CBC's Mandate
Equality Party
: I have been hearing on the TV news that the CBC's mandate was changed by
: the Mulroney government from promoting national unity, to promoting
: regional and cultural diversity throughout Canada.
: No wonder it is going downhill!
We watched CBC and RDI during the refrendum and were quite upset about
CBC and horrified by RDI. Do these people know who pays them? This is a
federal institution that has a duty to protect Canada.
--
Equality Party Leader's Office, Montreal, Quebec.
*** UNEQUIVOCALLY CANADIAN ***
"POUR UN QUEBEC MEILLEUR!" ** Qui tacit concentera **
"FOR A BETTER QUEBEC!" ** He who is silent consents **
Brian Mendonsa
>I have been hearing on the TV news that the CBC's mandate was changed by
>the Mulroney government from promoting national unity, to promoting
>regional and cultural diversity throughout Canada.
>
>No wonder it is going downhill!
And would you believe that Monseuir Masse helped Brian draft that change.
Wonder if he got a few kudos from his separatist buds. Old Brian certainly
helped (unwittingly perhaps) the cause...didn't he?
robert...@email.icacomp.com
The CBC's mandate was, and always has been, to promote itself and big
government. It has no interest in national unity or cultural
diversity. Like all these government bodies, you can't fix it. The
only solution is to get rid of it entirely.
Libertarians would eliminate most of the government except for law
enforcement and defence, eliminate the deficit, reduce taxes and pay
down the debt.
--
The Beaches-Woodbine Riding Association of the Libertarian
Party meets the second Thursday of each month 7 to 9 PM at
Centre 55, which is at 97 Main Street, a block south of
Gerrard in Toronto. All welcome. Call 416-699-5760 for info.
Email for info on other Canadian locations.
Cerise Lopez
TVO. This is good news. Let us hope that the federal government will
follow Harris' lead and privatize the CBC. This would save taxpayers over
$1 billion annually and the proceeds of the sale could be applied against
the federal government's annual deficit of about $35 billion.
Mark Mushet
>In article <DI96z1.KIM...@news.enterprise.ca>, Cerise Lopez
><cob...@enterprise.ca> wrote:
>> Apparently the Mike Harris government in Ontario is going to privatize
>> TVO. . . .
>I remember that T.V. Ontario produced an outstanding series of shows on
>Canadian history several years ago.
>If TVO is privatized, will it continue to produce this type of programming?
Of course, if they can hire American stars, sanitize it until it is as
digestable as pablum and then sell it to an American distributor. This
is the beauty of privatizing public broadcasting; it always has the
same result: market driven banality.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I think the CBC is pretty much a failure
as far as providing quality, stimulating programming. However, if you
strip away much of the TV program buying and a good portion of the
production, it's still worth having for the sake of CBC Newsworld and
a good portion of the radio work (which is much less costly
considering what it provides).
Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
MRM
Brad Hetherington
> Apparently the Mike Harris government in Ontario is going to privatize
> TVO. This is good news. Let us hope that the federal government will
> follow Harris' lead and privatize the CBC. This would save taxpayers over
> $1 billion annually and the proceeds of the sale could be applied against
> the federal government's annual deficit of about $35 billion.
Ya that would be great. Then we could watch Coca-Cola commercials in
between re-runs of Married with Children. Witness, The Pashionate Eye,
Fifth Estate...would all be history along with all those other communist
shows. To think they would have us believe that Ken Saro-Wiwa was killed
by the Nigerian military because he spoke out against Shell Oil,
ridiculous! Lets get real here. Those bankers in New York are hungry for
money, HUNGRY. And the sooner we pay them the sooner we can apply for
developing nation status and get IMF loans to restructure this country and
bring welfare down from the proposterous height of $500 a month--IMage
$500 a month, all that money!--to about $2.50 a day. Right ON! Eat the
CBC!
Mark Mushet
>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>Of course, if they can hire American stars, sanitize it until it is as
>>digestable as pablum and then sell it to an American distributor. This
>>is the beauty of privatizing public broadcasting; it always has the
>>same result: market driven banality.
>What is your evidence for this ?
Do you watch TV? It boggles my mind just how LCD and worthless the
vast majority of it is. Incidentally, I am a video producer and have
produced programming for the Knowledge Network etc.
>You have the same contempt for other people's opinion
>that they display when producing programming.
Bullshit.
>>Now, don't get me wrong here. I think the CBC is pretty much a failure
>>as far as providing quality, stimulating programming. However, if you
>>strip away much of the TV program buying and a good portion of the
>>production, it's still worth having for the sake of CBC Newsworld and
>>a good portion of the radio work (which is much less costly
>>considering what it provides).
>If you listen to the CBC radio then you certainly are a member of an
>elite crew, few others do.
Wrong. What is YOUR evidence for this?
>You complain of banality, and then claim
>CBC radio as worthy ??
Where were the two even vaguely connected in my post? TWO NEW HOURS
banal? Irritatiing on occasion, but hardly banal. This issue would
need greater focus to be worthwhile ie. discussing specific programs.
>Take away the Air Farce, which would exist in
>a commercial world anyway, and who would still have a job at CBC radio
>if people had to willingly pay.
I hate the Air Farce and I REALLY hate DISC DRIVE. But you know what?
DISC DRIVE is far and away one of the most popular programs and Jurgen
Gothe pulls in about 160k a year on it alone. That pisses me off but
that's what "the people" want from CBC. The merchandising of DISC
DRIVE products has been a success as well. This, and many other
examples of high listenership and support, flies in the face of your
"elite" comment above.
>Despite that you have a right to
>watch what you want, but you have no right to force me to pay for it.
It was a democratic, free-enterprise oriented society that allowed for
its creation. We are now in a tussle over what form the CBC should
take (if it is to continue at all) and so the issue of you being
"forced" to pay for it will be resolved in a civilized manner in a
democratic arena. Why don't you vote Reform? They'll take care of the
CBC.
>>Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
>>privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
>>acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
>>kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
>The marketplace does not supply programming for unusual tastes, where
>too few people want it enough to pay for it. That is not a failure,
>it is a triumph and a reduction of waste and pollution.
Programming for "unusual" (read: educated, or highly evolved)
tastes is "waste and pollution"??!! I would expect a remark like that
to be accompanied by "When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my
revolver" A triumph? Maybe "of the Will"
>with government controlled media is that elitists can force their
>opinion of "good" content on others, as you would by assuming the
>shows you want, but few others do, are "important broadcasting
>functions".
I'm perfectly content to let DISC DRIVE and AIR FARCE exist alongside
my favourite programs if it means those programs will endure and that
the CBC is able to please the majority of the population.
MRM
Charles Lyall
sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
>privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
>acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
>kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
It is certainly true that the market has failed to develop the kind
political correct censorship, mis-representation, arrogance, smug self
righteousness and intolerance for any viewpoint other than their own
that characterizes the CBC.
Curiously, many Canadians don't consifer these things to be as important
as you do.
Jusging from CBC's market share, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers
are not being served by the CBC. Why should they have to pay for it?
John R. Shaw
>In article <DI96z1.KIM...@news.enterprise.ca>, Cerise Lopez
><cob...@enterprise.ca> wrote:
>
>> Apparently the Mike Harris government in Ontario is going to privatize
>> TVO. . . .
>
>I remember that T.V. Ontario produced an outstanding series of shows on
>Canadian history several years ago.
>
>If TVO is privatized, will it continue to produce this type of programming?
>
If people want it. I am a member of TVO and support it because like
many of the programs it makes, and imports, and if you like the shows
I hope you phoned in your pledge during the current telethon. I
expect that TVO will do well after privatization. I think it no
accident that the, IMHO, best station in Ontario is also the closest
to the free market, even more direct than those that rely on
advertising since in that case companies are second guessing what
people want.
Privatize the CBC, let's see how many people really want the crap they
put out.
- How does it feeal? To be on your own, with no direction home.(B.Z)-
John R. Shaw
>Of course, if they can hire American stars, sanitize it until it is as
>digestable as pablum and then sell it to an American distributor. This
>is the beauty of privatizing public broadcasting; it always has the
>same result: market driven banality.
>
What is your evidence for this ? I do understand your support of the
CBC though. You have the same contempt for other people's opinion
that they display when producing programming.
>Now, don't get me wrong here. I think the CBC is pretty much a failure
>as far as providing quality, stimulating programming. However, if you
>strip away much of the TV program buying and a good portion of the
>production, it's still worth having for the sake of CBC Newsworld and
>a good portion of the radio work (which is much less costly
>considering what it provides).
>
If you listen to the CBC radio then you certainly are a member of an
elite crew, few others do. You complain of banality, and then claim
CBC radio as worthy ?? Take away the Air Farce, which would exist in
a commercial world anyway, and who would still have a job at CBC radio
if people had to willingly pay. Despite that you have a right to
watch what you want, but you have no right to force me to pay for it.
>Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
>privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
>acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
>kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
>
The marketplace does not supply programming for unusual tastes, where
too few people want it enough to pay for it. That is not a failure,
it is a triumph and a reduction of waste and pollution. The problem
with government controlled media is that elitists can force their
opinion of "good" content on others, as you would by assuming the
shows you want, but few others do, are "important broadcasting
functions".
- How does it feeal? To be on your own, with no direction home.(B.Z)-
Cerise Lopez
program was anything like that of the CBC, it no doubt had a very strong
leftist bias.
If Canadians want to learn about their history (which they should have
done in school), they can read a good book on it. Why should taxpayers
have to fund TV channels? I repeat, the government has no bloody
business running, controlling or funding our media.
Knowing you, I am sure that if the Rae NDP government while in office
had taken over The Globe and Mail, you would have approved.
Cerise Lopez
CNN Headline News or CNBC in the U.S. Moreover, PBS, which now receives
only a relatively small federal government grant in the U.S. beats the CBC
hands down.
Mark Mushet
>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>Of course, if they can hire American stars, sanitize it until it is as
>>digestable as pablum and then sell it to an American distributor. This
>>is the beauty of privatizing public broadcasting; it always has the
>>same result: market driven banality.
>>
>Can't argue with you there. However, the CBC does its own pre-processing
>of current news and historical fact to make itself more palatable to its
>narrow audience: left-wing, white-guilt-ridden artistes, poseurs and
>pseudo intellectuals.
Well I'm not sure of your characterization of the CBC audience and I'm
not sure if you're referring to TV or radio. Regardless of whether one
cares for them or not, the CBC DOES provide an alternative viewpoint
on many particularly "Canadian" issues. I only ever watch Newsworld
and its offshoots, and I occasionally listen to the radio news but I
do see and hear some good debate that you don't get elswhere.
>>Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
>>privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
>>acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
>>kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
>>
>Well Mark, I believe it's an oversimplification on your part to
>lump-label all foes of the CBC as "irresponsible". I, for one, quite
>agree with you that the free market will probably not provide for
>"quality programming", however you define it. But consider this however:
> the freedom of the marketplace is _far_ more important than the results
>thereof. If a nation of bozos, (oh, pick any English-speaking country on
>the planet) prefers Baywatch to Masterpiece Theatre, then that is
>precisely what it should get! Just as a people get the government they
>deserve, so does a country get the "entertainment" it deserves.
Well I believe it's a misreading of my post to say I'm lump labelling
ANYONE when I clearly qualified the remark by including "rabidly
advocate". This would seem to suggest that I'm only referring to the
"hardcore" "foes" of the CBC who refuse to consider any of its good
points. I also stated that I think we can do without the TV portion of
CBC (save Newsworld) and that, while not all of it is great, we can
certainly manage to afford much of the radio programming.
Having said that, I think its a sorry state to have to imagine the
difference between quality TV as being the difference between BAYWATCH
and MASTERPIECE THEATRE!
>If you feel marooned in a country of cretins, don't try to convert them;
Make that a WORLD of cretins! And I refuse the missionary stance!
>don't support misguided government efforts to "improve" them. It's a
>waste of time. Read a book; use the resources available to personally
>enrich your own life
I don't, and I do.
>but don't waste your tax dollars and mine trying to
>keep the "cultural" pot boiling - there's nothing in it.
See above. I don't mind some tax dollars going to support a more
efficient CBC, because it DOES provide some programming, nationwide,
that you wont find under current "market conditions".
MRM
Mark Mushet
>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>>If TVO is privatized, will it continue to produce this type of programming?
>>Of course, if they can hire American stars, sanitize it until it is as
>>digestable as pablum and then sell it to an American distributor. This
>>is the beauty of privatizing public broadcasting; it always has the
>>same result: market driven banality.
>I disagree. Banality knows no bounds and is no respecter of funding.
>For every piece of mind-numbing imbecility catering to the lowest
>common denominator that is found in the private sector, you will find
>an equally insulting, turgid, excrutiatingly pretentious, witless and
>fraudulent State-financed program. The only overt difference between
>the two systems is that the government has no business producing TV
>programs.
Fair enough. But I have no objection to government participation in
film or broadcast funding where the market doesn't deliver.
>>Now, don't get me wrong here. I think the CBC is pretty much a failure
>>as far as providing quality, stimulating programming.
>The CBC isn't chartered to provide quality, stimulating programming.
>It is a propaganda house. It's object is to persuade the populace to
>think in certain ways and to hold certain opinions.
All broadcast/media outlets have their biases. Ideally we are educated
and perceptive enough to read between the lines and get from the
source what we need to come to a conclusion. I scan the entire
spectrum of newsmedia, for example, and get to know which biases are
where so that I can get my bearings on certain issues. The CBC is ONE
part of that, and I appreciate its contribution sometimes, especially
in its coverage of particularly CANADIAN issues.
.
>> However, if you strip away much of the TV program buying and a
>> good portion of the production, it's still worth having for the sake
>> of CBC Newsworld and a good portion of the radio work (which is
>> much less costly considering what it provides).
>The above reflects exactly the reason to NOT have State-sponsored
>broadcasting. You have been successfully propagandised. You are the
>Canadian equivalent of the grateful Ukranian peasant who thought the
>VOA was the voice of objectivity and the byword in impartial news.
I'm not interested in your condescension.
>>Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
>>privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
>>acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
>>kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
>Like government propaganda?
See above.
MRM
C. Jim Murphy
<snipped previous quote>
> The CBC's mandate was, and always has been, to promote itself and big
> government. It has no interest in national unity or cultural
> diversity. Like all these government bodies, you can't fix it. The
> only solution is to get rid of it entirely.
>
> Libertarians would eliminate most of the government except for law
> enforcement and defence, eliminate the deficit, reduce taxes and pay
> down the debt.
Pardon me for being alarmed, but does this mean that libertarians don't
"do" universal health care, road maintenance, small business development,
universities, schools, workman's comp, and the like?
Give your heads a good shake. The CBC is one of the "glues" which binds
this country together. CTV is interested in the bottom line. Any
commercial organization is the same. The CBC, apart from the Christian
networks, is the only media org which doesn't have $$$ as the "bottom
line" and deserves it's place because of this fact. I trust it. In the
past it has shown quite convincingly that it is no friend to the rest of
the government, and this is as it should be.
Jim Murphy
PKolding
>>If TVO is privatized, will it continue to produce this type of programming?
>Of course, if they can hire American stars, sanitize it until it is as
>digestable as pablum and then sell it to an American distributor. This
>is the beauty of privatizing public broadcasting; it always has the
>same result: market driven banality.
I disagree. Banality knows no bounds and is no respecter of funding.
For every piece of mind-numbing imbecility catering to the lowest
common denominator that is found in the private sector, you will find
an equally insulting, turgid, excrutiatingly pretentious, witless and
fraudulent State-financed program. The only overt difference between
the two systems is that the government has no business producing TV
programs.
>Now, don't get me wrong here. I think the CBC is pretty much a failure
>as far as providing quality, stimulating programming.
The CBC isn't chartered to provide quality, stimulating programming.
It is a propaganda house. It's object is to persuade the populace to
think in certain ways and to hold certain opinions.
