I don’t doubt that they’re offering value to some people with the sheer number of TV and radio programming they offer, but the argument is whether taxpayers should be supporting them.
They generate over a half billion a year from ads and non-government funding, and they charge people (like Netflix does) for their “premium” content.
If they can’t sustain themselves through a normal business model, I don’t see why we have to keep their business going. $1.3 billion a year is not chump change.
Just to put that into perspective, we give the CBC more than we give Canada Post, VIA Rail, Canadian Museum for Human Rights, Canadian Museum of Nature ,Canadian Transportation Agency, Department for Women and Gender Equality, Library and Archives of Canada, National Film Board, National Museum of Science and Technology, COMBINED.
Just to put that into perspective, we give the CBC more than we give Canada Post, VIA Rail, Canadian Museum for Human Rights, Canadian Museum of Nature ,Canadian Transportation Agency, Department for Women and Gender Equality, Library and Archives of Canada, National Film Board, National Museum of Science and Technology, COMBINED.
What kind of Gish Gallop-ass argument is this? Random museums, a rail operator, various crown corps?
The previous poster said that CBC offers “a ton of value” to the average Canadian.
I was pointing out that while true, we give them more money than other programs and services (combined) that offer all Canadians more value.
If you believe that an entertainment broadcaster deserves more money than our national postal and rail services (among a ton of other resources), then that’s your choice.
I don’t think they do, and I think Canadians would benefit more from having $1.3 billion allocated to other things.
Heck, the CBC gets more than Parks Canada, National Research Council of Canada, and almost as much as the Department of the Environment!
I think it’s a safe bet that most Canadians consider CBC primarily a news organization. Either way, comparing their budget to organizations that can bill customers directly, like Parks Canada or Canada Post, is incredibly dishonest.
If you read the article you linked, you’ll see at the bottom that News Network is not allowed to receive public funds due to rules by the CRTC.
You’ll also see that even the CBC acknowledges that News Network benefits from the other CBC services that do receive funds, but that it doesn’t mean that News Network is publicly funded.
It quite literally says, “As such, while CBC News Network does not receive public funds directly, it does, in fact, operate using publicly-funded resources.”.
We can split hairs, but they were not being very transparent or honest.
Maybe. Maybe not. The fact is, the CBC doesn’t do only news, so we are funding their large entertainment wing, too.
That’s true. Out of curiosity, do you know how each branch fares in terms of income generation? Because it may very well be that their entertainment wing is helping subsidize the news part. - not saying this is the case, I don’t know, just considering the possibility that cutting the entertainment part might make it harder to do the news part
Also, some of the entertainment also serves a social good purpose… not saying all of it, but definitely some of it. It’s hard to really call the whole thing wasteful just because it’s categorized as entertainment. Providing access to culture is one of the things that a broadcast corporation should be doing.
If they can’t sustain themselves through a normal business model, I don’t see why we have to keep their business going.
The “why” is because it’s probably a net positive for society. That’s how it goes for public services, stuff that might not be viable via a normal business model but still should be done, so we all share the bill.
I don’t doubt that they’re offering value to some people with the sheer number of TV and radio programming they offer, but the argument is whether taxpayers should be supporting them.
They generate over a half billion a year from ads and non-government funding, and they charge people (like Netflix does) for their “premium” content.
If they can’t sustain themselves through a normal business model, I don’t see why we have to keep their business going. $1.3 billion a year is not chump change.
Just to put that into perspective, we give the CBC more than we give Canada Post, VIA Rail, Canadian Museum for Human Rights, Canadian Museum of Nature ,Canadian Transportation Agency, Department for Women and Gender Equality, Library and Archives of Canada, National Film Board, National Museum of Science and Technology, COMBINED.
What kind of Gish Gallop-ass argument is this? Random museums, a rail operator, various crown corps?
I’m sorry if that overwhelmed you.
The previous poster said that CBC offers “a ton of value” to the average Canadian.
I was pointing out that while true, we give them more money than other programs and services (combined) that offer all Canadians more value.
If you believe that an entertainment broadcaster deserves more money than our national postal and rail services (among a ton of other resources), then that’s your choice.
I don’t think they do, and I think Canadians would benefit more from having $1.3 billion allocated to other things.
Heck, the CBC gets more than Parks Canada, National Research Council of Canada, and almost as much as the Department of the Environment!
I think it’s a safe bet that most Canadians consider CBC primarily a news organization. Either way, comparing their budget to organizations that can bill customers directly, like Parks Canada or Canada Post, is incredibly dishonest.
Maybe. Maybe not. The fact is, the CBC doesn’t do only news, so we are funding their large entertainment wing, too.
Well, CBC also has alternate revenue streams, including direct billing for their paid services (like Netflix or Disney).
What’s dishonest is the CBC claiming that their News Network is not publicly funded.
I agree, that is dishonest. All CBC services should be free for all Canadians, even if that requires a larger budget.
If you read the article you linked, you’ll see at the bottom that News Network is not allowed to receive public funds due to rules by the CRTC.
You’ll also see that even the CBC acknowledges that News Network benefits from the other CBC services that do receive funds, but that it doesn’t mean that News Network is publicly funded.
It quite literally says, “As such, while CBC News Network does not receive public funds directly, it does, in fact, operate using publicly-funded resources.”.
We can split hairs, but they were not being very transparent or honest.
Seems pretty transparent and honest to me.
It would be if the CBC said it, but they didn’t. They said the opposite. What I quoted was what the report uncovered.
That’s true. Out of curiosity, do you know how each branch fares in terms of income generation? Because it may very well be that their entertainment wing is helping subsidize the news part. - not saying this is the case, I don’t know, just considering the possibility that cutting the entertainment part might make it harder to do the news part
Also, some of the entertainment also serves a social good purpose… not saying all of it, but definitely some of it. It’s hard to really call the whole thing wasteful just because it’s categorized as entertainment. Providing access to culture is one of the things that a broadcast corporation should be doing.
The “why” is because it’s probably a net positive for society. That’s how it goes for public services, stuff that might not be viable via a normal business model but still should be done, so we all share the bill.