Reimagine the CBC

Sorry to snip your essay but I just finished a long workday. I'm sure as an "independent" producer you might know what that's about, or maybe not. Comparing yourself to what I do for a living on a day to day basis - or an hourly basis is hardly the same thing.

I too have done independent work. In fact I delivered results because that's what is and was expected. Why don't you understand this simple concept of work for non-taxpayer-funded pay?

Your tone is implying that anyone opposed to looking at the CBC in a critical light, is some sort or moronic and uneducated or obtuse lowbrow agitator salivating for your money tree to come to a crashing end. I provided examples. You want to obfuscate and deflect. But I guess your living depends on bureaucracy and grants.

If you're that confident in your skills and abilities, why am I paying for you to do this stuff?

Again, why do you think that I should be dictated to by you and your contemporaries? On my dime? Do you think you produce anything relevant to what my audience wants or needs? And did I read that correctly? You comparing yourself to healthcare? Will I die tomorrow because the CBC is going to get a tiny 5% paper cut to its massive, massive bureacracy? Not likely.

I think this reeks of you not liking the fact that someone is finally going to look at a balance sheet and do some accounting. Do you know what an ROI is? Yes it is a critical measure and unfortunately folks like you have some odd idea of endless taxpayer funding for what you want. Again, why am I paying for your ride? The CBC ain't an ambulance, it ain't a hospital bed, it ain't a life boat.

It's the Titanic and it just ran into a huge iceberg and you're living in the Fancy Deck, you just don't know it.

We could go around and around endlessly debating the philosophy of having a public broadcaster vs demanding more accountability and maybe even scaling it back. That's not going anywhere on this forum from what I can see. I've made my points why I think the CBC can afford to see some cutbacks or focusing more on things it does well.

The problem with public sector unionized workers is that they always seem to take accountability as some sort of threat and that every move to look critically at staffing levels or pay is some sort of attack on the public or an attack on Canadiana. But hey who am I? Just one guy who wants to know why I can't get proper health care, but I can get lots of CBC.

And yes I believe some of the encounters I've had with CBC are indicative of a work culture of snobbery towards anyone who isn't on the public payroll. Yes I've met a couple of very nice CBC people too and one could see they were educated well rounded invidividuals. I didn't just connect the dots yesterday after some encounter with a CBC person and made that a reason to get rid of the Corp. I've thought about these things long before I even got into this business.

But as I keep saying over and over again. I'm not against getting rid of the CBC, I merely want to see it do things it does well more often and get rid of the things it doesn't do well.

I didn't make the connection between healthcare and the CBC, you did in post #62 above. Talking bureaucratically about whether it's a provincial responsibility ignores the obvious - where does the money come from? Do we chop up the provincial taxpayer and make him or her different from the federal taxpayer? There is only one taxpayer. Whenever solutions are proposed it becomes the usual "American private health care" boogeyman trotted out over and over again. But this isn't a discussion about that on this thread.

I am merely answering to how you think that the CBC is as important as universal health care implying that it's an essential service. If a homeless man dies on the street from exposure, it's not because he didn't get enough CBC in his life.

And don't even get me started about unions and specifically health care. I worked in the system in Alberta as a non-unionized worker in the 1990's. I saw first hand the atrocious tactics used by unionized nurses in the hospitals with patients and patient care. Don't even go there.

How is withdrawing your services and targetting the very people you are supposed to provide a service to, accountable? This is the reason more and more conservative opinion is running towards using so-called "right to work" laws and designating "essential services" to avoid these disruptions.

You guys and gals may not like the crude measurement of ratings but if you are pretending that the CBC doesn't use that to measure its performance than the sky in your world is a radically different color than the rest of the tv world. Because in reality what that shows me is that a very small band of cultural elitists want me and the rest of Canada to pay for their specialized programming. Something you folks could do yourselves, ala the PBS model.