> However, if you strip away much of the TV program buying and a
> good portion of the production, it's still worth having for the sake
> of CBC Newsworld and a good portion of the radio work (which is
> much less costly considering what it provides).
The above reflects exactly the reason to NOT have State-sponsored
broadcasting. You have been successfully propagandised. You are the
Canadian equivalent of the grateful Ukranian peasant who thought the
VOA was the voice of objectivity and the byword in impartial news.
>Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
Thomas Donohue
>>>Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
>>>privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
>>>acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
>>>kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
>>It is certainly true that the market has failed to develop the kind
>>political correct censorship, mis-representation, arrogance, smug self
>>righteousness and intolerance for any viewpoint other than their own
>>that characterizes the CBC.
>Now there's a pile of shit. The broadcasting market has failed to
>produce mis-representation, arrogance, smug self-righteousness and
>intolerance for the viewpoints of others?
>I work in the private sector as a photographer and video
>shooter/producer. I can tell you from first hand experience that these
>problems are well and truly alive in the broadcast market outside of
>the CBC.
>And I'm not sure what you mean by politically correct censorship.
>Please expand upon that if you will.
>>Curiously, many Canadians don't consifer these things to be as important
>>as you do.
>That is an asinine assumption. Why don't you ask for specifics before
>you leap to your conclusions about what I consider important. Or have
>I, as I suspect, just lept into a pool of bloodthirsty sharks with no
>taste for dialogue sans unfounded assumptions?
>>Jusging from CBC's market share, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers
>>are not being served by the CBC. Why should they have to pay for it?
>Personally, I can find enough sources of information to find my way in
>the world. The CBC is but ONE of those sources and I appreciate
>certain aspects of it. I am smart enough to read between the lines of
>their coverage of certain issues. I know of many who consider it so.
>Your reference to the CBC's market share is related to what, the TV
>programming? I don't know about that. I can only go by my experience,
>which tells me that there is support for the radio at least.
>P.S. It's time for you to get a spell checker!
>MRM
A valid viewpoint, I suppose. But why the aggressive tone?
Thomas
Mark Mushet
>A valid viewpoint, I suppose. But why the aggressive tone?
Being told by a stranger that smug self righteousness, politically
correct censorship, arrogance and intolerance are "important" to me
after, I believe, they misread my post, tends to make me a little
uh..."testy". The exclamation mark after the spell check remark was
intended to convey some degree of humour. Perhaps that didn't come
across. But we digress...
MRM
Mark Mushet
>In article <48qlhh$k...@wolfe.wimsey.com>, sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) says:
>>
>>>What is your evidence for this ?
>>
>>Do you watch TV? It boggles my mind just how LCD and worthless the
>>vast majority of it is. Incidentally, I am a video producer and have
>>produced programming for the Knowledge Network etc.
>Well, as long as your argument are *not* a self-serving mumbo-jumbo to
>keep a cushy little position you would not be entitled on merit alone...
I have always considered the CBC to be an impenetrable fortress as far
as employment opportunities go and so have never applied there. I
would not fit in. But then, this can be said about many large
corporations that were formed at a certain time.
Sadly, when I am telling people of my work, they are often more
impressed with the fact that I once shot a sports segment for NBC than
anything I've done that had any real merit to it. I do mostly
commercial bullshit because that is the only video work that pays
decently enough. It makes me ill sometimes, but it's better than being
an employee. Hey fella, I'm an independent, freelancing, money making
kind of guy who also has esoteric tastes in the arts! You CAN do both!
OK, the REAL reason for my desire to keep CBC radio intact is because
I do the ABSOLUTE BEST Ken Winters impersonation in Canada! People pay
me to do this on street corners!
>>>You have the same contempt for other people's opinion
>>>that they display when producing programming.
>>
>>Bullshit.
>You tell'im. Rational, logical arguments, objective point of view, that
>always wins the day.
I'm not interested in applying any energy to someones remarks when
those remarks have no foundation and have not been adequately
explained to me ie. my alleged "contempt". Sure, I can come off fairly
strong, but there are several instances in this thread where I clearly
suggest tolerance for others' views.
>>>If you listen to the CBC radio then you certainly are a member of an
>>>elite crew, few others do.
>>
>>Wrong. What is YOUR evidence for this?
>The ratings?!?
So far everyone has been citing TV ratings. I've said several times
that, for the most part, I consider CBC TV to be a failure. The line
you are responding to relates to the radio. Now, do you have any info
on radio ratings? Besides, ratings have little to do with quality
(yes, you may now call me an elitist!) NOT that I'm saying everything
on CBC radio is "quality" mind you! For that issue, see below.
>>I hate the Air Farce and I REALLY hate DISC DRIVE. But you know what?
>>DISC DRIVE is far and away one of the most popular programs and Jurgen
>>Gothe pulls in about 160k a year on it alone. That pisses me off but
>>that's what "the people" want from CBC. The merchandising of DISC
>>DRIVE products has been a success as well. This, and many other
>>examples of high listenership and support, flies in the face of your
>>"elite" comment above.
>The CBC has an average audience of 4% of TV viewers. Yes some programs like
>the above mentioned have a higher one
The programs I mentioned are radio shows.
>So do the sports presentations. But
>over all an argument *can* be nade the CBC is produced by a self-contained
>cotterie from downtown Toronto, I would hardly consider them 'elite', thst
>produces program based on their own biases, their own beliefs of what is
>'correct'; and has very little to do with 99% of Canadians.
Poor grammar, spelling, and the contrasting of a likely number
(possibly researched) with a gross generalization (the 99%) make this
entire paragraph impossible for me to respond to.
>>It was a democratic, free-enterprise oriented society that allowed for
>>its creation. We are now in a tussle over what form the CBC should
>Hardly 'free-enterprise'. It was a decision of a small 'l' liberal government,
>afraid of loosing its grip on the populace through the early expansion of
>the infoemation technology.
Well that's your opinion of its "reason" for coming into being and
it's one that I believe has little merit and I am not interested in
discussing it further. However my point still stands: this society
ALLOWED for it, regardless.
>>take (if it is to continue at all) and so the issue of you being
>>"forced" to pay for it will be resolved in a civilized manner in a
>>democratic arena. Why don't you vote Reform? They'll take care of the
>>CBC.
>Would that be true. Of late they have accepted at least partly the arguments
>from Ottawa/Toronto clique about the 'neccessity' of CBC to allow the left
>some measure of control over what information reaches Canadians.
Now here you have a point. My father in law is an economics professor
with very conservative views. He voted Reform. One night, while we
were discussing politics, he was typically railing against the CBC and
telling me how it should be eliminated (along with Quebec). I didn't
have my car so he offered me a ride home in his Mercedes.
I had a thought. I'll try to get him to say the words "We must get rid
of the CBC!" at the same time as he turned the key in the ignition. He
said it. The engine turned over and TA DA!!! Guess which radio station
he has his car radio permanently tuned to!
>>I'm perfectly content to let DISC DRIVE and AIR FARCE exist alongside
>>my favourite programs if it means those programs will endure and that
>>the CBC is able to please the majority of the population.
>The CBC has *never* pleased the majority of Canadians. Indeed the majority
>was never even ambivalent about it. The only thing *majority* ever had
>to do with it is pay for it.
Well then let's say the majority of Canadians who care about the sorry
state of commercial radio. I hope never to see the inside of an
emergency operating room. But I don't mind paying for it to be there
when I need it.
MRM
P.S. Please improve upon the grammar and spelling. Yes, I know I'm a
pedant!
Derek Nalecki
>
>Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
>privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
>acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
>kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
>
Important to whom? It seems obvious to me that if the marketplace does not
'allow' certain type of programming to emerge, it is because *nobody* wants
it. So you are talking here of using public money for *imposing* the views
of a very small ideologically driven minority on the rest of the populace.
Thank you for claryfing just what the 'public broadcasting' is all about.
We've had much left wing mumbo-jumbo here muddling the issue and trying to
'sneak' the real object of 'public broadcasting' pst the rest of us.
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
- member in good standing: Homo Sapiens Interregnum (Caucasian persuasion)
- Sirs, I am no petty noble; an ancestor of mine by the name of Noah
was once the commanding admiral of the combined fleets of my planet.
(with apologies to Paul Anderson)
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP ********************
Stephen K. Wilson
>have to fund TV channels? I repeat, the government has no bloody
<business running, controlling or funding our media.
What a load of crap! Government has the role of ensuring the survival
of Canadian culture and values when commercial television won't do it.
Since economics determines everything for people like you, you can't
see the forest for the greenbacks. I suggest you go back to watching
Baywatch...you'll see what American values are all about. To be
honest, America can keep its values.
Derek Nalecki
>
>>What is your evidence for this ?
>
>Do you watch TV? It boggles my mind just how LCD and worthless the
>vast majority of it is. Incidentally, I am a video producer and have
>produced programming for the Knowledge Network etc.
>
Well, as long as your argument are *not* a self-serving mumbo-jumbo to
keep a cushy little position you would not be entitled on merit alone...
>>You have the same contempt for other people's opinion
>>that they display when producing programming.
>
>Bullshit.
You tell'im. Rational, logical arguments, objective point of view, that
always wins the day.
>
>>If you listen to the CBC radio then you certainly are a member of an
>>elite crew, few others do.
>
>Wrong. What is YOUR evidence for this?
>
The ratings?!?
>
>I hate the Air Farce and I REALLY hate DISC DRIVE. But you know what?
>DISC DRIVE is far and away one of the most popular programs and Jurgen
>Gothe pulls in about 160k a year on it alone. That pisses me off but
>that's what "the people" want from CBC. The merchandising of DISC
>DRIVE products has been a success as well. This, and many other
>examples of high listenership and support, flies in the face of your
>"elite" comment above.
The CBC has an average audience of 4% of TV viewers. Yes some programs like
the above mentioned have a higher one, So do the sports presentations. But
over all an argument *can* be nade the CBC is produced by a self-contained
cotterie from downtown Toronto, I would hardly consider them 'elite', thst
produces program based on their own biases, their own beliefs of what is
'correct'; and has very little to do with 99% of Canadians.
>
>
>It was a democratic, free-enterprise oriented society that allowed for
>its creation. We are now in a tussle over what form the CBC should
Hardly 'free-enterprise'. It was a decision of a small 'l' liberal government,
afraid of loosing its grip on the populace through the early expansion of
the infoemation technology.
>take (if it is to continue at all) and so the issue of you being
>"forced" to pay for it will be resolved in a civilized manner in a
>democratic arena. Why don't you vote Reform? They'll take care of the
>CBC.
Would that be true. Of late they have accepted at least partly the arguments
from Ottawa/Toronto clique about the 'neccessity' of CBC to allow the left
some measure of control over what information reaches Canadians.
>
>I'm perfectly content to let DISC DRIVE and AIR FARCE exist alongside
>my favourite programs if it means those programs will endure and that
>the CBC is able to please the majority of the population.
>
The CBC has *never* pleased the majority of Canadians. Indeed the majority
was never even ambivalent about it. The only thing *majority* ever had
to do with it is pay for it.
Mark Mushet
>In article <48oltu$7...@wolfe.wimsey.com>, sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) writes:
>
>> Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
>> privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
>> acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
>> kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
>What are they irresponsible of? Are you suggesting that public broadcasting
>can provide for more important broadcasting than commercial? On what grounds do
>you determine what type of broadcasting is important?
I hope this answers your questions:
I suppose they would be displaying a certain lack of knowledge and
appreciation for the fact that the market cannot adequately serve
those who do not conform to the lowest common denominator vis-a-vis
choice in media programs and that a broad range of available programs
and viewpoints in the media is healthy for a democratic society. A
civilized society does not measure absolutely EVERYTHING by the value
of the dollar. I guess it amounts to choice, which is something the
market, despite claims to the contrary, does not always provide.
One must also remember that, for many reasons, the broadcast industry
is highly suseptible to massive mergers, takeovers and monopolist
intervention. At least the CBC is THEORETICALLY answerable for its
excesses or errors.
Now, I don't want to defend the CBC too strongly here because there
are many things I dislike about it. However, I'm not prepared to
"throw the baby out with the bathwater", as they say. And I feel that
those who WOULD do that are "irresponsible".
In the late 1980s the conservatives, just as they were announcing a
new initiative to further cut back cultural funding, were presented
with an analysis (comissioned by their own party) that came to the
statistical conclusion that cultural events, and peripheral
activities, made a greater contribution to the economy than all
professional sports events combined. Now, I'm not sure what their
defintition of "cultural events" was but it clearly suggested that
public money spent on culture is NOT wasted, even by measure of
commercial impact. We just have to learn to look in the right places
to see its benefits.
In the current climate of resentment and fear mongering, these
benefits (including the benefits of choice of non-commercial content
in media) will be cast aside so that the LCD prevails and we are left
with "strip mall" culture in every arena of our existence.
I'd love to be able to make my living doing arts related programming.
Instead, despite the existence of a few outlets that are interested in
my personal work, I have to be a "hired gun" shooting things that,
believe me, are as crass and commercial as can be imagined. Mind you,
I DO have fun. I just wish we had a better educated society so that
arts programming can BECOME commercially viable. But it is not so at
the moment and it needs support.
Does this help?
MRM
Mark Mushet
>In article <sranta-1911...@van-pm-1606.direct.ca>, sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) says:
>>I remember that T.V. Ontario produced an outstanding series of shows on
>>Canadian history several years ago.
>Bt *who's* definition was it outstanding? I never even heard of it. If TV
>Ontario is privatized it will produce programming people *want* rather than
>cater to a small, in-bred clique of leftists from downtown Toronto, who
>produce shows for their own purposes and enjoyment, exchange inside jokes
>and congratulate themselves for how smart they are; all paid for by the
>taxpayers of course.
Uh, I believe the gentleman was quite clearly expressing his own
opinion as to the show's quality and I see no reason to believe that
he was stating it as a universal truth. And if you've never heard of
it, perhaps you should find out a little more about it (if you're
really interested) rather than assuming, as so many here seem to enjoy
doing, that it was unworthy and unwanted by the public. I see the
words "redneck" and "righteous" in your sig. It seems that all is in
order here.
>derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
>- member in good standing: Homo Sapiens Interregnum (Caucasian persuasion)
>- Sirs, I am no petty noble; an ancestor of mine by the name of Noah
> was once the commanding admiral of the combined fleets of my planet.
> (with apologies to Paul Anderson)
>********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP ********************
What an awful sig., by the way.
MRM
Larry Phillips
>Give your heads a good shake.
Sound advice for yourself, actually.
> The CBC is one of the "glues" which binds
>this country together. CTV is interested in the bottom line. Any
>commercial organization is the same. The CBC, apart from the Christian
>networks, is the only media org which doesn't have $$$ as the "bottom
>line" and deserves it's place because of this fact.
It 'deserves' whatever support people are WILLING to give it, whether that
support is in the form of viewing (and thus, paying the piper by watching
the commercials), or through donations of time, money, or effort.
Note the word 'WILLINGLY'. There is no possible moral argument you can make
that will convince me that it is alright for you to tell me what sort of
broadcasting I MUST support.
> I trust it.
Then YOU pay for it. YOU campaign to convince others to support it. If and
when the taxpayers of this country are no longer forced, under threat, to
help pay the CBC's way, you might even find a WILLING contributor in me, but
until that time, I will continue to work toward the complete dissassociation
of the government and the CBC, as well as for the dissolution of that pack
of arrogant bastards known as the CRTC.
> In the
>past it has shown quite convincingly that it is no friend to the rest of
>the government, and this is as it should be.
Got no problem with that at all. Got a BIG problem with being forced to
support it.
___________________________________________________
/ \
/ Larry Phillips - Think Video Interactive \
/_______________________________________________________\
\ /
\ Your Reality Check is in the Mail. /
\___________________________________________________/
Mark Mushet
>bh...@IslandNet.com (Brad Hetherington) wrote:
>>Ya that would be great. Then we could watch Coca-Cola commercials in
>>between re-runs of Married with Children. Witness, The Pashionate Eye,
>>Fifth Estate...would all be history along with all those other communist
>>shows. To think they would have us believe that Ken Saro-Wiwa was killed
>>by the Nigerian military because he spoke out against Shell Oil,
>>ridiculous! Lets get real here.
