Reimagine the CBC

Quote: "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." I've been listening to Michael Enright for a couple of hours this morning, free of advertising, and learned that Barney Frank, the "first left-handed, gay, Jewish Congressman who came out of his own volition" is retiring after 31 years of battle with an increasingly whacko element in an America where you cannot learn about your Congressman, lestening to your radio on a Sunday morning. Why can't you do that? Because the airwaves are not "free." They are controlled.And as Barney says, even the press is now on one side or the other...and massively on the side of a whacko element. That would not play here, because we have a moderating influence...until Steve is able to destroy it, anyway. That means bugger all to folks like "Kanada2America", or Sven, the voice of Libertarianism south of the 49th, I realize, but they should at least understand that for some of us, freedom begins by removing the dead hand of commercialism. As for the pathetic appeals from freedom loving "taxpayers", it is well understood that Canadians pay only a quarter as much, per capita, as the Brits pay for the BBC's news accuracy and marvelous drama...which PBS buys to entertain America on a Sunday evening. No, the CBC was given birth with one objective, to prevent American takeover of our airways, and in looking south of the border these days, one can only conclude that that was a very wise decision. Now we just have to make sure that our comprador PM does not weaken the distinctions between a nation given over to paranoia and surveillance of the citizenry in the name of its founding effing fathers, and our own, more European understanding of government, freedom and citizenship.

But it didn't take place anywhere else.  Motive?....what an peculiar question.

There's several ways to look at such a statement, and additionally at the stenographer's way of reporting it. Is it meant as a journalistic stand alone quote just put out there to let sink in on its own...requiring no further extrapolation because it speaks volumes as it is, or alternately, are we being taken to the scene of a random 'news at 11' type shooting such as we might see reported from any neighbourhood? Or perhaps knowing people or not knowing them is motive enough these days? A simple exercise in personal preference? What? We need to keep an eye on the extroverts as well?

Anyway...more than 10 years of impersonal slaughter in Afghanistan, employing every imaginable technology and excuse, and out of nowhere a baffling statement about intimacy, shorn of all fundamental examination until we‘re left with pure absurdity.  I know it's AP copy, but this is just one example of what permeates the entire organization...the editorialists, the opinion pieces, the panels, that damned and eternal National program, and so on. The re-imagers certainly have their work cut out for them.  Sorry, maybe I'm stunned or something.  Please tell me again the reasons why we should continue paying for this shit, involuntarily.

Isn't media content a program?

I think I mentioned upthread some of my own concerns about CBC programming and coverage (and what I see as some of the reasons behind that). And I also tried to put that in the perspective of its unique place as a national public broadcaster. So it's not like I don't see the threats, and the room for improvement.

I just think that in this instance you haven't made a valid argument, especially since in this case the CBC article went beyond what many other media outlets did in providing background, and pointing out that this horrible incident is not just isolated, and that in fact U.S. soldiers have been convicted of hunting afghan citizens for fun.

Peter McKay's apologism seems pretty hollow next to some of the other interviews and information in the piece.

So sorry, from what I read this piece is an example of the CBC doing what they SHOULD be doing, and I don't see how it is an example of bad programming. Or perhaps I have just been lulled into a sense of acceptance and complacency by our public broadcaster.

 

 

I'm afraid you are way, way too late for that Gaian. The American takeover of Canadian airwaves happened a long time ago. And your fellow citizens, despite their cries of protest are and were quite complicit in it by readily accepting and engaging it. After all, that's the Canadian way isn't it? Yell loudly about America while making plans for a Florida vacation?

But I see you are making an argument that the BBC gets more money than the CBC so that justifies the current funding or maybe an increase? I thought Canada was unique, so why are we comparing the CBC to the BBC which is an international broadcaster as much as it is a domestic broadcaster.

I'm more interested in why anyone here thinks a 5 to 10% budget cut is automatically going to bring the sky crashing down in the world of the left or the arts community. The way people here make it sound - it's going to be a 50% cut!

But let's get back to what this is about: bureaucracy and inflated salaries at Canada's public broadcaster. Hey if people care so much about Canadian nationalism, maybe they could take a salary cut to show Canadians the strength of their convictions, no?

Where is the clapping hands emoticon when I need it?

K2A is more concerned with the vanquishing of competing news teams ("Take that, you spoiled union brats with your better qualifications and your fancy-assed benefits!!") than he is about quality programming or a Canadian voice.  He doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't care to know.  Head so far up his ass he hears nothing but his own gastric gurglings.  Don't waste your energy.

(PS - the only way your employer could be putting more in the CMF system than it is pulling out is if it is a large conglomerate that also has an affiliated cable supplier under the parent umbrella.  Which means that the cable division is making money hand over fist for providing the pipeline for the content - and the CRTC figures that putting money back into the system that creates the content you sell to your subscribers is the cost of doing business.  In short, the production division of that conglomerate may not take out 100% of what the cable division puts in, but the cable division makes $$ on EVERYTHING EVERYBODY MAKES INCLUDING THE CBC.  So hard to have to share the sandbox, boo, boo, boo!)

Closing for length. Please continue here.