that W5 can match the Fifth Estate for investigative reporting quite easily. If you are not watching or are not able to get programming from private broadcasters in your part of the country, then you won't have anything to compare the CBC to. But in this age of the internet, satellite tv and cable - most Canadians can get some sort of programming.

Cross-posted with you K2A.

And no, I have no problem with W5. I think it is good that both programs exist. And I am 50 years old; the digital signal just came in less than a year ago. I was watching Global when it was still KCND in Minnesota before it was bought and moved up to Winnipeg.  While I think Global and CTV each have some good things, I do not think they have quite the same analysis as CBC, and of the analysis they do have, I find that they can miss some things in their perspective. 

I do think they have more of a spot news style - especially Global.

I know you have worked in the media, as I have. So I think we both have our own understanding, and preference. You like one perspective, fine. If anything I am arguing for that range of choice, since I only see one broadcaster which is under threat - the CBC.

But any way you cut it, less news media is never better. NEVER.

Yeah, and Canada only supports a certain other country's colder war meddling and whose front line proxies, through their paramilitaries and hired mercenaries, kill off journalists for attempting to report the truth. The stoogeaucracy's hands are clean in that way.

Well gentlemen, don't forget - there is no perfect democracy and if you believe Mr. Fidel's views, we could fix it all by letting Communism or some form of it solve the world's problems. No atrocities committed by Communists Fidel? Not that I particularly ascribe to the Cold War model that drove much of American foreign policy.

You can focus on the southern neighbor who will never answer for its atrocities, or be smug and think that Canada hasn't been implicit in some of them as a silent partner. But if you think starting over and re-inventing the wheel is going to make a smoother ride, I say you'll hit a lot more potholes.

Regardless of that, what I'm saying is that Canadian media don't get assassinated in Canada by government or pro-government operatives like they do in Russia. Anyways, what does all that have to do with the thread title here?

Actually I think the reference to Russia had more to do with journalists opening elevator doors in their apartments and being shot dead. I got the fact that K2A's initial reference had nothing at all to do with communism. 

Before this takes a hard turn into discussing the American Empire, we should remember that it was a reference to the media, in a thread about the media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

And while no, the cold war of the 50s no longer exists,  of course there is tension between Russia and Canada, in particular over the polar region. And no, it has nothing whatsoever to do with communism.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/53394-russians-seeking-secrets-halifa...

No, I don't agree with K2A on everything; that's clear enough. But your talking points are also pretty well-worn, and don't think any of us can claim to represent the "real left".

902 journalists killed since 1992 151 of them in U.S.-occupied Iraq

And it's a good thing we aren't talking about scientists and academics bumped-off in recent years.

I think it's funny, and considering his handle,  that he's worried about journalists killed in a country that was once our enemy - then our WW II allies - then our cold war enemies  - and now just another capitalist state probably no more or less corupt than our own and still under suspicion by colder warriors in the U.S. as well as the stoogeaucracy in Ottawa.  It's laughable, really. The Harpers are no better with their leaping to defend our arctic "sovereignty" whenever a few Russian planes come floating anywhere near the place.

Hey, K2A, the redcoats are coming. Pff!

Here in Canada the CBC is the authoritative voice for our style of imperialism; the lackey, coat tail, ass kissing stooge variant that is, which is quite similar to the work of the BBC.  To many viewers and readers in the country, the CBC represents socialized liberal journalism, and so if the alarm is being sounded through them regarding some peril around the world, the threat must indeed be imminent.  There are certain issues, foreign policy for example, where Canadians as much as possible must be bought together to lend legitimacy to whatever is being orchestrated in the corporate and political backrooms.  Sure they'll keep a few centrist or moderate left opinions tucked away in the obscure recesses of the mothership, like radio for instance.  This is intended to enlist the left wing taxpayer to their defence whenever corporatism starts complaining again that the CBC is doing the same work as they do through their media outlets, but are unfairly competitive because of public funding.  On that account we could say that for once they do not lie.

I have made suggestions in these CBC related threads actually.  I'm beginning to question your reading abilities.

Oy.

I'm an independent Canadian producer.  I have worked and do work with a variety of broadcasters, including the CBC.  Because understanding how and why the Canadian broadcast industry works the way it does is essential to my livlihood (15 years of survival and counting!), I devote a great deal of time and attention to it. It is the sea I swim in.

There's a lot of misinformation and missing information and just general stuff I'd like to talk about in this thread, so I'd like to respond to a number of posts.  Here goes.  It's long.

It's been a given that American media seeps into and dominates Canadian media in a variety of ways, many of them unavoidable.  It's not so much about American boogeymen as it is about maintaining a Canadian voice in the face of a huge quantity, a ubiquity, of foreign content.  That's why Heritage Canada has been involved in both public AND PRIVATE broadcast for a very long time.

Now, taxes.  No, you don't get to say specifically how your taxes are allocated for CBC.  Or healthcare.  Or education.  Or military spending. Or resource company subsidies.  Or anything.  To suggest that CBC should be any different than any other area of government spending is just plain silly.  The government allocates spending.  If you're unhappy with how our taxes are being allocated, there's little you can do until the next election, when you can try to vote in a government who will allocate in a way that is closer to your liking. 

The CBC has been put in a position, both by defunding and being directly told by the government (Liberal at the time? Can't quite recall.) that it must compete with private broadcast in terms of giving the viewer what it wants and to achieve the same numbers as their private sector competitors.

I disagree with you on the extent of "adopting a sycophantic pose". I'd love to see a mechanism where government can't punish the CBC for chucking some mud at them, but right now it's unreasonable to expect them to cut their own throats. I largely agree with the OP, however.