>The above is an example of the type of "thinking" that helped to
>persuade me to leave Canada, rather than fight for it. The government
>has completely propagandised so many citizens, to such a Pavlovian
>degree, that they can literally do anything, anything at all, and
>completely rely on the CBC and the establishment media to create and
>maintain a permanent state of crisis and diversion. What the fuck do
>you or the average Canadian know or care about Nigeria? Who ever heard
>of Saro-Wiwa before? But now its all action and outrage----while right
>in your own country secret trials plod merrily along, year in, year
>out, while the final legal scaffolds of an incipient Police State are
>quietly constructed.
>Shouldn't it be the concern of the CBC's news and public affairs
>programs to concentrate on the crimes being carried out in Canada, by
>the various Canadian governments? Of course it should---but that is
>impossible in a country where half the advertising dollars are those
>of government, and the central media sources are government operations
>in themselves.
Let me guess. You left Canada to join a US civilian militia group who
are arming themselves because they are convinced government agents are
mapping out the sleep patterns of its citizens so as to allow their
commanding officers (aliens of course) to swoop down and render us all
dazed by the promise of a socialist paradise.
PKolding
>In article <DI96z1.KIM...@news.enterprise.ca>, Cerise Lopez
><cob...@enterprise.ca> wrote:
>> Apparently the Mike Harris government in Ontario is going to privatize
>> TVO. This is good news. Let us hope that the federal government will
>> follow Harris' lead and privatize the CBC. This would save taxpayers over
>> $1 billion annually and the proceeds of the sale could be applied against
>> the federal government's annual deficit of about $35 billion.
Mark Mushet
>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>So Global, CTV, TVO are not Canadian? Without the CRTC there would be
>a lot more Canadian stations, especially in radio where production and
>facility costs are so low. There would be a lot broader coverage,
>more alternatives. It is that freedom that government is afraid of,
>and one thing that keeps these beasts alive.
TVO does not count because it is regional. So that leaves us with two
"national" stations and the regional nature of Global's outfits tends
to put them out of the running compared to the more obviously
"national" agenda of the CBC. I'm not sure what would happen if we
toasted the CRTC (it DOES seem tempting) but to suggest that doing so
would result in the mushrooming of choice and alternatives is, I
think, naive, especially given the recent history of commercial radio.
Yes, the operating costs of radio are much lower than TV, but you know
what? Station owners have a clearly demonstrated tendency to want to
get them even LOWER by employing skeletal crews to pump out LCD
programming that is no different than that of similar stations all
over the continent. One exception to this is (at least in terms of
staffing) is "Talk Radio" but the market, here in Vancouver at least,
can only really support one major player, CKNW.
BTW I find Izzy Asper's (Canwest/Global) treatment of his employees to
be highly despicable.
>BTW I often find foreign publications can do a lot to put our issues
>into perspective.
Yes, and if one has access or time, one should follow up on as many
options as possible.
MRM
Mark Mushet
>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>Are you Canadian? Do you get a Canadian perspective (never mind what
>>you think of their biases) on national, local, or world events on ANY
>>of the channels you cite? Wait...I'll answer that for you: NO.
>So it is important that some on give us a bias, a perspective eh. Yes,
>that is what the CBC is about.
Bias is UNAVOIDABLE in any sphere of broadcasting.
>>It is silly of you to compare and then ask me to defend the CBC
>>against incomparable entities such as CNN etc. Re-read the post. I
>>said that I believe that CBC has largely failed etc.
>You said it had largely failed, but that it should still be paid for
>out of everyone's pocket.
Only if it proves to be of service, which it still may have a chance
of doing and has done so, in part, in the past.
> Absolutely people have a right to ignore
>the government mandated pablum and look at the whole world and what
>they can offer.
Yes. I don't think I suggested otherwise.
>>In my view. PBS is getting lamer and lamer due to increased pressure
>>from corporate sponsers not to rock the boat by producing anything too
>>controversial. This is fact in certain cases.
>I thought it was the government who played the most influence, pro
>censorship politicians not liking Sesame Street's open discussions
>etc.
Yes and those politicians are also the most pro "free enterprise"
sorts among the lot. But no, actually, in the case of a couple of
contentious documentaries it was the corporate hand of censorship that
was waved.
>>And I'm sure the board of directors at PBS are remembering 1972, when
>>"Tricky Dick" Nixon specifically set out to undermine PBS' editorial
>>independence because he and his pals strongly disagreed with their
>>biases.
>Again the government, not the corporations. Keep governments out of
>the media.
Again the pro CORPORATE government figures, sport. Wake up!
>>Those times have returned in the US. I'd urge you to read Robert
>>Hughes' article in, of all publications, TIME magazine called:
>>"Pulling the Fuse on Culture". He neatly shows the folly of wholesale
>>elimination of govt. support for the arts (including, to some degree,
>>PBS) and relates the issue to the economic imperatives of the
>>Republicans and how they've overlooked some very important
>>contributions of state funding for the arts to their own supposed
>>agenda.
>So what, supporting a government factions agenda should be paid for by
>tax dollars. Can you not see that stuffing pork barrels is not a way
>to run a country, or spend tax dollars?
Read the article. You are so far off base on this issue that we aren't
even on the same field. Stop the assumptions.
>>In my view, The Knowledge Network FAR outdoes both PBS AND CBC. Its
>>funding sources are mixed.
>>
>>As for CNN, my parents live in Spokane, Washington, watch CNN and, as
>>such, wouldn't even be notified (by CNN) if the entire country of
>>Canada exploded one day! They are always complaining about a lack of
>>Canadian news. Oh, sorry, they DID report a story about some body
>>parts being found in a pizza oven in Surrey.
>Fine they should have the choice to watch something else.
Like the CBC!? There IS NO choice for cancon in that part of the
States.
MRM
Mark Mushet
>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>That is an asinine assumption. Why don't you ask for specifics before
>>you leap to your conclusions about what I consider important. Or have
>>I, as I suspect, just lept into a pool of bloodthirsty sharks with no
>>taste for dialogue sans unfounded assumptions?
>Let's see, to quote you in this thread. "Bullshit" (that was the
>entire comment) "Now there's a pile of shit" and "That is an asinine
>assumption". And then you accuse those who disagree as having "no
>taste for dialog sans unfounded assumptions"
Well sport, I've said a fair amount here, and when you analyse the
"signal to noise" ratio, the "excrement reference to dialogue" ratio
isn't that bad! You do have a partial point though!
>>Your reference to the CBC's market share is related to what, the TV
>>programming? I don't know about that. I can only go by my experience,
>>which tells me that there is support for the radio at least.
>In what market are they competitive enough that they could pay their
>way, is there even one ? There are many commercial stations doing
>very well, despite the onerous limits put on them by the government.
>Please be specific.
Well, during the referendum coverage they supposedly pulled in 6
million viewers, far away the highest number of any station covering
it. But we have already acknowledged that it CANNOT "compete" in
certain areas. Comercial stations wouldn't touch, often for good
"business" reasons, certain areas of programming that the CBC tries to
provide for (successfully or not).
Strangely enough. it is the MOST commercial aspect of the CBC (the TV
programming) that people want to see cut (myself among them. you and I
probably do not disagree that much, really). No the CBC can't compete
in the world of comercial television and they are wasting their time
trying to do so.
However, I understand that Anne of Green Gables and that sort of thing
goes on to commercial success in places like Japan. So, if it starts
out as a sickly, saccharine CBC co-production and then goes on to make
millions, then, if that money is then used to subsidise other, more
esoteric programming, I'm in favour of it.
I have no objections to a radical re-think of how the CBC operates.
But, to take the example of Canada Post (oh god,here comes another
thread!) privatization did NOT deliver (pardon the pun) the service it
was claimed it would. In fact it has gotten very much worse and the
cost of postage has continued to climb because people are going with
other, more expensive methods of delivery to ENSURE that their
packages get delivered within a reasonable time frame. Then, Canada
post gets into a conflict of interest situation by offering courier
services. Well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the now
privatized Canada Post Outlets have little incentive to provide
brilliant, efficient regular mail service (like the Royal Mail) when
they are in the market to sell more costly courier services.
I see the CBC and Canada Post in a similar light vis-a-vis their
mandate to serve all of Canada in a timely, affordable and efficient
way (neither provide, but then, neither does the market!) But I'm not
sure if the TV analogy transfers across that well.
Mark Mushet
>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>>You have the same contempt for other people's opinion
>>>that they display when producing programming.
>>
>>Bullshit.
>>
> I think the low number of people who watch most CBC produced shows,
>and the way they tend to cancel the popular ones (to show they are
>cutting back of course) that do happen to get popular does show
>contempt. Any evidence to support your point?
Um...which point? I was responding to your suggestion that I have
contempt for others' opinions. I don't watch the majority of CBC TV
programming, as I've said, so I can't comment on their actions
vis-a-vis their cutting back of "popular" shows. But it IS interesting
that you're suggesting that they even ARE capable of producing POPULAR
shows!
>>>If you listen to the CBC radio then you certainly are a member of an
>>>elite crew, few others do.
>>Wrong. What is YOUR evidence for this?
>You say I am wrong, give absolutely no evidence why, and then demand
>me to support my view. Well, I will support it anyway.
>Few listen, esp given the very wide distribution of the signal, so it
>is a small group compared to the entire market.
Well, even if you had presented meaningful figures to support your
claim, the wide distribution of the signal is part of an overall
intention to keep Canadians in remote areas (of which there are many)
aprised of events in Canada and to provide uniform access across the
country. It is part of a vision of what a nation is about. The market
clearly will not provide service to miniscule communities in remote
regions. Now, whether you agree with THAT initiative is another
matter.
Realistically, in this discussion, we are talking about the major
urban centres as a "market" for CBC. No, I don't have figures, but MY
impression is that there is certainly a great deal of support for CBC
radio in Vancouver.
>Tell me one market
>where there is significant competition for CBC radio and it is even in
>the top 3 stations.
You tell me you're supporting a position, don't offer hard evidence,
and then ask ME to present the research. I don't know what the overall
figures are and I don't have time to find them. I just know of
specific successes but you don't seem to want to get into specifics.
>The elite comments also comes from the tone of
>the interviews, and the large amount of "high brow" music. Most
>people do not want to listen long dead European composers songs being
>played by government subsidized orchestras, but this seems to be a
>mainstay, same with some of the jazz shows.
Now here you are partially right. I take the piss out of Ken Winters'
show "Mostly Music" by renaming it "Mostly Mozart"! As for the
orchestras, much of their failure is in not mixing up the programs ie.
new works with old etc. but this is not under the control of the CBC.
One of CBC's successes in this regard has been the Avison series. This
is a well attended concert series that mixes up the repetoire (sp.),
allows for the commissioning of new Canadian works by providing a
venue, and also stirs up a bit of controversy among the more staid
audiences (which will hopefully be dying off soon!) It is this kind of
thing that needs to be built upon.
BTW I believe the WSO is firmly in the black and has achieved this via
many efforts including the mixing of the rep and attracting a younger
audience so that it can free itself, somewhat, from govt. subsidy.
>Other stations play this
>to a small degree, to reflect the low demand but to meet the demand
>that does exist.
This is not true in Vancouver or many other cities. For example, you
cannot name ONE commercial radio station that plays contemporary (or
even much traditional) jazz in Vancouver despite the existence of a
small but thriving community. Only Andre Rheame (sp.) of the French
CBC fills this bill here in Vancouver. In America it is even worse.
Check out rec.music.bluenote to see the discussions regarding the
sorry state of radio in terms of providing for "specialty" audiences.
There are other examples as well. Want 'em? I've spent ten years in
alternative radio here and I know of what I speak. On this point THE
MARKET DOESN'T DELIVER, JOHN.
> CBC plays it to a high degree, and cares little if
>no-one listens because their mandate is not to please, it is to
>promote.
Do you know anything about how commercial music radio works? They are
not interested in offering a broad slate of programming. PERIOD. They
want to offer the LEAST for the MOST return. They are inexorably
linked to the most corrupt dinosaur of a hyper-promotional and
manipulative entity known to the civilised world. It is called: the
pop music industry. If you ever had the misfortune to crawl into it's
belly, it would make you sick. And it is always there to say that it
is giving the people what they want, provided that they control the
choice that is being presented.
>I find it hard to discuss too many specific shows, it is very rare I
>listen to CBC radio (except air farce sometimes), I do not like the
>shows I hear when I pop through when station scanning in the car.
Well some of us like to make an effort to satisfy our tastes. Like it
or not, there IS something for everyone on CBC radio.
>>I hate the Air Farce and I REALLY hate DISC DRIVE. But you know what?
>>DISC DRIVE is far and away one of the most popular programs and Jurgen
>>Gothe pulls in about 160k a year on it alone. That pisses me off but
>>that's what "the people" want from CBC. The merchandising of DISC
>>DRIVE products has been a success as well. This, and many other
>>examples of high listenership and support, flies in the face of your
>>"elite" comment above.
>Your elitism seems to be showing again ! It pisses you off at what
>"the people" want, who are you to sit in judgement of the majorities
>tastes. They have a right to have what they want, they have a right
>to not pay for what they do not want, you have no right to show
>contempt for it as anything other than a personal opinion.
Of course I am presenting a personal opinion, John! I can judge all I
want. It only becomes a problem if I begin to advocate the elimination
of others tastes and the products manifested by those tastes (which I
clearly DO NOT).
And regarding your apparent contempt for "elitism", perhaps you should
read the book: "In Praise of Elitism" I think you'd find much in
common with your overall support of the free market and it's wonderous
forces!
As a photographer, I aspire to becoming part of an elite of
professionals who can deliver top flight, creative photography for a
fair price. I am now working for ad agencies, magazines etc. and am on
my way to achieving that. In this case, eltism is about achievement,
not excluding ANYONE from the ability to participate and belong to an
elite themselves.
In September I videotaped the Pacific Region Entrepeneur of The Year
Awards sponsored by Ernst and Young. Believe me John, these people
make no bones about declaring themselves an elite, and these are the
free market champions that I imagine you would admire.
I find that people who consistently use the word "elite" in the
perjorative sense are often of rural backgrounds, subscribe to the
politics of resentment, and announce themselves as "populists" when in
fact, they merely find themselves on the lower rungs of the ladder of
power and need to focus their anger on those who've succeeded in their
personal ambitions.
Yes, John I'm an "elitist". The world would be a better place if more
people would choose to excersise their abilities in pursuing
membership in an "elite" of their choice, whether it be in business,
the arts, or social work.
>>It was a democratic, free-enterprise oriented society that allowed for
>>its creation. We are now in a tussle over what form the CBC should
>>take (if it is to continue at all) and so the issue of you being
>>"forced" to pay for it will be resolved in a civilized manner in a
>>democratic arena. Why don't you vote Reform? They'll take care of the
>>CBC.
>Ok, good suggestion, just might vote the reform in then. The only way
>private enterprise"allowed for its creation" was by giving them the
>technology and the wealth that made it possible.
Um, did the "people" amass to protest its creation because they felt
it was a waste at the time? And if you'll examine other posts here, it
looks as though the Reform Party is NOT in favour of the total
abolition of the CBC. I guess even Reformers are cabable of reflection
and thoughtfulness at times! I was pleasantly surprised to have MY
assumptions turned around on that issue.
>>Programming for "unusual" (read: educated, or highly evolved)
>>tastes is "waste and pollution"??!! I would expect a remark like that
>>to be accompanied by "When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my
>>revolver" A triumph? Maybe "of the Will"
>Your elitism is showing again !! Actually I do tend to watch some
>off-beat stuff, but I have no trouble supporting TVO,
Which receives Govt. funding.
>or renting a video tape,
The broadcast programs available on videotape are often the result of
co-productions which involve some govt. financing.
