[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Save the CBC! Or not! (click to view)
Date: December 18, 2010
A bunch of my liberal friends (and doubtless many of yours, too) have been circulating this online petition as of late, eagerly pleading with their fellow Canadians to "Save the CBC."

The supposed need for such an initiative was provoked by some recent statements from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (a man dripping with power, as you can imagine), who opined that it might be more worthwhile for the government of Canada to spend more money subsidizing Canadian television shows, rather than funding and operating a $1 billion-a-year television network. From a statist perspective, it's a relatively mild criticism, since it still argues that the Canadian government has some fundamental obligation to be involved in the TV business, just not necessarily through the CBC itself.

To date, Harper's government has been largely defined by not doing things. Though the prime minister was accused of being a right-wing tyrant-in-waiting before he got elected, in the five years he's actually been in charge he's moved extraordinarily slowly in implementing his supposed radical agenda of destroying all the left-wing infrastructure that has given Canada its renowned liberal welfare state reputation. And I don't see that trend changing any time soon. However, if the PM did have to pick a single "radical" right-wing cause to plow forward with before he trots off, I think crushing the CBC would a plausible candidate.

If there's one thing that makes Mr, Harper's blood boil, it's the media. The Prime Minister famously hates and distrusts all journalists with an almost Nixonian paranoia, rarely giving interviews and keeping all of his ministers and MPs on a tight leash, with ferociously strong and centralized "message control." Relationships between the administration and individual journalists are tense and often strained, with the Conservatives being notoriously unhelpful and uncooperative with information requests and other forms of access that media folks argue is imperiling their ability to properly do their jobs.

Harper's motivations are the standard conservative ones: the media has a liberal agenda, they are out to get him, they only want information so they can twist it against his party in the worst possible ways. In this context, it seems brazenly counter-productive for his government to fund the CBC, which hosts what is infamously some of the most left-learning news coverage in the country.

But there's a whole other argument that goes beyond politics, and that's that the CBC is simply not popular. If the government of Canada does genuinely aspire, as it often claims, to pull itself out of its massive deficit sometime soon, then cuts to spending need to be made. A billion dollars a year to pay for a television network few Canadians actually watch seems like a logical start.

Researching this topic, I came across the BBM Canadian network TV weekly ratings charts. They're fascinating to flip through, not only because they reveal what trashy garbage most Canadians are watching, but also because they expose just how staggeringly unpopular the CBC is a national institution. In the week of December 6 through 12, for instance, only four of Canada's top 30 TV shows were aired on the CBC. Of those four, two were hockey-related (Hockey Night in Canada, and the retirement of Canucks captain Markus Nasuland), which means only two of the 30 most popular TV shows in Canada last week were actual CBC-made productions (Dragon's Den and Heartland, for those interested).

It is likewise particularly worth noting that The National, the CBC's flagship nightly national news program, is nowhere to be seen on the Top 30, and in fact, rarely breaks in on any other week, either. For national news, most Canadians watch the privately-run CTV evening news with Lloyd Robertson, despite the fact that The National is supposedly the pinnacle of What Makes the CBC So Great and Beloved.

With such data in mind, it quickly becomes obvious that people who petition to keep the CBC around are not really representing any interest group more significant than themselves. CBC fans, in my experience, generally tend to be affluent, urban liberal-types, who self-righteously make a big deal of preferring to watch "non-corporate" media, and imagine that a network whose president is appointed by the prime minister is somehow "more independent" than one that relies on private commercial funding to stay in business. The CBC produces content that appeals to such sensibilities, and then ends up hiring such people to run the station itself, in this cruel and self-serving cycle of indulgence, which Canadian taxpayers are obliged to pay for.

If Harper does eventually move to kill the network, of course, his motivations may very well be as self-serving as they are ideological, too. But considering that the consensus opinion on the CBC  at this point seems to be profound disinterest, I'm sure not many people will even care.

[Yogi]

Sell it to a private corp!

[PluggyRug]

Give it to the BBC. They can get together for a kis and cuddle.

[Unsound]

Or at the very least replace the CBCs people with BBC people, might make the programming better.

[CKASlacker]

Unsound wrote:

Or at the very least replace the CBCs people with BBC people, might make the programming better.

Agreed - I find myself watching BBC productions on a regular basis.

For many, many years, the only thing I watched on CBC was hockey, despite the fact that my tax dollars were funding a whole host of "Canadian content" shows (that I didn't give a shit about). I now live in the US, and while I still get CBC (being in a border town), I don't have any nostalgia for the CBC outside of hockey.

While the playoff coverage is pretty awesome come the springtime, I don't see how that needs to be under the umbrella of a "public" institution. Surely a private network can (and does -- see TSN) give excellent sports coverage.