I'm not sure what your first paragraph actually means... Sun is not a threat to CBC (Sun wishes), other than their management are lobbying to defund. I think they've been well within bounds on their response to the pissant tactics they've had to deal with.

I think CBC has been working at being relevant to Canadians. They also provide outlets for programming that are not as dumbed down populist (see one-off docs via Nature of Things or Doc Zone) that private broadcasters will not carry. That's part of the purpose of a public broadcaster. So it can't all be about engaging the biggest number of people. If Jersey Shore is your favourite show, you might not be into a lot of what CBC has to offer, but chances are you aren't really interested in preserving a Canadian voice in media, either. You can't be all things to all people.

One of the main differences between CBC and BBC is that the BBC is not expected to compete with private broadcast in the same way, nor is BBC required to attract ad revenue.  They're experiencing funding cuts right now, but it's nothing like the death of a thousand cuts CBC has been dealing with for decades.

Okay, for your post to make any sense at all, you have to accept a number of false premises and bad analogies.

First of all, CBC does not provide "bad service".  It provides a different service than a private broadcaster does, and the criteria for judging its effectiveness should be different.  You really sound like you don't understand the idea of public broadcasting.  Even PBS doesn't measure its performance in direct comparison to private broadcasters.  There's plenty of logic and thought applied to CBC's directions (I'm assuming you mean programming, here.).  Their financial statements are published every year - and put online.  So unless you're a Sun employee who's buying their line, that's a demonstrably false assertion. 

And why should you exempt Hockey Night in Canada from ratings?  That's a lot like stacking the deck against them.

Yes!  Until you got to that last bit.

It's not about whether writers or actors/on-air personalities/performers are flakey.  Some are, some aren't.  It's more that what they're good at is a completely different skill set than what is needed to run a large broadcasting entity.  Worse, you take a creative person and put them in a position where they no longer get to create.  What "creative" in their right mind would do that?

I'll give you a hint:  Not me, and likely none of the people you've named.  I'm sorry, that's just a ridiculous suggestion.

I think we'd see better results if whoever it was that was put in charge wasn't constantly having to run an entity that's neither fish nor fowl and dodging and weaving to at least try to avoid being slashed to the bone.

Again, you are premising your conclusion on a false definition of "results", so yes, your understanding is crude.  I might add the adjective "negligible".

Catchfire pointed out why using the same metric as private broadcast is wrongheaded and summed up the CBC's purpose and mandate quite nicely above.

Well put.  One point, though - on air personalities like David Suzuki, Sook-Yin Lee and Strombo are contracted by the CBC to do in-house programming and are members of ACTRA, usually.  Nature of Things is a CBC strand which combines independent docs commissioned by CBC and in-house docs made by CBC (Suzuki also narrates indie docs, and the independent producers pay him).  David Suzuki, to my knowledge does not have a production company.  I've produced content for NOT, so I am familiar with how it is set up. 

Actually, those jobs started to go away in the late 1980s in the regional units.  We used to have a good proportion of regional in-house production happening at our regional CBC.  Now, the studios sit vacant or are rented, for the most part.  Creating the vibrant domestic industry extends to people in my boat as well, the companies who produce content for the CBC and the people we hire, so it goes a long way past the jobs provided by the CBC itself.

Yeah, Stursberg.  But he's a symptom more than the problem itself.  Why was he sent in?  Because the government had ideas about making the CBC something it wasn't ever meant to be. 

CBC has always had an excellent news service, certainly as good or better as any of the private broadcasters.  Yes, there are flaws, but there are also flaws with private news services.  I'm not sure who's ignoring what viewers want - I certainly don't get that impression from CBC.  It's the balance of want and mandate that's tricky.  And I can assure you, CBC's upper management knows exactly where its money comes from and how badly some lobbyists would like to take it away.

I'm not 100% sure what you're suggesting...  CBC shouldn't run news service out of Calgary, Edmonton or Regina?  They should work out of Red Deer and Speedy Creek? 

CTV and Global have fewer news outlets in Saskatchewan (I'm based in SK) than the CBC.  Most of the eyeballs in Saskatchewan are split between CTV and CBC when it comes to news, so I'm not sure what you're on about here.  Sadly, CBC, due to budget constraints, will have to close their location in La Ronge.  But hey, let's cut further and then castigate them for not doing more!!  What fun!

Community cable does not do the same thing as CBC.  False comparison.  And CTV does not by a long shot, do any more, by comparison, in local markets than CBC.  That's daft.

Oh, and let's chat about SCN.  Yeah.  One of my favourite topics.  See, SCN reflected local programming and such WHEN IT WAS A PUBLIC BROADCASTER.  But our provincial government borked that pretty good.  It was sold to a company that wasn't up for meeting the demands of running a regional educational broadcaster.  It has now been purchased by Rogers as a CityTV affiliate.  SCN, as a regional broadcaster, is pretty much dead, thanks to the conservative attitude toward public television.

So much for local culture.

Re: bricks and mortar.  Oy vey.  You have no idea what you're asking for would cost.  They've already got bricks and mortar they can't use.

CityTV does not do breakfast programming in all markets.  It does for some.  They have no intention of putting up a breakfast-time show on their newly acquired affiliate in Saskatchewan and there were others that they mentioned in the info session they gave us a couple of weeks ago that also do not.  You are misinformed.  The reason that they've re-introduced newscasts in some places (TO, mainly) is that they have ambitions to grow and become the next Global.

Mind ponying up some examples?  Because I think you're full of beans.