> to give it to me. I had been looking forward with
>pleasure to the DBS satellites, which would have given me a lot of
>alternatives, until the long hand of the government monopoly reached
>out and stopped me bypassing them.
Fair enough. But we have yet to see whether this promised plethora of
real choice (via DBS) will materialize in the long term.
>Cannot have any competition for
>the limited drivel they want us to celebrate as TRUE Canadian culture
>can we, eh?
Well alternate visions of "Canadian Culture" certainly aren't going to
emerge when "private" channels like BRAVO are demading that producers
accept unreasonable and market destroying terms in exchange for their
piddly, partial monetary support of independent, arts-oriented TV
projects (ie. BRAVO!Fact). I can forward specific details if you like.
Most accomplished producers that I know are rejecting this "private
sector" arts broadcasting support because the license terms are so
unreasonable.
>>I'm perfectly content to let DISC DRIVE and AIR FARCE exist alongside
>>my favourite programs if it means those programs will endure and that
>>the CBC is able to please the majority of the population.
>I would prefer to have lots of popular shows, why limit it to two
>"allowed" as a grudging gesture given with thinly disguised contempt
>it would seem.
You misread me. As long as there is a full selection from which I can
derive satisfaction, I don't care what else they program. I think the
majority (who listen to CBC Radio) will agree with me on this point.
You really have a chip on your shoulder regarding those who you
believe aspire to a perceived elite.
>Tell me do you also support the Women's Television Channel, average
>audience of 4,000 people in the entire country despite it being
>mandated onto all the cable systems and paid for by every cable
>subscriber whether they like it or not? I am sure they think they
>provides good quality shows too (maybe it does I don't know), but it
>is disgusting that such a laughably unpopular channel is rammed down
>everyone by a dictatorial government bent on control of
>communications, and benefiting their friends.
This is in danger of turning into a debate over the issue of
"affirmative action" or some such thing. I don't know much about it
and, apparently, neither do you so let's let that one go!
MRM
karl mamer
> Explain how the CBC is in anyway superior or even equal to CNN,
Two words, Gulf War. Think hard about the difference in coverage.
CBC
Video: shot of a chopper targeting hellfire missiles on Iraqi tanks.
Sound: Chopper pilot: "Say hello to Allah." Woosh "Wow got that fucker"
CNN
Video: shot of a chopper targeting hellfire missiles on Iraqi tanks.
Sound: silence
--
"We'll follow Emergency Plan H, and keep Plan B in reserve
in case things get out of hand."
Charles Lyall
sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>It is certainly true that the market has failed to develop the kind
>>political correct censorship, mis-representation, arrogance, smug self
>>righteousness and intolerance for any viewpoint other than their own
>>that characterizes the CBC.
>
>Now there's a pile of shit. The broadcasting market has failed to
>produce mis-representation, arrogance, smug self-righteousness and
>intolerance for the viewpoints of others?
>
The CBC's intolerance for other viewpoints, and especially for studies
which document their biases is well known. In the case of academic
studies, they exert every effort to have the university silence their
critics. You don't know about the latest case at the U of Calgary a few
years ago, don't you?
>I work in the private sector as a photographer and video
>shooter/producer. I can tell you from first hand experience that these
>problems are well and truly alive in the broadcast market outside of
>the CBC.
>
Jusging from your tone, I suspect that the problems follow you about.
>
>That is an asinine assumption. Why don't you ask for specifics before
>you leap to your conclusions about what I consider important. Or have
>I, as I suspect, just lept into a pool of bloodthirsty sharks with no
>taste for dialogue sans unfounded assumptions?
>
>>Jusging from CBC's market share, the overwhelming majority of
taxpayers
>>are not being served by the CBC. Why should they have to pay for it?
>
>Personally, I can find enough sources of information to find my way in
>the world. The CBC is but ONE of those sources and I appreciate
>certain aspects of it. I am smart enough to read between the lines of
>their coverage of certain issues. I know of many who consider it so.
>
I rewpeat -- why should there be one network who takes literally
billions of dollars per year away from people who do not respect it and
do not watch it? There is something fundamentally undemocratic about
the CBC's funding.
>Your reference to the CBC's market share is related to what, the TV
>programming? I don't know about that. I can only go by my experience,
>which tells me that there is support for the radio at least.
>
Ah, a self confessed photographer and video producer who doesn't know
about TV. Sigh. Why does that not surprise me?
>P.S. It's time for you to get a spell checker!
I am one of those people who have difficulties in spelling because of a
minor dyslexia -- I also cannot tell right from left -- it can't be
fixed by training -- it's a wiring error in the brain. In addition,
I have a tremor which plays merry hell with my keyboarding. Tell me, you
smug arrogant cretin, do you also kick people on crutches, push people
on wheelchairs into traffic, park in handicapped reserved parking
spaces, and sneer at the physically deformed.
Charles
P.S. It's time for you to get an ethics checker.
Mark Mushet
>In article <48s34u$6...@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>>It is certainly true that the market has failed to develop the kind
>>>political correct censorship, mis-representation, arrogance, smug self
>>>righteousness and intolerance for any viewpoint other than their own
>>>that characterizes the CBC.
>>
>>Now there's a pile of shit. The broadcasting market has failed to
>>produce mis-representation, arrogance, smug self-righteousness and
>>intolerance for the viewpoints of others?
>The CBC's intolerance for other viewpoints, and especially for studies
>which document their biases is well known. In the case of academic
>studies, they exert every effort to have the university silence their
>critics. You don't know about the latest case at the U of Calgary a few
>years ago, don't you?
I responded (to the first part) by suggesting that these things DO
exist in the commercial broadcast market as well, yet you immediately
bring the point back to the CBC. At no point did I suggest that what
you say about them is not, to some degree, true. And I'll say it
again: I think the CBC has failed in many respects. And no, I don't
know about the U of C "case" Why don't you explain it here instead of
trying to make me look as if I don't know what everybody else
supposedly does (which I doubt they do).
>>I work in the private sector as a photographer and video
>>shooter/producer. I can tell you from first hand experience that these
>>problems are well and truly alive in the broadcast market outside of
>>the CBC.
>Jusging from your tone, I suspect that the problems follow you about.
These problems were well and truly in place before I ever even
trained. And my work in the field has no bearing on them whatsoever.
Please don't publicly cast doubt on my ability to behave
professionally in my chosen field. Suggesting that I am somehow
responsible, due to a perceived character flaw, for their perpetuation
in the marketplace amounts to a personal attack.
This is a highly controversial subject being discussed in a
politically charged environment. Do not confuse my day to day
professional demeanor (which you know nothing about) with my remarks
on the internet.
>>Personally, I can find enough sources of information to find my way in
>>the world. The CBC is but ONE of those sources and I appreciate
>>certain aspects of it. I am smart enough to read between the lines of
>>their coverage of certain issues. I know of many who consider it so.
>I rewpeat -- why should there be one network who takes literally
>billions of dollars per year away from people who do not respect it and
>do not watch it? There is something fundamentally undemocratic about
>the CBC's funding.
You are saying no one respects or watches the CBC? I'm not saying it's
the most popular broadcaster, but what are your sources?
Again, if you're reading some of my other remarks here, you'll know
that I am not opposed to a radical re-think of the way the CBC
operates.
>>Your reference to the CBC's market share is related to what, the TV
>>programming? I don't know about that. I can only go by my experience,
>>which tells me that there is support for the radio at least.
>Ah, a self confessed photographer and video producer who doesn't know
>about TV. Sigh. Why does that not surprise me?
If you knew anything about freelance shooters/producers you'd know
that many either don't have time or don't feel much on TV is worth
watching. Not unreasonable, nor uncommon.
I watch just enough television to be as apalled as anyone else at the
lack of decent content. But that doesn't prevent me from having fun
and doing a fine job for whoever is paying my invoices.
And why does it not surprise me that the most vitriolic contempt for
the CBC comes from Alberta?
>>P.S. It's time for you to get a spell checker!
>I am one of those people who have difficulties in spelling because of a
>minor dyslexia -- I also cannot tell right from left -- it can't be
>fixed by training -- it's a wiring error in the brain. In addition,
>I have a tremor which plays merry hell with my keyboarding. Tell me, you
>smug arrogant cretin, do you also kick people on crutches, push people
>on wheelchairs into traffic, park in handicapped reserved parking
>spaces, and sneer at the physically deformed.
Well if you're looking for sympathy or an apology you can forget it.
If I were facing you personally and I made an unkind remark that
clearly played upon a disability, then I might understand your insult
and I would easily offer an apology.
But your rail against me in this manner, after making a minor remark
about spelling (which is not uncommon on the net), is excessive and
unwarranted. I sincerely hope you feel better, having vented some of
your anger (intended for those who WOULD do such things) at me. I
won't ask for an apology.
>P.S. It's time for you to get an ethics checker.
See above.
Mark Mushet
>>P.S. It's time for you to get a spell checker!
>I am one of those people who have difficulties in spelling because of a
>minor dyslexia -- I also cannot tell right from left -- it can't be
>fixed by training -- it's a wiring error in the brain. In addition,
>I have a tremor which plays merry hell with my keyboarding. Tell me, you
>smug arrogant cretin, do you also kick people on crutches, push people
>on wheelchairs into traffic, park in handicapped reserved parking
>spaces, and sneer at the physically deformed.
I almost forgot. I said the same thing to Derek Nalecki. You weren't
singled out for attack, as you suggest.
MRM
John R. Shaw
>>You have the same contempt for other people's opinion
>>that they display when producing programming.
>
>Bullshit.
>
I think the low number of people who watch most CBC produced shows,
and the way they tend to cancel the popular ones (to show they are
cutting back of course) that do happen to get popular does show
contempt. Any evidence to support your point?
>>If you listen to the CBC radio then you certainly are a member of an
>>elite crew, few others do.
>
>Wrong. What is YOUR evidence for this?
>
You say I am wrong, give absolutely no evidence why, and then demand
me to support my view. Well, I will support it anyway.
Few listen, esp given the very wide distribution of the signal, so it
is a small group compared to the entire market. Tell me one market
where there is significant competition for CBC radio and it is even in
the top 3 stations. The elite comments also comes from the tone of
the interviews, and the large amount of "high brow" music. Most
people do not want to listen long dead European composers songs being
played by government subsidized orchestras, but this seems to be a
mainstay, same with some of the jazz shows. Other stations play this
to a small degree, to reflect the low demand but to meet the demand
that does exist. CBC plays it to a high degree, and cares little if
no-one listens because their mandate is not to please, it is to
promote.
>>You complain of banality, and then claim
>>CBC radio as worthy ??
>
>Where were the two even vaguely connected in my post? TWO NEW HOURS
>banal? Irritatiing on occasion, but hardly banal. This issue would
>need greater focus to be worthwhile ie. discussing specific programs.
>
You said "This is the beauty of privatizing public broadcasting; it
always has the same result: market driven banality."
You also said " if you strip away much of the TV program buying and a
good portion of the production, it's still worth having for the sake
of CBC Newsworld and a good portion of the radio work"
Why would I not connect these two thoughts?
I find it hard to discuss too many specific shows, it is very rare I
listen to CBC radio (except air farce sometimes), I do not like the
shows I hear when I pop through when station scanning in the car.
>>Take away the Air Farce, which would exist in
>>a commercial world anyway, and who would still have a job at CBC radio
>>if people had to willingly pay.
>
>I hate the Air Farce and I REALLY hate DISC DRIVE. But you know what?
>DISC DRIVE is far and away one of the most popular programs and Jurgen
>Gothe pulls in about 160k a year on it alone. That pisses me off but
>that's what "the people" want from CBC. The merchandising of DISC
>DRIVE products has been a success as well. This, and many other
>examples of high listenership and support, flies in the face of your
>"elite" comment above.
>
Your elitism seems to be showing again ! It pisses you off at what
"the people" want, who are you to sit in judgement of the majorities
tastes. They have a right to have what they want, they have a right
to not pay for what they do not want, you have no right to show
contempt for it as anything other than a personal opinion.
I suspect that anything popular is viewed as the same contempt at the
CBC, and will top the list in budget cuts (like all American prime
time shows on tv seem to be doing).
>>Despite that you have a right to
>>watch what you want, but you have no right to force me to pay for it.
>
>It was a democratic, free-enterprise oriented society that allowed for
>its creation. We are now in a tussle over what form the CBC should
>take (if it is to continue at all) and so the issue of you being
>"forced" to pay for it will be resolved in a civilized manner in a
>democratic arena. Why don't you vote Reform? They'll take care of the
>CBC.
>
Ok, good suggestion, just might vote the reform in then. The only way
private enterprise"allowed for its creation" was by giving them the
technology and the wealth that made it possible.
>Programming for "unusual" (read: educated, or highly evolved)
>tastes is "waste and pollution"??!! I would expect a remark like that
>to be accompanied by "When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my
>revolver" A triumph? Maybe "of the Will"
>
Your elitism is showing again !! Actually I do tend to watch some
off-beat stuff, but I have no trouble supporting TVO, or renting a
video tape, to give it to me. I had been looking forward with
pleasure to the DBS satellites, which would have given me a lot of
alternatives, until the long hand of the government monopoly reached
out and stopped me bypassing them. Cannot have any competition for
the limited drivel they want us to celebrate as TRUE Canadian culture
can we, eh?
>I'm perfectly content to let DISC DRIVE and AIR FARCE exist alongside
>my favourite programs if it means those programs will endure and that
>the CBC is able to please the majority of the population.
>
I would prefer to have lots of popular shows, why limit it to two
("allowed" as a grudging gesture given with thinly disguised contempt
it would seem).
Tell me do you also support the Women's Television Channel, average
audience of 4,000 people in the entire country despite it being
mandated onto all the cable systems and paid for by every cable
subscriber whether they like it or not? I am sure they think they
provides good quality shows too (maybe it does I don't know), but it
is disgusting that such a laughably unpopular channel is rammed down
everyone by a dictatorial government bent on control of
communications, and benefiting their friends.
- How does it feeal? To be on your own, with no direction home.(B.Z)-
John R. Shaw
> If a nation of bozos, (oh, pick any English-speaking country on
>the planet) prefers Baywatch to Masterpiece Theatre, then that is
>precisely what it should get! Just as a people get the government they
>deserve, so does a country get the "entertainment" it deserves.
>
It is the most popular show in France too, no I don't watch it or like
it but have no problem with other people liking it.
John R. Shaw
>Well I'm not sure of your characterization of the CBC audience and I'm
>not sure if you're referring to TV or radio. Regardless of whether one
>cares for them or not, the CBC DOES provide an alternative viewpoint
>on many particularly "Canadian" issues. I only ever watch Newsworld
>and its offshoots, and I occasionally listen to the radio news but I
>do see and hear some good debate that you don't get elswhere.
>
Fine, few with disagree but is this relevant? There are lots of other
alternative viewpoints too. Should all be aired at other people's
expense? I think not.
>I also stated that I think we can do without the TV portion of
>CBC (save Newsworld) and that, while not all of it is great, we can
>certainly manage to afford much of the radio programming.
>
Referring to the CBC you said "it's still worth having for the sake of
CBC Newsworld", while you did disparage their general programming
this seems to indicate that you would keep it going, just because it
has a favorite show of your's. Which is it? One show, or four
networks for one show.
We can "manage to afford" a lot of things, the question is should we.
John R. Shaw
>Are you Canadian? Do you get a Canadian perspective (never mind what
>you think of their biases) on national, local, or world events on ANY
>of the channels you cite? Wait...I'll answer that for you: NO.
>
So it is important that some on give us a bias, a perspective eh. Yes,
that is what the CBC is about.
>It is silly of you to compare and then ask me to defend the CBC
>against incomparable entities such as CNN etc. Re-read the post. I
>said that I believe that CBC has largely failed etc.
>
You said it had largely failed, but that it should still be paid for
out of everyone's pocket. Absolutely people have a right to ignore
the government mandated pablum and look at the whole world and what
they can offer.