And no I didn't vote conservative in the last election. I can't stand them but I also don't dismiss everything they say as useless or some sort of conspiracy.

Actually K2A, it was timebandit who said that the CBC, like a number of other publicly funded things (healthcare was one of a number she mentioned) is an area in which the public doesn't generally get to fine-tune spending. She wasn't setting up an either/or scenario at all.

You were the one who ran with that and raised the spectre of people dropping dead in the streets - presumably because too much of our money goes to the CBC. Not quite the same thing.

You have anecdotes? Well I doubt there's much point in sharing the story of my brief time as a non-unionized homecare worker, and of my association with people taking job action  to PROTECT services. Suffice it to say. my experience is quite different than yours.

But you know what? I don't think trade unionism is up for debate here, nor does it have anything to do with the topic of this thread.

 

(cross-posted with you catchfire)

I agree with all that ygtbk, and also add that the situation is also not only different in Quebec, but for francophones in all of Canada. After all, francophone culture does not stop at the Quebec border; they don't even have the oldest francophone theatre in Canada. I'd say the role of Radio Canada is even more crucial outside Quebec.

I realize that the playing field has changed greatly, but more channels does not necessarily mean better programming

My main concern, of course, is with news coverage, and while I see CBC as in the mainstream, it is the only voice in mainstream broadcast that comes close to providing some in-depth coverage. The contrast is even more stark on radio. 

I also believe CBC - TV and radio - provides far better coverage of cultural and social issues across Canada  than any other broadcaster. 

So again, I see your points, and have to agree (after all, I get most of my news online) but  I still see a necessary service there that will not be replaced if it falls silent.

 

 

Without getting into too much detail, because I suspect most would see it clearly enough, I'll just say that everything put forward here, including the 'big' ban button part, is wrongheaded. I heard it was only a little teensy thing. Centrism has the additional merit of never having to worry about who your friends are, because they're all interchangeable and disposable at need. Two words should suffice to explain all in this regard: The Liberals.

I'm not sure why you use scare quotes around the term independent - it's actually pretty straightforward, and I think I was clear what that meant, but in case it wasn't clear, I'll be more specific in what it is I do within the film and tv industry:  I run a film and television production company that creates content for broadcasters on pre-license.  As a writer/producer, I shape projects from concept to completion and am responsible for funding and managing that project over its entire life.  Part of my job is understanding the mandates and needs of a variety of broadcasters both public and private and how the various systems of the media industry work.  Over the last decade and a half, I've gained some expert knowledge in that realm.

Implying that I don't work full or long days is a personal slam.  Please don't do that.  I haven't impugned your work ethic or expertise in your field - you are a technician, yes?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd like you to point out where I compared my work to yours.  I don't recall doing so.  If you could do that and illustrate the differences, that would be nice.  At the moment, I'm not sure how this is relevant.

What I did say was that there were some rather large gaps in your knowledge of how Canadian broadcast is structured, and I've tried to point out what those are.  If you want to argue specifically with the points I've made, that's great.  But if all you can do is imply that I'm either a hobbyist or lazy, that's called a personal attack and that's technically against babble policy.

In other words, argue with the substance, not the personality.

If you work in any sector of the film and tv industry, barring pornography and advertising, you're being paid at least in part by taxpayer funds.  Have you ever heard of the Canadian Media Fund?  Nearly every Canadian program made has license fee top up and equity funding from the CMF, whether it was made by CBC, CTV, Shaw, Vision, etc, etc.  There are also federal and provincial tax credits that are applicable to all Canadian independent productions.  If you've ever worked on an independent project, dollars to doughnuts you've been paid with funds from tax subsidies.

Do you not understand the simple concept that film and television in Canada is a subsidized industry?  It seems to me that I'm far more intimately acquainted with where my paycheque comes from than you are.  I know exactly where the money comes from and how it works.