[PostFactum]

As you are Canadians,do everything you want with it, but leave the CBC radio 3 for me

[Arctic_Menace]

CBC Radio is FANTASTIC stuff, and I'd hate to see it go. I don't mind some of the shows on CBC, but I think a public broadcaster is somewhat needed.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Even with the deficits of the 1980s, 1990s and currently the CBC has survived. That the government doesn't need a TV system just doesn't get traction. I have right wing associates that swear up and down by CBC radio. Cuts are difficult.

[bootlegga]

Comparing CBC broadcasts with those of mainstream stations that broadcast American shows is like comparing apples and oranges. Cancon almost never competes with American produced shows - the list is further proof of that.

Take a look at where the CBC's own shows stack up against CTV/Global Canadian content - it's pretty comparable.

Quote:

CBC fans, in my experience, generally tend to be affluent, urban liberal-types, who self-righteously make a big deal of preferring to watch "non-corporate" media, and imagine that a network whose president is appointed by the prime minister is somehow "more independent" than one that relies on private commercial funding to stay in business.

Stereotype much?

[JJ]

How is it like apples and oranges? I don't accept the premise that television should be this two-tiered thing, where American shows have to lie and die by the market, while Canadian shows are protected and subsidized like delicate hothouse flowers. If Canadian shows aren't being watched then they have no business existing. TV exists for the benefit and pleasure of the viewers, not for the "Cancon" industrial-complex.

[Bruce_the_vii]

er, the American shows are meant for the world market.

[Marcus_Ozius]

Firstly, I'd like to say that I really enjoyed CBC radio 2. It was the best classical music station a person could get in Detroit until all of the good programs stopped airing. By the time I left the U.S., the only thing I listened to on the CBC were the BBC broadcasts that came on at night.
That being said, I think that there is a place for public television and radio, but I don't think that there's a need for subsidized networks. The notion of subsidizing shows is actually a pretty spectacular idea, in my opinion. The market produces a lot of shows that, really, just shouldn't exist. I can't imagine Jersey Shore having many people seriously willing to defend its public benefit. At the same time, it's what people want and so they have a right to watch it. Government supported media, ideally, are able to keep other entertainment options open for people who are outside of target demographics. This being said, turning government media into a hydra is hardly the solution. I really like this suggestion of subsidizing shows. I think that one reason culture is lowering its standards is because it's so difficult to find examples of legitimate high culture at a price that people can afford. I think that any government actively seeking to guide a culture, or to ensure certain traditional institutions are able to compete in a modern world, would do much better to sponsor shows and venues. I'd love subsidized opera.
I wonder if the CBC could be changed over to a PBS/NPR model with partial tax funding and partial funding through donations as a possibility. That's another thought. If hipsters in the U.S. could donate to the CBC for tote bags (especially ones that boast of being recycled) they'd pay money in droves for the cred it would give them. Public television AND Canadian?

[bootlegga]

JJ wrote:

How is it like apples and oranges? I don't accept the premise that television should be this two-tiered thing, where American shows have to lie and die by the market, while Canadian shows are protected and subsidized like delicate hothouse flowers. If Canadian shows aren't being watched then they have no business existing. TV exists for the benefit and pleasure of the viewers, not for the "Cancon" industrial-complex.

Please, comparing American versus Canadian TV productions is like comparing a Lexus and Toyota.

They have vastly different budgets, production values, salaries, etc. Charlie Sheen makes more in a year than all the actors on just about any single Canadian show (hell, probably more than all of them combined). American game shows give away cars and luxury vacations, while Canadian game shows give away vacuum cleaners.

They are so different it's not even close.

The biggest difference is that American TV shows are produced for a global audience, while Canadian ones are produced for Canada alone - and if they get picked up by a foreign broadcaster (like Australia did with Degrassi for example) it's a bonus. That larger audience base allows American networks to use star power and high quality production values while Canadian productions have far more limited budgets and are pale comparisons.

Do you honestly believe that any Canadian network would ever be able to afford to run Friends? Or 24? Or even the Amazing Race? They are all far too expensive for any Canadian network to produce.

It's just like the movie industry. Paul Gross' Passchendale was one of the biggest Canadian movie productions in a long time, and its budget was less than $25 million. In the US, that's peanuts. Blockbuster movies frequently have budgets well over $100 million (if not $200 million).

If we left our broadcasting up to Global and CTV, pretty much all we would watch is American TV shows. While some people are fine with that - I disagree.

[Gunnair]

Agreed. Simply put, if you don't like the CBC, just don't watch it. I like The National as well as a number of other programs on CBC News.

[fifeboy]

Gunnair wrote:

Agreed. Simply put, if you don't like the CBC, just don't watch it. I like The National as well as a number of other programs on CBC News.