>In my view. PBS is getting lamer and lamer due to increased pressure
>from corporate sponsers not to rock the boat by producing anything too
>controversial. This is fact in certain cases.
>
I thought it was the government who played the most influence, pro
censorship politicians not liking Sesame Street's open discussions
etc.
>And I'm sure the board of directors at PBS are remembering 1972, when
>"Tricky Dick" Nixon specifically set out to undermine PBS' editorial
>independence because he and his pals strongly disagreed with their
>biases.
>
Again the government, not the corporations. Keep governments out of
the media.
>Those times have returned in the US. I'd urge you to read Robert
>Hughes' article in, of all publications, TIME magazine called:
>"Pulling the Fuse on Culture". He neatly shows the folly of wholesale
>elimination of govt. support for the arts (including, to some degree,
>PBS) and relates the issue to the economic imperatives of the
>Republicans and how they've overlooked some very important
>contributions of state funding for the arts to their own supposed
>agenda.
>
So what, supporting a government factions agenda should be paid for by
tax dollars. Can you not see that stuffing pork barrels is not a way
to run a country, or spend tax dollars?
>In my view, The Knowledge Network FAR outdoes both PBS AND CBC. Its
>funding sources are mixed.
>
>As for CNN, my parents live in Spokane, Washington, watch CNN and, as
>such, wouldn't even be notified (by CNN) if the entire country of
>Canada exploded one day! They are always complaining about a lack of
>Canadian news. Oh, sorry, they DID report a story about some body
>parts being found in a pizza oven in Surrey.
>
Fine they should have the choice to watch something else.
- How does it feeal? To be on your own, with no direction home.(B.Z)-
John R. Shaw
>That is an asinine assumption. Why don't you ask for specifics before
>you leap to your conclusions about what I consider important. Or have
>I, as I suspect, just lept into a pool of bloodthirsty sharks with no
>taste for dialogue sans unfounded assumptions?
>
Let's see, to quote you in this thread. "Bullshit" (that was the
entire comment) "Now there's a pile of shit" and "That is an asinine
assumption". And then you accuse those who disagree as having "no
taste for dialog sans unfounded assumptions"
Perhaps your dialog's constant reference to excrement is what
diminish's the "taste" for dialog.
>
>Your reference to the CBC's market share is related to what, the TV
>programming? I don't know about that. I can only go by my experience,
>which tells me that there is support for the radio at least.
In what market are they competitive enough that they could pay their
way, is there even one ? There are many commercial stations doing
very well, despite the onerous limits put on them by the government.
Please be specific.
- How does it feeal? To be on your own, with no direction home.(B.Z)-
John R. Shaw
>
>All broadcast/media outlets have their biases. Ideally we are educated
>and perceptive enough to read between the lines and get from the
>source what we need to come to a conclusion. I scan the entire
>spectrum of newsmedia, for example, and get to know which biases are
>where so that I can get my bearings on certain issues. The CBC is ONE
>part of that, and I appreciate its contribution sometimes, especially
>in its coverage of particularly CANADIAN issues.
So Global, CTV, TVO are not Canadian? Without the CRTC there would be
a lot more Canadian stations, especially in radio where production and
facility costs are so low. There would be a lot broader coverage,
more alternatives. It is that freedom that government is afraid of,
and one thing that keeps these beasts alive.
BTW I often find foreign publications can do a lot to put our issues
into perspective.
- How does it feeal? To be on your own, with no direction home.(B.Z)-
Ian Rennie
> Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
> privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
> acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
> kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
>
Jeff Joseph
>sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>>In article <DI96z1.KIM...@news.enterprise.ca>, Cerise Lopez
>><cob...@enterprise.ca> wrote:
[..]
>>I remember that T.V. Ontario produced an outstanding series of shows on
>>Canadian history several years ago.
>>If TVO is privatized, will it continue to produce this type of programming?
>Of course, if they can hire American stars, sanitize it until it is as
>digestable as pablum and then sell it to an American distributor. This
>is the beauty of privatizing public broadcasting; it always has the
>same result: market driven banality.
Why? Private producers can make this kind of programming then sell to a
network. If the demand is there (maybe not given all the niches covered
in the multi-channel universe), someone will bite. I think, for
instance, that the CRB Foundation commercials have done more wonders for
introducing Canadian history to Canadians than just about anything since
Pierre Berton's old specials.
>Now, don't get me wrong here. I think the CBC is pretty much a failure
>as far as providing quality, stimulating programming. However, if you
>strip away much of the TV program buying and a good portion of the
>production, it's still worth having for the sake of CBC Newsworld and
>a good portion of the radio work (which is much less costly
>considering what it provides).
True to a degree although they do a number of good (and popular) variety
programs. I always thought giving CBC the news channel license was a
huge mistake.
>Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
>privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
>acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
>kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
The advances in modern communications as we head to the multi-channel
universe is the marketplace at work. In the old school days, I had to be
constantly indoctrinated with two defences for keeping the CBC around:
(i) To promote Canadian culture; and
(ii) To allow very remote communities some sort of television access;
In the case of (i), government and the CBC have done squat. It's about
time arts groups realize that Canadian culture doesn't exist 95 out of
100 times unless it becomes popular south of the border.
In the case of (ii), for the money that is wasted on the autocratic CBC
- which even it's biggest defenders admit is over-administrated and
overloaded with waste at the middle and upper levels of management - it
is probably cheaper (and culturally better) to supply remote residents
with satellite dishes.
To label advocates of the elimination or selling off of the CBC as
"irresponsible" is kind of silly if for only the fact that CBC's largest
defenders constantly dump on the network for buying American shows and,
as a rite of spring, whine about the network pre-empting news coverage
for blanket coverage of the NHL playoffs. And what's the crime of both -
well, they make money for the network.
The only justification to keep the CBC would be if it were an
ideologically-neutral broadcaster. It isn't and cannot possibly be. With
more and more networks coming on board, all with broadcast time to fill,
there would be ample room for productions promoting "culture", news and
other matters of Canadiana if there truly is an audience that wants to
see it.
Either turn the CBC into a television version of Radio Canada, or get
rid of it.
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ Jeff Joseph
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)E-mail:jjo...@interlog.com
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' *experimental .sig*
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' My opinions are freeware -
(il).-'' (li).' ((!.-' (but donations are welcome!)
John R. Shaw
>Pardon me for being alarmed, but does this mean that libertarians don't
>"do" universal health care, road maintenance, small business development,
>universities, schools, workman's comp, and the like?
>
Hopefully most would be gone I should think. All of the above could
be done privately, with some direct subsidy going to education where
it made sense.
>Give your heads a good shake. The CBC is one of the "glues" which binds
>this country together.
Hum, I live on the border and sometimes listen to the French CBC tv
channel. If you did you might think otherwise about their being a
force for staying united. On the more general question what is your
basis for this platitude, other than it is said by the CRCT endlessly.
>CTV is interested in the bottom line. Any
>commercial organization is the same. The CBC, apart from the Christian
>networks, is the only media org which doesn't have $$$ as the "bottom
>line" and deserves it's place because of this fact. I trust it. In the
>past it has shown quite convincingly that it is no friend to the rest of
>the government, and this is as it should be.
>
Then who should they be friends of, they don't care about the viewers
much either. Why do they get to live in an ivory tower, beaming the
"truth" down to the peons below?
Kevin Lorenz
: robert...@email.icacomp.com writes:
: <snipped previous quote>
: > The CBC's mandate was, and always has been, to promote itself and big
: > government. It has no interest in national unity or cultural
: > diversity. Like all these government bodies, you can't fix it. The
: > only solution is to get rid of it entirely.
: >
: > Libertarians would eliminate most of the government except for law
: > enforcement and defence, eliminate the deficit, reduce taxes and pay
: > down the debt.
: Pardon me for being alarmed, but does this mean that libertarians don't
: "do" universal health care, road maintenance, small business development,
: universities, schools, workman's comp, and the like?
Now you're getting it. See why they're a fringe party?
: Give your heads a good shake. The CBC is one of the "glues" which binds
: this country together. CTV is interested in the bottom line. Any
The hatred for CBC may be a binding force, but far too few Canadians
watch CBC for it to have any significant force in shaping our opinions.
For a billion dollars, we deserve so much more. As for not caring about
the bottom line, what is wrong with that, especially considering that we
all pay for it no matter how little we watch it!
: commercial organization is the same. The CBC, apart from the Christian
: networks, is the only media org which doesn't have $$$ as the "bottom
: line" and deserves it's place because of this fact. I trust it. In the
Then pay for it. PBS relies mostly on donations, and it produces fine
programming. I despise the CBC. Why must I fund this misery?
: past it has shown quite convincingly that it is no friend to the rest of
: the government, and this is as it should be.
As long as a Conservative government is in power that is. When has a
show like Rough Cuts, the Passionate Eye or the I-team reports had any
slant other then leftist?
--
Kevin J. Lorenz - University of Alberta - Honors Political Science Program
***************************************************************************
* "Our vision of a New Canada is a country where a greater number of *
* Canadians will feel truly at home. *
* Preston Manning *
* "The New Canada" *
***************************************************************************
Mark Mushet
>In article <48oltu$7...@wolfe.wimsey.com>, sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) says:
>>
>>Those who rabidly advocate the elimination of the CBC, or the total
>>privatization of public broadcasting, are irresponsible and never
>>acknowledge the failure of the marketplace to provide for certain
>>kinds of important broadcasting functions within our society.
>>
>Important to whom? It seems obvious to me that if the marketplace does not
>'allow' certain type of programming to emerge, it is because *nobody* wants
>it.
This shows your profound ignorance of the broadcast market. Yes,
smaller numbers of people may want certain types of programming, and
the market WON'T be there because the profit margins aren't high
enough for someone's liking. Now this is fair enough, but DON'T make
the claim that the market provides for specialized tastes in the
broadcast field because IT DOESN'T.
>So you are talking here of using public money for *imposing* the views
>of a very small ideologically driven minority on the rest of the populace.
>Thank you for claryfing just what the 'public broadcasting' is all about.
>We've had much left wing mumbo-jumbo here muddling the issue and trying to
>'sneak' the real object of 'public broadcasting' pst the rest of us.
What group are you responding from? alt.politics.paranoid?
As for my presumed "left wing" views I can tell you that I am an
entrepreneur interested in making money. I am just a little more
flexible on some issues than most (ie. I am not a radid free market
idealogue opposed to all things concerned with govt. and social
welfare). I wish people like you would broaden your attacks to include
the business elites and what THEY impose on people in certain cases.
MRM
Mark Mushet
>In article <4919db$b...@wolfe.wimsey.com>, sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) says:
>>
>>Let me guess. You left Canada to join a US civilian militia group who
>>are arming themselves because they are convinced government agents are
>>mapping out the sleep patterns of its citizens so as to allow their
>>commanding officers (aliens of course) to swoop down and render us all
>>dazed by the promise of a socialist paradise.
>>
>Are you really run out of arguments, outside of this boring, left wing
>pathos, or are you just talking a breather? Does your mummy know you are
>racking telephone charges on the 'net?
Spoken like a truly illiterate, redneck fuckhead with no sense of
humour. Remedial English courses are only a phone call away, Derek.
MRM
Derek Nalecki
>I remember that T.V. Ontario produced an outstanding series of shows on
>Canadian history several years ago.
>
>If TVO is privatized, will it continue to produce this type of programming?
>
Bt *who's* definition was it outstanding? I never even heard of it. If TV
Ontario is privatized it will produce programming people *want* rather than
cater to a small, in-bred clique of leftists from downtown Toronto, who
produce shows for their own purposes and enjoyment, exchange inside jokes
and congratulate themselves for how smart they are; all paid for by the
taxpayers of course.
Derek Nalecki
>
>Let me guess. You left Canada to join a US civilian militia group who
>are arming themselves because they are convinced government agents are
>mapping out the sleep patterns of its citizens so as to allow their
>commanding officers (aliens of course) to swoop down and render us all
>dazed by the promise of a socialist paradise.
>
Are you really run out of arguments, outside of this boring, left wing
pathos, or are you just talking a breather? Does your mummy know you are
racking telephone charges on the 'net?
robertK
>>So Global, CTV, TVO are not Canadian? Without the CRTC there would be
>>a lot more Canadian stations, especially in radio where production and
>>facility costs are so low. There would be a lot broader coverage,
>>more alternatives. It is that freedom that government is afraid of,
>>and one thing that keeps these beasts alive.
>TVO does not count because it is regional. So that leaves us with two
>"national" stations and the regional nature of Global's outfits tends
>to put them out of the running compared to the more obviously
>"national" agenda of the CBC. I'm not sure what would happen if we
>toasted the CRTC (it DOES seem tempting) but to suggest that doing so
>would result in the mushrooming of choice and alternatives is, I
>think, naive, especially given the recent history of commercial radio.
Actually not only is TVO regional (what a shame to have to restrict the BEST
public broadcaster to only Ontario! note the objective articles in yesterdays
Globe+Mail on TVO!) but technically 'GLOBAL' is also an Ontario Network
while CanWest is a 'System'. Personally I'd like to see CanWest + Global
become the third network in Canada..
>Yes, the operating costs of radio are much lower than TV, but you know
>what? Station owners have a clearly demonstrated tendency to want to
>get them even LOWER by employing skeletal crews to pump out LCD
>programming that is no different than that of similar stations all
>over the continent. One exception to this is (at least in terms of
>staffing) is "Talk Radio" but the market, here in Vancouver at least,
>can only really support one major player, CKNW
but there are three Talk radio stations within the Vancouver listening region
ve...@compusmart.ab.ca
sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>Has Access' programming changed dramatically since privatization? Have
>their license fees for running new programs gone up to a suitable,
>market level? I've never watched the station.
THEN WATCH IT!
>Even THOSE stations have a tough time presenting quality, specialized
>programs, public money or not. And in terms of producing programs,
>what kind are you referring to? I want specifics.
EXCUUUSE me; like the Leatning and Jobs News? And as for what they purchase,
how about Acorn the Nature Nut with John Acorn? Don't think that's sought
after programming? Access carries it; a product of CFRN TV in Edmonton.
That, and Cynthia Kereluk's Everyday Work are SOLD WORLDWIDE, BABY!
ve...@compusmart.ab.ca
sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>This shows your profound ignorance of the broadcast market. Yes,
>smaller numbers of people may want certain types of programming, and
>the market WON'T be there because the profit margins aren't high
>enough for someone's liking. Now this is fair enough, but DON'T make
>the claim that the market provides for specialized tastes in the
>broadcast field because IT DOESN'T.
Bullshit. Case in point, Access Television in Alberta. Specialized
programming; educational TV. After being booted off the public tit, they
started selling commercial air time. No big money, but bills and staff manage
to get paid, they manage to even produce local programming (go figure) and no
more leeching off the government.
So there.
Mark Mushet
>In article <4950sb$3...@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>Has Access' programming changed dramatically since privatization? Have
>>their license fees for running new programs gone up to a suitable,
>>market level? I've never watched the station.
>THEN WATCH IT!
Kind of tough when I live in Vancouver, fella! Now, answer the
questions.
>>Even THOSE stations have a tough time presenting quality, specialized
>>programs, public money or not. And in terms of producing programs,
>>what kind are you referring to? I want specifics.
>EXCUUUSE me; like the Leatning and Jobs News? And as for what they purchase,
>how about Acorn the Nature Nut with John Acorn? Don't think that's sought
>after programming? Access carries it; a product of CFRN TV in Edmonton.
>That, and Cynthia Kereluk's Everyday Work are SOLD WORLDWIDE, BABY!
You go towards proving my point. Those programs strike me as very easy
to use and like. Learning and Job News has a pretty obvious function
within the market. These shows do not represent, particularly, any
truly "speciallized" tastes. My point was that the broadcast market
does NOT serve small audiences who DO have esoteric tastes. Then you
even further drive the point home by saying that a very easy to like,
inoffensive program has sold worldwide. You missed the point.