Everyone who works in this industry, including you, depends on bureaucracy and "grants" (well, strictly speaking, they aren't grants).  And with equity financing via government bureaucracies - mainly Telefilm Canada or the CMF - I actually pay a percentage of any profit I make back into the system.  It's repayable investment.

I didn't call you or imply that you were any of the things you've accused me of saying in your post above.  That is purely your own invention.  What I did say was that you don't understand the mandate or purpose of public television and why the same metrics used to determine success for private broadcasters is inappropriate.  And I don't actually see much evidence that you understand it, although it has been explained to you by myself and others.

I actually think referring to the CBC as a "money tree" is pretty nonsensical.  They're a broadcaster, they buy media programs.  I offer them original programming that I think will fit their needs, if they agree, then they buy the rights to air the program once it is finished.  It's no different than any other broadcaster.  Would you make the same accusation for someone who makes programs for a private broadcaster?  Are those "money trees" as well?  What if you're a producer who makes programs for both public and private broadcasters?  And what, exactly, were your examples?

You aren't paying me, the CBC is.  Yes, some of your taxes go into the CBC, but it's not the same thing any more than the soldier in Afghanistan was in my employ.

No, you did not read that correctly.  I did not at any point compare myself to health care.

What I did do was explain that none of us gets to dictate where our taxes go.  You can't call up and say, "Hey, I don't like fighter jets, so make sure my money doesn't go there, put it toward Health Canada instead."  I used a variety of examples, not just health care.  The fact is, we are required to pay taxes, the government then allocates those taxes.  So no, you don't get to pick.  Neither do I.  Get over it.

Now, I may or may not produce programming that you and your audience like.  I'm not sure how you can be so sure I don't when you don't know what I produce.  And it's beside the point, anyway.  I produce programming for a Canadian audience.  That audience won't encompass every Canadian.  It only matters that it's relevant to enough Canadians.  The numbers for my last project were significant enough to show that it was.

The cut to CBC isn't going to be only to bureaucracy, unfortunately.  It's going to be strongly relfected in how much they're able to invest in Canadian programming.  You say you've done independent work - that's cool, but when there's less opportunity for independent work from either public or private broadcasters, there are fewer opportunities for people in your field to do that work.  And cutting CBC's budget won't mean that the lost license fees will be made up by private broadcast, either.  The money - and the work - will just be gone.  It won't just be CBC union employees who feel the pinch.

So no, you won't die.  But some of your colleagues will have more difficulty making a living.  I'm sure they appreciate your sentiment as much as I do.

As a business owner, I'd be willing to wager that ROI is something that I understand in a much more up close and personal way than most people.  And no, the projects I most want to make don't always get funded.  Sometimes there isn't a market for what I specifically want to make.  I make what the broadcaster wants and I do my best to provide a high quality product.  And let's not forget that there will be taxpayer funding involved no matter which broadcaster we're talking about.  Even your employer.  You're not paying for my ride any more than I am yours. 

Look, CBC has made its financial statements open to the general public since always.  People have always been able to look at the balance sheet.  The accounting, including the annual audit, has always been done.  What's happening is that a bunch of right wing idealogues are spinning it and you're eating it up with a spoon.  You might try taking a critical look at the sources of information you're buying and ask yourself what their motivations are.  The argument against the CBC has little to do with reality and a whole lot to do with conservative free-market ideology.

As for fancy decks, most people in this industry are not rolling in dough.  A few make a lot of money, but most of us make an okay living.  Most of us do this because it's what we love.  It's definitely not for the riches.

CanCon was less an issue in the early days, but as American television started creeping in and dominating the market, it was put in place for all broadcast licenses issued by the CRTC.  In a way, producing and airing Canadian programming during prime time is part of the cost of doing business in this country - and a way to develop an industry with significant spin off economic development.

Pretty much. 