BTW I'm 32 years old, DAD, quit calling me baby!
MRM
Mark Mushet
>In article <492s1j$f...@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>This shows your profound ignorance of the broadcast market. Yes,
>>smaller numbers of people may want certain types of programming, and
>>the market WON'T be there because the profit margins aren't high
>>enough for someone's liking. Now this is fair enough, but DON'T make
>>the claim that the market provides for specialized tastes in the
>>broadcast field because IT DOESN'T.
>Bullshit. Case in point, Access Television in Alberta. Specialized
>programming; educational TV. After being booted off the public tit, they
>started selling commercial air time. No big money, but bills and staff manage
>to get paid, they manage to even produce local programming (go figure) and no
>more leeching off the government.
Has Access' programming changed dramatically since privatization? Have
their license fees for running new programs gone up to a suitable,
market level? I've never watched the station. I've only read its
program guide and, in my view, it cannot compare to, say, The
Knowledge Network or TVO. I didn't even TRY to sell my last program to
ACCESS because their license rates were even lower than Knowledge
Networks ($800.00 for a five year, 6 play term for unsolicitied
programs as of 1992. I doubt it's gotten any higher)
Even THOSE stations have a tough time presenting quality, specialized
programs, public money or not. And in terms of producing programs,
what kind are you referring to? I want specifics. All you've said is
that they're selling commercials, paying their staff and producing
some local programming.
If you're saying that educational TV is "specialized" in and of
itself, then you miss my point, because it is not. Educational TV is
usually tied into various post secondary outreach programs and has a
clearly desired educational role. I am talking about programs that,
while they may likely be shown on such stations, are produced outside
of the EdTV agenda and which reflect more esoteric tastes.
MRM
ve...@compusmart.ab.ca
kgo...@localnet.com (Ken Gough) wrote:
>(BTW, what does BBS stand for?)).
Ken,
I'm going to make the best guess I can. For many a year I would always hear
the letters "CTV" alongside something called Baton Broadcasting (pronounced
Bay-Tonne). I'll guess that it's "Baton Broadcasting System".
Ken Gough
> The CBC's mandate was, and always has been, to promote itself and big
> government. It has no interest in national unity or cultural
> diversity. Like all these government bodies, you can't fix it. The
> only solution is to get rid of it entirely.
>
is going to stop all US originated programming ( in the evening), even
though they are running at a severe deficit and also gain $2.50 revenue
from every $1.00 expended on US origibnated programs. This looks like a
pretty poor business move, despite all kinds of hyperbole about promoting
Canadian artists. One night a week of HNIC for seven months a year won;t
pay the bills. the taxpayers will. My prediction is that the only two
programs watched will be HNIC and the second half of The National(but only
if there is no good US show on Global or CTV (BTW, what does BBS stand
for?)).
I also notice that at least a couple of CBC outlets have dropped CBC and
are going independent, such as CKVR in Barrie.
Ken Gough
David Reilley
>In article <492s1j$f...@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>This shows your profound ignorance of the broadcast market. Yes,
>>smaller numbers of people may want certain types of programming, and
>>the market WON'T be there because the profit margins aren't high
>>enough for someone's liking. Now this is fair enough, but DON'T make
>>the claim that the market provides for specialized tastes in the
>>broadcast field because IT DOESN'T.
>Bullshit. Case in point, Access Television in Alberta. Specialized
>programming; educational TV. After being booted off the public tit, they
>started selling commercial air time. No big money, but bills and staff manage
>to get paid, they manage to even produce local programming (go figure) and no
>more leeching off the government.
More poorly researched rhetoric from the coward afraid to publish his name.
Access Alberta continues to recieve an $8 million annual subsidy from the
Alberta government.
PKolding
>>P.S. It's time for you to get a spell checker!
>I am one of those people who have difficulties in spelling because of a
>minor dyslexia -- I also cannot tell right from left -- it can't be
>fixed by training -- it's a wiring error in the brain. In addition,
>I have a tremor which plays merry hell with my keyboarding. Tell me, you
>smug arrogant cretin, do you also kick people on crutches, push people
>on wheelchairs into traffic, park in handicapped reserved parking
>spaces, and sneer at the physically deformed.
On the other hand, why should your incapacities be inflicted upon us?
If you want to write in a public forum that's fine, but it is too much
to expect that we do your spelling for you.
Mark Mushet
>In article <4960ka$i...@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>Kind of tough when I live in Vancouver, fella! Now, answer the
>>questions.
>It's on satellite, Ku Band. I can get it, AND the Open Learning Agency.
>Whare's YOUR Ku setup? Doesn't everybody have one?
Whare is it? Over thar, in tha dumpster. Ah coodint git nun o that
commie CBC on it so ah plum chucked it out! Now, are you going to
answer the questions?
>>You go towards proving my point. Those programs strike me as very easy
>>to use and like.
>Got a problem with that?
No. I like The Simpsons. Again, you missed the point.
>Do you go to a car lot and ask to demo a model
>that's clumsy and hard to steer?
Boy, you really missed the point. Why do most of the dolt responses
come from Alberta?
>>My point was that the broadcast market
>>does NOT serve small audiences who DO have esoteric tastes.
>Good! You're catching.
I hope you've had your shots, then!
>If it's to a focus audience IT AIN'T BROADCASTING AND
>DOES NOT BELONG THERE! That's why we have the modern miracle of
>NARROWCASTING. It IS done, you know.
Do tell me then, where I might have the recent German/French/Hungarian
co-production (widely seen in Europe, unheard of in North America)
that chronicles the life and work of composer Gyorgy Ligeti
NARROWcasted to me.
Paul Gratton, station manager of Bravo, told me that when they air
"The Three Tenors", their ratings soar. When they air "Schoenberg: My
War Years" they drop due to North America's clear preference for
popular music over modern classical. So, Europe produces the top
programs in the modern classical area and they are bought by the likes
of Bravo or Knowledge (a couple of years after their creation, at
lower prices) and BROADcast.
This, in turn reaches a smaller "specialized" audience (at a
relatively low cost) but ALSO opens up the possibility that a certain
number of "general" viewers will find it interesting as well
(depending on the level of exposure afforded it by the stations
marketing dept.) and if that happens to a sufficient degree, then
perhaps greater interest will eventually result in greater
self-sufficiency on the part of the producers of such programs and
create a proper market for such work. Are you with me on this?
Narrowcasting does not fit the bill. Nor does the commercial broadcast
market, at present. Mind you, what we really need is a better
education system at the core of it all.
>Still other examples - an FM station that sells one of its carrier subchannels
>to transmit elevator music to a department store OR a talking book service for
>the blind.
Dear sport, narrowcasting the kind of programs I am referring to does
not currently happen. In order to produce a program of quality you
have to have a decent budget. To get a decent budget you have to be
able to attract capital by in turn attracting advertiser's interest or
government largesse. Narrowcasting will attract neither in sufficient
quantity to produce high quality programs for minority tastes (perhaps
excepting certain documentary or public affairs formats).
Elevator music is intrusive and manipulative. Talking books, at this
stage, are largely (and will likely remain) restricted to popular
titles. My point was: high quality "esoteric" TV programs are not
produced in the market place without some form of patronage or
subsidy. The market does not serve the tastes of a minority unless
certain profit margins can be achieved. That's all I was trying to
say.
MRM
Mark Mushet
>In article <497npc$h...@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>Dear sport, narrowcasting the kind of programs I am referring to does
>>not currently happen.
>Well it happens HERE. So if you don't like the weather -- MOVE!
No it doesn't. You've offered no evidence that it does. You have not
responded to my specific questions and you are beginning to sound like
a half-baked, ranting lunatic. I will no longer respond to your posts.
MRM
Mark Mushet
>In article <493kkb$hho...@compusmart.ab.ca> ve...@compusmart.ab.ca writes:
>>In article <492s1j$f...@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
>> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>>This shows your profound ignorance of the broadcast market. Yes,
>>>smaller numbers of people may want certain types of programming, and
>>>the market WON'T be there because the profit margins aren't high
>>>enough for someone's liking. Now this is fair enough, but DON'T make
>>>the claim that the market provides for specialized tastes in the
>>>broadcast field because IT DOESN'T.
>>Bullshit. Case in point, Access Television in Alberta. Specialized
>>programming; educational TV. After being booted off the public tit, they
>>started selling commercial air time. No big money, but bills and staff manage
>>to get paid, they manage to even produce local programming (go figure) and no
>>more leeching off the government.
>More poorly researched rhetoric from the coward afraid to publish his name.
>Access Alberta continues to recieve an $8 million annual subsidy from the
>Alberta government.
Actually David, if you squint your eyes when reviewing his or her
header fields you can make out the name: ve6yj. Given the atrocious
spelling and grammar evident in his/her/its other posts, I believe
this person has sincerely TRIED to post under the name VEGGIE or
vegetable. This would seem to make perfect sense and displays an
admirable degree of "honesty", in place of "cowardice".
MRM
ve...@compusmart.ab.ca
drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>In the meantime, it puts the lie to your claim that Access TV's
>programming is market-driven.
Oh really. I guess when Charmaine Eccles invites viewer response, she never
really intended to listen to any of it........heck, that's not program
director work.
>By the way: your name - ve6yj - what nationality is that?
Find somebody REALLY plugged into radio and you might find out......
Steve Ranta
> nale...@cadvision.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
>
> >In article <sranta-1911...@van-pm-1606.direct.ca>,
sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) says:
>
> >>I remember that T.V. Ontario produced an outstanding series of shows on
> >>Canadian history several years ago.
>
> >Bt *who's* definition was it outstanding? I never even heard of it. If TV
> >Ontario is privatized it will produce programming people *want* rather than
> >cater to a small, in-bred clique of leftists from downtown Toronto, who
> >produce shows for their own purposes and enjoyment, exchange inside jokes
> >and congratulate themselves for how smart they are; all paid for by the
> >taxpayers of course.
>
> Uh, I believe the gentleman was quite clearly expressing his own
> opinion as to the show's quality and I see no reason to believe that
> he was stating it as a universal truth. And if you've never heard of
> it, perhaps you should find out a little more about it (if you're
> really interested) rather than assuming, as so many here seem to enjoy
> doing, that it was unworthy and unwanted by the public. I see the
> words "redneck" and "righteous" in your sig. It seems that all is in
> order here.
>
The series is called "Origins", and not only is it very good, I believe it
is the only high quality series tracing all of Canadian history. If
TVOntario hadn't produced it, it wouldn't exist.
--
Steve Ranta
David Reilley
> drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>>In the meantime, it puts the lie to your claim that Access TV's
>>programming is market-driven.
>Oh really. I guess when Charmaine Eccles invites viewer response, she never
>really intended to listen to any of it........heck, that's not program
>director work.
A subsidized TV station does not rely on the marketplace to meet its budget.
Access is a subsidized station. Your entire argument was based on the fact
that their programming was market driven, an that this proved the market would
support certain types of programming. The reality is that GOVERNMENT
SUBSIDIES are supporting their programming, "babyyyyy".
Another usenet juvenile who cannot admit he is wrong.
Mark Mushet
>In article <497uhm$p...@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>No it doesn't. You've offered no evidence that it does.
>Fine, it doesn't then. You haven't seen any so it doesn't exist. You weren't
>in the forest when the tree fell so it never made a sound. Cop didn't see it,
>so you weren't speeding................
>Have it your way. I'll carry on with my viewing...........500 channels and
>everything's on.
OK, I'll respond. You, "Veggie", were citing examples that were
essentially RELAYS of BROADCAST signals to a smaller cable or
sattelite audience. MY point was that if you had to fund high quality,
esoteric programming by stating that it was only to be NARROWcast,
then you would not find the required capital and so it would not (and
does not) exist, in the present market state, without some form of
subsidy.
Now, maybe you'd like to aprise those of us still living in the "dark
ages" (those without KU band sattelite set-ups or whatever) of the
exact breakdown of programming choices within your miraculous, all-
pleasing, 500 channel universe. How many real estate and shopping
channels. How many infomercial channels etc. Does "Duralube" now have
its own channel, for example? Come on Veggie, get specific.
MRM
Steve Ranta
Tell me one market
> where there is significant competition for CBC radio and it is even in
> the top 3 stations.
I believe that CBC Radio is in second place to CKNW in Vancouver.
--
Steve Ranta
robertK
the only public TV on Ku we get here in the west (for now) are:
* KNOWLEDGE Net on E1/Ku/15 * national signal
* Radio Quebec on E1/Ku/21 * national signal
Western Signals only:
SCN on E2/Ku/12
Eastern Only Signals:
TFO on E2/Ku/25
TVO on E2/Ku/26
The two national signals on E1 are slated to go regional by Jan 16 at the
latest along with ASN (E1/Ku/32)
In article <4961f2$d20...@compusmart.ab.ca> ve...@compusmart.ab.ca writes:
>From: ve...@compusmart.ab.ca
>Subject: Re: CBC's Mandate
>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 95 03:10:26 GMT
>In article <4960ka$i...@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>Kind of tough when I live in Vancouver, fella! Now, answer the
>>questions.
>It's on satellite, Ku Band. I can get it, AND the Open Learning Agency.
>Whare's YOUR Ku setup? Doesn't everybody have one?
>>You go towards proving my point. Those programs strike me as very easy
>>to use and like.
>Got a problem with that? Do you go to a car lot and ask to demo a model
>that's clumsy and hard to steer?
>>My point was that the broadcast market
>>does NOT serve small audiences who DO have esoteric tastes.
>Good! You're catching. If it's to a focus audience IT AIN'T BROADCASTING AND
>DOES NOT BELONG THERE! That's why we have the modern miracle of
>NARROWCASTING. It IS done, you know.
>Still other examples - an FM station that sells one of its carrier subchannels
David Reilley
>From: pkol...@cts.com (PKolding)
>Subject: Re: CBC's Mandate
>"Stephen K. Wilson" <swil...@icis.on.ca> wrote:
>>>Why should taxpayers
>>>have to fund TV channels? I repeat, the government has no bloody
>><business running, controlling or funding our media.
>>What a load of crap! Government has the role of ensuring the survival
>>of Canadian culture and values when commercial television won't do it.
>This is easily solved. Culture and values are reflected in the
>"practices" of Canadians, not instructions from self-appointed
>cultural arbiters on the government payroll. Whenever governments get
>into the business of "ensuring the survival" or "defending" culture
>and values through propaganda you may be sure they are indulging in
>indoctrination, and nothing else.
I always wondered why my eyes glazed over and I lost all my willpower after
watching the Beachcombers or Hockey Night in Canada. Luckily I usually
switched to Baywatch or Rush Limbaugh and quickly recovered the ability to
think for myself. Whew!
Mark Mushet
>sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>>In article <49dn63$a...@news2.cts.com>, pkol...@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>. . . Whenever governments get
>>> into the business of "ensuring the survival" or "defending" culture
>>> and values through propaganda you may be sure they are indulging in
>>> indoctrination, and nothing else.
>>The tax money our government spends to subsidize radio programs, TV
>>programs, music, museums, and visual art pales in comparison to the money
>>spent by businesses to convince us to buy more consumer goods and
>>services.
>So what ? The bribes paid politicians is small compared to the
>contracts awarded, is that ok too? Waste and abuse and censorship of
>victimless communication is never justified.
What are you referring to as "victimless" communication? If you view
all advertising as victimless, then I suggest that you think of Calvin
Klien's profit margins when you see a thirteen year old girl bent over
a toilet deliberately puking up her last meal in order to keep her
wieght down.
After doing some work for Imperial Tobacco, I asked a senior rep about
the industry's future. He replied that they were now focusing on young
women and that they were focusing their advertising on certain third
world countries that had no limits on tobacco advertising. When I
pressed for more details, he quickly shifted the subject of
conversation.
Yes, there is a clear, predatory nature to certain advertisers and
they have the clout to force opposing views from the mediascape. It is
only when problems reach ridiculous proportions that the public finds
the opportunity for debate in the TV media.
Sure, I work for ad agencies. But I won't do ANYthing because I know
that not ALL advertising is per se "victimless".
>>The argument that the government shouldn't spend our tax dollars can be at
>>least partially defended by saying that government is following the will
>>of the electorate.
>Not mine, given the low popularity of the CBC, not many would agree if
>they actually thought about it.
>>How can you defend the higher price all consumers have to pay to offset
>>the cost of the advertising and sales promotion done by business, and the
>>fact that the media and the urban and suburban landscape are blighted by
>>advertising?
>Simple the advertising makes products cheaper as the markets become
>larger.
Tell that to Nike or Reebok. Their profit margins grew mostly after
the shift in manufacturing bases, from the "first" to the "third"
world. And with no shortage of advertising and a larger market, do you
think they'd pass on any savings? If a company can expand it's market
through advertising AND find a way to keep the product's price high,
it will stop at little to do so.
>Without some form of advertising any company would also go
>broke. The government, nor Canada nor Canadian culture, would not
>cease without the CRTC/CBC/Stentor control on your ability to
>communicate freely.
Ah yes, let's talk about freely communicating in the free market. And
let's, stangely enough, use the CBC as an example:
When the forest industry was lying outright to the public through its
"Forests Forever" campaign of the late eighties, a man named Kalle
Lasn decided to produce (to broadcast standards) a commercial that
presented evidence that clealy flew in the face of industry's claims.
While not advertising a "product" it did counter an "advertisers"
claims using the same tools and media. It sought to use the television
medium to present an opposing idea. The CBC refused to air it, and,
more recently, a similar ad that questioned the excess consumption
caused by our "car culture". Lasn's organization had the money and was
more than willling to pay for the air time.
Was this CBC decision based on some PC "socialist" attempt to stifle a
market of "ideas"? No, it was through pressure from industry, a fear
of the backlash from the hand that feeds it (in part). In short,
market forces (via the CBC) stifled debate in the most potent medium
for advertising yet created. THIS is another reason why CBC TV has
failed. But then Lasn would have even LESS of a snowball's chance in
hell if he'd tried private broadcasters.
MRM
PKolding
>>Why should taxpayers
>>have to fund TV channels? I repeat, the government has no bloody
><business running, controlling or funding our media.
>What a load of crap! Government has the role of ensuring the survival
>of Canadian culture and values when commercial television won't do it.
This is easily solved. Culture and values are reflected in the
"practices" of Canadians, not instructions from self-appointed
cultural arbiters on the government payroll. Whenever governments get
John Marynowicz
>over all an argument *can* be nade the CBC is produced by a self-contained
>cotterie from downtown Toronto, I would hardly consider them 'elite', thst
>produces program based on their own biases, their own beliefs of what is
>'correct'; and has very little to do with 99% of Canadians.
I guess that means that 25% of the Corporations employees produce 100%
of the programming. Interesting.
John Marynowicz
John Marynowicz
>Few listen, esp given the very wide distribution of the signal, so it
>is a small group compared to the entire market. Tell me one market
>where there is significant competition for CBC radio and it is even in
>the top 3 stations.
Do Toronto and Vancouver count as SIGNIFICANT markets in your book?
>The elite comments also comes from the tone of
>the interviews, and the large amount of "high brow" music. Most
>people do not want to listen long dead European composers songs being
>played by government subsidized orchestras, but this seems to be a
>mainstay, same with some of the jazz shows. Other stations play this
>to a small degree, to reflect the low demand but to meet the demand
>that does exist.
I guess that's why there are stations in the private sector that play
almost ALL Classical music and/or Jazz.
>I find it hard to discuss too many specific shows, it is very rare I
>listen to CBC radio (except air farce sometimes), I do not like the
>shows I hear when I pop through when station scanning in the car.
Have you ever stopped to actually listen to what is being discussed?
If you did you may find yourself being a little better informed.
John Marynowicz
John Marynowicz
>In article <sranta-1911...@van-pm-1606.direct.ca>, sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) says:
>>I remember that T.V. Ontario produced an outstanding series of shows on
>>Canadian history several years ago.
>>
>Bt *who's* definition was it outstanding? I never even heard of it.
I see, because YOU never heard of it means that it was not outstanding
or informative?
John Marynowicz
David Reilley
>Check yours, where did yours come from anyway ? In which market are
>they number one,
It's been two or three years since I was involved in media buys, but BBM used
to show CBC radio #1 in Victoria on a regular basis. CBC is a Vancouver
station. (Of course, we couldn't buy ads on CBC, but it was kisted in the
book nonetheless.)
please give your source too as so far your facts seem
>to have been wishful thinking. Some markets only have one station so
>you likely could find one where the cbc is number one, but is number
>one out of one relevant, it's certainly not popular in my book?
There are 3 Victoria stations and a number of Vancouver statins which
penetrate this market.
John R. Shaw
>js...@igs.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:
>
>>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>
>
>>If you listen to the CBC radio then you certainly are a member of an
>>elite crew, few others do. You complain of banality, and then claim
>>CBC radio as worthy ?? Take away the Air Farce, which would exist in
>>a commercial world anyway, and who would still have a job at CBC radio
>>if people had to willingly pay. Despite that you have a right to
>>watch what you want, but you have no right to force me to pay for it.
>
>I find this very odd considering that CBC Radio stations have
>consistently managed to achieve ratings in the top five, in some of
>the most competitive markets in Canada, including Toronto and
>Vancouver.
The general consensus indicates that the most popular stations in
Toronto are, in order of number of listeners: CFRB,CHFI FM98,CHUM.
There are a couple of versions of where the cbc is, with the highest
placing them 6th. This is hardly dominate, or even significant
considering the very large amounts of money they have spent. It does
not include the American stations, that would put the cbc even lower
than 6th as even some of them are more popular than the "beloved" cbc.
If you doubt it check
http://www.toronto.com/surfin/allabout/radio.html
This has the phone numbers of all the major stations in Toronto, phone
the sales offices as they will have the information and then each can
tell you their own story, they will argue a bit about the stats and
the exact order, but they are in general agreement and have looked at
many surveys and must have certified numbers since they use these
numbers in promotions for advertising. The cbc will just mumble, they
were the only one of the four I called that thought my question silly,
the rest knew exactly how popular they were and could discuss the
issue in detail from memory. You see the others like to be liked and
it's important to them, the cbc doesn't really need to care about
details like customers or people liking them.
As for placing in the top five in other markets, this is not hard
given that the CRTC limits competition in all markets in Canada, and
many towns only have five, or less stations. Number three out of
three stations in town is in the top five, but hardly indicative of a
popular station. Look at audience share, you will find the cbc down
with the fringe stations.
>
>Ratings placements of # 1 AND # 2 are not uncommon for CBC Radio.
>Check your facts before you speak.
>
Check yours, where did yours come from anyway ? In which market are
they number one, please give your source too as so far your facts seem
to have been wishful thinking. Some markets only have one station so
you likely could find one where the cbc is number one, but is number
one out of one relevant, it's certainly not popular in my book?
- How does it feeal? To be on your own, with no direction home.(B.Z)-
John R. Shaw
>js...@igs.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:
>
>
>>Few listen, esp given the very wide distribution of the signal, so it
>>is a small group compared to the entire market. Tell me one market
>>where there is significant competition for CBC radio and it is even in
>>the top 3 stations.
>
>Do Toronto and Vancouver count as SIGNIFICANT markets in your book?
Yes, and the cbc does not factor heavily in either.
>
>>The elite comments also comes from the tone of
>>the interviews, and the large amount of "high brow" music. Most
>>people do not want to listen long dead European composers songs being
>>played by government subsidized orchestras, but this seems to be a
>>mainstay, same with some of the jazz shows. Other stations play this
>>to a small degree, to reflect the low demand but to meet the demand
>>that does exist.
>
>I guess that's why there are stations in the private sector that play
>almost ALL Classical music and/or Jazz.
>
Yes there are, but I don't pay for it because I choose not to watch,
and they do not have the national infrastructure that the cbc does.
>
>>I find it hard to discuss too many specific shows, it is very rare I
>>listen to CBC radio (except air farce sometimes), I do not like the
>>shows I hear when I pop through when station scanning in the car.
>
>Have you ever stopped to actually listen to what is being discussed?
>If you did you may find yourself being a little better informed.
>
Yes, but I disagree. As for informed what is your basis for the fact
that you started this post with, a "fact" that is not supported by
investigation. Perhaps you should inform yourself.
Mark Mushet
>>If you listen to the CBC radio then you certainly are a member of an
>>elite crew, few others do. You complain of banality, and then claim
>>CBC radio as worthy ?? Take away the Air Farce, which would exist in
>>a commercial world anyway, and who would still have a job at CBC radio
>>if people had to willingly pay. Despite that you have a right to
>>watch what you want, but you have no right to force me to pay for it.
>I find this very odd considering that CBC Radio stations have
>consistently managed to achieve ratings in the top five, in some of
>the most competitive markets in Canada, including Toronto and
>Vancouver.
>Ratings placements of # 1 AND # 2 are not uncommon for CBC Radio.
>Check your facts before you speak.
>John Marynowicz
Good work John. I was going to add that Ross Porter's Late Night Jazz
Show (which I find to be lame, but that's beside the point) also
attracted the attention of US jazz label BLUE NOTE and collaborated on
a CBC Ross Porter/Blue Note jazz selection for commercial release to
capitalize on the resurgent popularity of (albeit conservative) jazz
in the marketplace.
And your note elswhere in this thread acknowledging the fact that the
market hasn't provided in the jazz and classical areas goes to bolster
the argument in favour of Govt. support of broadcasting. The market
doesn't always deliver even when there IS an audience waiting.
It doesn't really take much to put the torch to the arguements of
half-baked idealogues and reactionaries who know not of what they
speak. Thanks for your contribution. I thought I was soon to become
the lone "socialist" whipping boy on this thread!
MRM
Mark Mushet
>jmar...@idirect.com (John Marynowicz) wrote:
>>js...@igs.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:
>>I find this very odd considering that CBC Radio stations have
>>consistently managed to achieve ratings in the top five, in some of
>>the most competitive markets in Canada, including Toronto and
>>Vancouver.
>The general consensus indicates that the most popular stations in
>Toronto are, in order of number of listeners: CFRB,CHFI FM98,CHUM.
Well that would be a top THREE, wouldn't it?
>There are a couple of versions of where the cbc is, with the highest
>placing them 6th.
Versions coming from whom?
>This is hardly dominate, or even significant
>considering the very large amounts of money they have spent.
Even if they WERE placed only 6th , the population base and listener
share in a major city IS significant. I'm sure you could find
advertisers interested in a market share of that size in, say,
Toronto.
>It does
>not include the American stations, that would put the cbc even lower
>than 6th as even some of them are more popular than the "beloved" cbc.
>If you doubt it check
>http://www.toronto.com/surfin/allabout/radio.html
>This has the phone numbers of all the major stations in Toronto, phone
>the sales offices as they will have the information and then each can
>tell you their own story, they will argue a bit about the stats and
>the exact order, but they are in general agreement and have looked at
>many surveys and must have certified numbers since they use these
>numbers in promotions for advertising.
If you've ever approached a commercial station to buy advertising you
most certainly WILL get a song and dance that collides with others'
claims.
>The cbc will just mumble, they
>were the only one of the four I called that thought my question silly
Really? That has not been my experience on the rare occasions I've had
to call them. I hope you gave them shit.
>the rest knew exactly how popular they were and could discuss the
>issue in detail from memory. You see the others like to be liked and
>it's important to them, the cbc doesn't really need to care about
>details like customers or people liking them.
>As for placing in the top five in other markets, this is not hard
>given that the CRTC limits competition in all markets in Canada, and
>many towns only have five, or less stations. Number three out of
>three stations in town is in the top five, but hardly indicative of a
>popular station. Look at audience share, you will find the cbc down
>with the fringe stations.
I'll ask about the Vancouver ratings for CBC. The other factor when
comparing ratings is to compare the type of programming. If you
compare TALK RADIO in Vancouver, then, yes, CBC compares favourably
with CKNW, for example. In terms of music programming, very few
commercial stations segment their programming. It's all one kind of
music or another. Often, you have to get down to the specific programs
when rating the CBC, something few people on this thread seem willing
to do (no doubt because they don't know anything about them).
>>Ratings placements of # 1 AND # 2 are not uncommon for CBC Radio.
>>Check your facts before you speak.
>Check yours, where did yours come from anyway ? In which market are
>they number one, please give your source too as so far your facts seem
>to have been wishful thinking. Some markets only have one station so
>you likely could find one where the cbc is number one, but is number
>one out of one relevant, it's certainly not popular in my book?
And so did the market provide any choice for those communities?
MRM
Mark Mushet
>sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
>>The series is called "Origins", and not only is it very good, I believe it
>>is the only high quality series tracing all of Canadian history. If
>>TVOntario hadn't produced it, it wouldn't exist.
>Hum, so where is the CBC that is the sole saviour of our culture and
>values, in your opinion it seems. Why were they broadcasting the
>olympics with the money that could have generated this ?
Now THERE'S a good point John! BTW, Ian Rennie pointed out to me that
Newsworld and it's affiliated programs are only available on cable. So
I'll have to say that, as far as TV goes, CBC is a TOTAL failure in
terms of providing access to their better TV programming.
MRM
Mark Mushet
>"Stephen K. Wilson" <swil...@icis.on.ca> wrote:
>>>Why should taxpayers
>>>have to fund TV channels? I repeat, the government has no bloody
>><business running, controlling or funding our media.
>>
>>What a load of crap! Government has the role of ensuring the survival
>>of Canadian culture and values when commercial television won't do it.
>>Since economics determines everything for people like you, you can't
>>see the forest for the greenbacks. I suggest you go back to watching
>>Baywatch...you'll see what American values are all about. To be
>>honest, America can keep its values.
>I guess we should watch the CBCs version of quality programming,
>Absolutely Fabulous. Certainly a show about "high values" if there
>ever was one. An English show about a couple of English drunks trying
>I love Lucy style comedy, true Canadian culture and values.
Sadly, it just MAY reflect Canadian Culture and values! But why don't
you cite an example like the Passionate Eye's story on Union Carbide's
continuing schemes to avoid justice after Bhopal? Commercial
television, with very few exceptions, will NOT be there to run that
sort of in depth programming on such sensitive (to the corporate
world) issues as fair treatment of labour in "developing" countries.
That a Canadian institution IS there to tell the story IN DEPTH
reflects better, in my view, an ideal vision of "Canadian" values.
MRM
Mark Mushet
>"Stephen K. Wilson" <swil...@icis.on.ca> wrote:
>>>Why should taxpayers
>>>have to fund TV channels? I repeat, the government has no bloody
>><business running, controlling or funding our media.
>>What a load of crap! Government has the role of ensuring the survival
>>of Canadian culture and values when commercial television won't do it.
>This is easily solved. Culture and values are reflected in the
>"practices" of Canadians
This is true.
>not instructions from self-appointed
>cultural arbiters on the government payroll. Whenever governments get
>into the business of "ensuring the survival" or "defending" culture
>and values through propaganda you may be sure they are indulging in
>indoctrination, and nothing else.
In some cases this may be true. To say that this is ALWAYS the case is
idiotic, and shows a profound ignorance on your part of the many
successes of govt. funding of the arts.
I can easily recall some apalling instances of abuses by the Canada
Council and then, just as I'm ready to write a nasty letter, I recall
the successes and try to view things in context and with reflection.
If you want specifics, I can present them.
MRM
John Marynowicz
>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>If you listen to the CBC radio then you certainly are a member of an
>elite crew, few others do. You complain of banality, and then claim
>CBC radio as worthy ?? Take away the Air Farce, which would exist in
>a commercial world anyway, and who would still have a job at CBC radio
>if people had to willingly pay. Despite that you have a right to
>watch what you want, but you have no right to force me to pay for it.
I find this very odd considering that CBC Radio stations have
consistently managed to achieve ratings in the top five, in some of
the most competitive markets in Canada, including Toronto and
Vancouver.