Yes and no.  DVD and iTunes are more like Blockbuster Video than direct competition for broadcast.  Youtube will also enforce copyright claims, so if I have a show that I am trying to license for broadcast (which usually involves cross platform and streaming rights as well), I don't want it on Youtube and will ask to have it removed if someone else puts it up. 

Yes and no.  There is some reduction of the youth audience, but it's not as significant as you'd think.  Or they will stream the same programming on the web, which is usually geocached.  Television, though, still remains the largest audience by far.  If you want to reach numbers, conventional TV is still your best bet.

Not sure.  However, they are not expected to go stumping for advertising dollars.

Yeah, I'm not sure, not really my area, since that would include the radio side as well.  I do know that we're required to register with Canadian Federation of Musicians and provide detailed music cue sheets, and that the composer we work with (we use primarily original music) gets SOCAN for everything he writes for us.

Let's put it this way Timebandit. My employer actually pays more into the film and tv development funds than it gets out. Your hysteria about your industry implies that the end of the world is coming because of a possible 5% cut to your funding source. If that's the case than you are depending way more on public sector funding on your projects then aren't you?

I've known some business owners too. But they sure didn't rely on the tv and film funds for their living, so your version of ROI is pretty distorted.

PBS? I'll that government funding model any day. What is it? About 300 plus stations and maybe $400 million in a country of 310 million people?

But for audience numbers why don't you propose this alternative way of measuring that? That way, the CBC won't need Don Cherry, Kevin O Leary or Rex Murphy to prop up ratings. Apparently your funder sees things differently than you. Why is the CBC trying so hard to look like CNN, Global and CTV nowadays?

I'm not worried about options and choices but you certainly are. Nobody ever worried if I got laid off, but you seem to be worried for CBC staff. Do they care if your company goes belly up?

Is this soulful stuff offered up to suggest that there is a chance of CBC maintaining its current programming and depth of news coverage with some miraculous mobilization by "publics that are ready to work together to support its growth?" Dean Del Mastro has not been seriously putting forward Steve's intentions to crush public broadcasting over the next few years, budget by budget? There are now 30 pages of effing ideas from 900 people (and growing) on facebook that will be used to satisfy the many "publics" - as opposed to the nationalist appeal used at its founding in 1936 - and our national broadcaster will be saved? By thinking big? Sorry, but this glee club inanity challenges mature, political reasoning.

I see it took a optimistic project by a network of young people with a cross-section of Canadian voices offering new and enthusiastic ideas on how to repair our national broadcaster to rouse Gaian from his funk. That alone gives me hope.

Now Gaian, head over to the book club where your voice is needed.

The CBC is not in danger of being cut to the bone. Nobody knows what will happen on March 29th. Where is the $170 million figure coming from? An assumed 10% cut? This hysterical handwringing before any facts have even been ascertained to the exact dollar amount is some sort of pushback against what the facts speak to.

Hey, nice Facebook campaign but I doubt the Canadian public is going to buy this. The grassroots Canadian is not in the mood for this. If the CBC and its supporters are fighting for their over-inflated salaries and jobs this will only go so far. After that the real world takes over and the folks who only watch Hockey Night, and Mercer will make their judgement about this.

Why is the CBC special. The March 29 budget is going to be aimed at all government departments. From what I have seen, it's about time.

You are going to have to wait for a very long time to see that.  Government-operated entities are largely immune to the influence of logic and rational thought. They are political organs and, therefore, they are influenced only by a battle of wills...and significantly so by whomever happens to hold the principal levers of political power at the moment (which, right now, is the Harper government). 

Why should this be surprising?

1. Welcome back, bye! How ya gettin' on?

2. My bad, Sven. It was a silly joke - you know, the dispute at Attawapiskat about the "independent third-party manager" appointed by the Conservative govt? Oh well. Those who tell dumb jokes always run the risk that someone will take them seriously, and that they'll ruin the joke by having to explain it...

ETA: I think it was funnier back on Feb. 21 when I said it. Anyway, Catchfire got it!