Ratings placements of # 1 AND # 2 are not uncommon for CBC Radio.
Check your facts before you speak.
John Marynowicz
John Marynowicz
>In article <48qlhh$k...@wolfe.wimsey.com>, sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) says:
>>I hate the Air Farce and I REALLY hate DISC DRIVE. But you know what?
>>DISC DRIVE is far and away one of the most popular programs and Jurgen
>>Gothe pulls in about 160k a year on it alone. That pisses me off but
>>that's what "the people" want from CBC. The merchandising of DISC
>>DRIVE products has been a success as well. This, and many other
>>examples of high listenership and support, flies in the face of your
>>"elite" comment above.
>The CBC has an average audience of 4% of TV viewers. Yes some programs like
>the above mentioned have a higher one, So do the sports presentations.
Uh Derek, DISK DRIVE and AIR FARCE(in the context of this discussion)
are RADIO programs. You know, the ones WITHOUT pictures!
John Marynowicz
John Marynowicz
>C. Jim Murphy (Cjm...@debug.cuc.ab.ca) wrote:
> CTV is interested in the bottom line. Any
>: commercial organization is the same.
>Golly gee! Welcome to a free-market economy!
If you think that the only important thing in life is money then you
have some serious problems.
John Marynowicz
John Marynowicz
>Cjm...@debug.cuc.ab.ca (C. Jim Murphy) wrote:
>>Pardon me for being alarmed, but does this mean that libertarians don't
>>"do" universal health care, road maintenance, small business development,
>>universities, schools, workman's comp, and the like?
>>
>Hopefully most would be gone I should think. All of the above could
>be done privately, with some direct subsidy going to education where
>it made sense.
At much higher costs. There is no escaping the fact that private
companies are in it to make a profit. That adds considerably to the
cost.
John Marynowicz
John R. Shaw
1) When I have to pay I am more than willing to pay for shows that I
want to watch. The government has banned direct satellites that would
give the best to me, as they would compete with their friends. DBS
will be allowed when the carefully selected content that meets their
criteria, and rewards heir friends, is finally ready.
2) Most tv is free. Anything times zero is still free. The CBC
however is not free, it costs me enough to rent enough movies for my
limited tv watching.
John R. Shaw
They never said that. You have a serious problem if you pretend
people say things, instead of reading what they do say.
John Marynowicz
>The CBC's mandate was, and always has been, to promote itself and big
>government. It has no interest in national unity or cultural
>diversity.
Prove it!
>Like all these government bodies, you can't fix it. The
>only solution is to get rid of it entirely.
>Libertarians would eliminate most of the government except for law
>enforcement and defence, eliminate the deficit, reduce taxes and pay
>down the debt.
And destroy our country in the process.
John Marynowicz
David Reilley
>From: js...@igs.net (John R. Shaw)
>Subject: Re: CBC's Mandate
>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>>A subsidized TV station does not rely on the marketplace to meet its budget.
>>
>Only if the subsidization is 100%, TVO is heavily subsidized, but is
>very market driven because of the direct appeals they must make for
>the rest.
>I have nver once phoned in my pledge to TVO that I have not been asked
>what I liked, why I watched etc., even if in an informal chatty
>manner. The CBC has never asked me, and would have contempt for my
>answer anyway, they "know" what I like without even asking.
You can be asured that the CBC is constantly doing their own market research
-- exactly the thing that so impressed you about TVO.
Mark Mushet
>Because like all those on the left, Mr. Mushet knows he has no rational
>argument to back up his assertions. He rants and yells to cover up the fact
>that he has really nothing to say. Nothing we couldn't get from a broshure
>mailed by the public service union or politically apointed 'managers' of
>the CBC - all paid for by yet more money stolen from taxpayers.
First, my apologies to others reading this thread who are about to
read my attack on this idiot.
Derek,
We've seen elswhere that you are illiterate. Now we see that you can't
even read an entire thread to get a better picture of those you
attack. As for "ranting and yelling" it is YOU who come off as a
narrowminded, half-baked idealogue (presumably of "the right") who is
incapable of presenting clearly written, well supported remarks. You
are a pathetic "armchair" reactionary of the worst sort. You can't
even get beyond a horribly dated and mis-percieved "left" vs. "right"
dichotomy on this issue as is evident from your posts here.
As for me being a "leftist". I would be willing to bet $1000.00 that I
make more money in three days working as a commercial shooter than you
do in a month. My entire existence in the market place could only be
categorized as "leading edge" entrepreneur. I generate my own,
creative and profitable projects without subsidy, and I provide
clearly demanded services to a highly commercial field. I don't need
some uneducated prick like you mis-labeling me a "leftist" because I
don't bow to the church of the free market on each and every issue.
What are you Derek, some resentful little "employee" bent on joining
the growing choruses of ignorami shouting "DOWN WITH THE LEFT!"
because you so profoundly lack imagination and insight into complex
issues?
MRM
David Reilley
>From: sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet)
>Subject: Re: CBC's Mandate
>nale...@cadvision.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
>>Because like all those on the left, Mr. Mushet knows he has no rational
>>argument to back up his assertions. He rants and yells to cover up the fact
>>that he has really nothing to say. Nothing we couldn't get from a broshure
>>mailed by the public service union or politically apointed 'managers' of
>>the CBC - all paid for by yet more money stolen from taxpayers.
>First, my apologies to others reading this thread who are about to
>read my attack on this idiot.
Delightful reading - no apologies needed.
>Derek,
<snip>
Mark Mushet
>I have nver once phoned in my pledge to TVO that I have not been asked
>what I liked, why I watched etc., even if in an informal chatty
>manner. The CBC has never asked me, and would have contempt for my
>answer anyway, they "know" what I like without even asking.
Oh really, John? Is that why they publish quarterly "Network Program
Reports" like the one I have in my hands right now? The one that
offers an even more comprehensive breakdown of listenership and
demographics (per PROGRAM) than the BBM reports? The one that has SIX
categories for listener's education levels? Do you suppose they just
made that up? Is it a tiny cabal of socialist, elitist, tax dollar
burning Torontonians that sit around a boardroom and conjure up this
mythical data?
MRM
Derek Nalecki
>
>robert...@email.icacomp.com wrote:
>
>>The CBC's mandate was, and always has been, to promote itself and big
>>government. It has no interest in national unity or cultural
>>diversity.
>
>Prove it!
One only needs to view any commentary on the CBC TV - admittedly, I do not
listen to CBC radio - to realize that. Watch any Prime Time news, Newsworld
commentary.
>
>>Like all these government bodies, you can't fix it. The
>>only solution is to get rid of it entirely.
>
>>Libertarians would eliminate most of the government except for law
>>enforcement and defence, eliminate the deficit, reduce taxes and pay
>>down the debt.
>
>And destroy our country in the process.
Improve it more like it. What would be destroyed is the gravy train, the
welfare barons: politicians, civil 'servants', 'activists' and 'advocates'
are riding; which obviously would be of big concern to all those who would
have to find honest work. Many have naver had one and would fing it very
difficult.
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
- member in good standing: Homo Sapiens Interregnum (Caucasian persuasion)
- Sirs, I am no petty noble; an ancestor of mine by the name of Noah
was once the commanding admiral of the combined fleets of my planet.
(with apologies to Paul Anderson)
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP ********************
Derek Nalecki
>
>If you think that the only important thing in life is money then you
>have some serious problems.
>
The *only* important thing in life is freedom. The purest and best expression
of freedom is the freedom to live. Since one cannot live without money
...
Mark Mushet
>On Tue, 28 Nov 1995 17:15:10 pst, drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley)
>wrote:
>In article <30bb389c...@news.igs.net> js...@igs.net (John R.
>Shaw) writes:
>>Check yours, where did yours come from anyway ? In which market are
>>they number one,
>It's been two or three years since I was involved in media buys, but
>BBM used
>to show CBC radio #1 in Victoria on a regular basis. CBC is a
>Vancouver
>station. (Of course, we couldn't buy ads on CBC, but it was kisted in
>the
>book nonetheless.)
>please give your source too as so far your facts seem
>>to have been wishful thinking. Some markets only have one station so
>>you likely could find one where the cbc is number one, but is number
>>one out of one relevant, it's certainly not popular in my book?
>There are 3 Victoria stations and a number of Vancouver statins which
>penetrate this market.
>i aplogize for butting in but one quick comment then i'm back to
>lurking.
>i have just got off the phone with Joan Athey of CBC vancouver
>[662-6605] according to the latest BBM for radio CBC radio is first
>for the province as a whole. for the city of vancouver the morning
>show in a consistant #2 for its time slot and the station is rated #6
>overall. also Morningside has a national audience of 1million per
>15min sampling
>Cheers
>Bob
Thanks Bob. I just got the Spring 1995 BBM report and it confirms your
remarks. If one further considers the factor of the segmented
programming, certain shows eclipse their commercial rivals by quite a
margin. And I'll bet Ms. Athey was quite friendly and helpful, yes?
I have to wonder about the fantasy lives of some of the people in this
thread and their vague assertions vis-a-vis the supposed
"non-popularity" of, and citizen's contempt for, CBC radio.
MRM
Mark Mushet
>The general consensus indicates that the most popular stations in
>Toronto are, in order of number of listeners: CFRB,CHFI FM98,CHUM.
>There are a couple of versions of where the cbc is, with the highest
>placing them 6th. This is hardly dominate, or even significant
>considering the very large amounts of money they have spent. It does
>not include the American stations, that would put the cbc even lower
>than 6th as even some of them are more popular than the "beloved" cbc.
>If you doubt it check
>http://www.toronto.com/surfin/allabout/radio.html
>This has the phone numbers of all the major stations in Toronto, phone
>the sales offices as they will have the information and then each can
>tell you their own story, they will argue a bit about the stats and
>the exact order, but they are in general agreement and have looked at
>many surveys and must have certified numbers since they use these
>numbers in promotions for advertising. The cbc will just mumble, they
>were the only one of the four I called that thought my question silly,
>the rest knew exactly how popular they were and could discuss the
>issue in detail from memory. You see the others like to be liked and
>it's important to them, the cbc doesn't really need to care about
>details like customers or people liking them.
Well, I just called CBC Vancouver to ask about ratings info and they
were very helpful (as any govt. body should be). They will be
e-mailing me the ratings for various programs shortly. I will relay
them here for all to see. Again, to be fair, one must put program
against program when comparing ratings.
I don't know where you live, John, but CBC Vancouver did not think my
inquiry silly at all. Now, I sure hope that YOU are willing to do the
homework and pit specific program ratings against others so that this
argument can be resolved on a level playing field.
Of course, you will find that many cities do not even HAVE comparable
programs in certain instances (which, of course, results in a
statistically confusing listing of the CBC being No. 1 in certain
markets).
And as far as relating radio ratings to the amount of money spent, I
think we are in some agreement concerning the waste over in the TV
area. Therefore we can factor that remark out of the radio ratings
discussion.
MRM
bob newton
E-mail
voice-604-983-7348 bne...@deepcove.com
fax---604-985-9417 bne...@city.north-van.bc.ca
Ahhhh...Whest and Whelaxation at Whast!!!
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: argument to back up his assertions. He rants and yells to cover up the fact
: that he has really nothing to say. Nothing we couldn't get from a broshure
Is that why you are always so rude and insulting towards me? Because you
have nothing of value to say?
: derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
: - member in good standing: Homo Sapiens Interregnum (Caucasian persuasion)
: - Sirs, I am no petty noble; an ancestor of mine by the name of Noah
: was once the commanding admiral of the combined fleets of my planet.
: (with apologies to Paul Anderson)
: ********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP ********************
--
-Jason Kodish
In a world torn by every kind of fundamentalism -- religious, ethnic,
nationalist and tribal -- we must grant first place to economic
fundamentalism, with its religious conviction that the market, left to its
own devices, is capable of resolving all our problems. This faith has its
own ayatollahs. Its church is neo-liberalism; its creed is profit; its
prayers are for monopolies.
Carlos Fuentes (Mexico) from World Press Review (Nov. '95) p. 47
Derek Nalecki
>
>I see, because YOU never heard of it means that it was not outstanding
>or informative?
>
Yep. If it was sooo outstanding, you'd think a avowed news-junkie like
my humble self *would* hear about it. Alas, it was once again done by
the small, self-serving clique of left wing, mostly Totronto 'artestes',
for themselves, serving their own biases. The only thing that wasn't
theirs was the funding. That came from money srolen from taxpayers.
John R. Shaw
>>The general consensus indicates that the most popular stations in
>>Toronto are, in order of number of listeners: CFRB,CHFI FM98,CHUM.
>
>Well that would be a top THREE, wouldn't it?
>
The closing comment was:
"Ratings placements of # 1 AND # 2 are not uncommon for CBC Radio.
Check your facts before you speak."
I didn't go below the top three because there were differing stories
below that number, there are various ways to measure market share.
None of them included the cbc in the top five, as I mentioned in the
next paragraph.
>>There are a couple of versions of where the cbc is, with the highest
>>placing them 6th.
>
>Versions coming from whom?
>
Read the post!!!!
>>This is hardly dominate, or even significant
>>considering the very large amounts of money they have spent.
>
>Even if they WERE placed only 6th , the population base and listener
>share in a major city IS significant. I'm sure you could find
>advertisers interested in a market share of that size in, say,
>Toronto.
>
That was not the issue, the point I was debating was the
unsubstantiated opinion (stated as fact arrogantly enough to warrant a
comment like "check your facts before you speak") that they are
popular. I did, the cbc is in the fringes of popularity in Toronto, I
know with similar sureness that they are fringe in most of the other
major markets. There may be one location where they are popular,
please let's have it, with something more than opinion to back it up.
>>It does
>>not include the American stations, that would put the cbc even lower
>>than 6th as even some of them are more popular than the "beloved" cbc.
>
>>If you doubt it check
>
>>http://www.toronto.com/surfin/allabout/radio.html
>
>>This has the phone numbers of all the major stations in Toronto, phone
>>the sales offices as they will have the information and then each can
>>tell you their own story, they will argue a bit about the stats and
>>the exact order, but they are in general agreement and have looked at
>>many surveys and must have certified numbers since they use these
>>numbers in promotions for advertising.
>
>If you've ever approached a commercial station to buy advertising you
>most certainly WILL get a song and dance that collides with others'
>claims.
Which is why I phoned more than one !!, as I explained. There was
consensus even between the competition on the top three spots. If you
want to find the facts of course you call competitors.
>
>>The cbc will just mumble, they
>>were the only one of the four I called that thought my question silly
>
>Really? That has not been my experience on the rare occasions I've had
>to call them. I hope you gave them shit.
>
No I didn't, but then to be honest I didn't spend much time either.
Even if short several long distance calls on a lark was enough money
spent, not cheap thanks to Stentor's government granted oligopoly in
communications.
>I'll ask about the Vancouver ratings for CBC. The other factor when
>comparing ratings is to compare the type of programming. If you
>compare TALK RADIO in Vancouver, then, yes, CBC compares favourably
>with CKNW, for example. In terms of music programming, very few
>commercial stations segment their programming. It's all one kind of
>music or another. Often, you have to get down to the specific programs
>when rating the CBC, something few people on this thread seem willing
>to do (no doubt because they don't know anything about them).
>
It is possible that cbc is tops when it comes to Gregorian chant
songs, but why I am paying for fringe tastes in music, of some long
dead European composer yet?
Also do I note a ting of elitism there, you have to compare "quality"
I presume ? And just who, IYHO, defines quality to the poor ignorants
who like something different ?
>And so did the market provide any choice for those communities?
>
You miss the point, the crtc limits the competition. Anyone could
start a station on shoe string if it were not for the government's
oligopoly granted to their friends (some do anyway but they have to
struggle and make sure they meet with government approval of
programming) BTW there is always competition in radio, you can get
shortwave and clear channel stations even in the most remote arctic
locations.
- And you KNOW something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you.(B.Z)-