In a speech delivered earlier today to the Economic Club of Toronto, CBC executive Richard Stursberg reported that the bulk of CBC’s English television funding no longer comes from the taxpayer.
”English television now costs about $580 million in total, which includes Newsworld,” Stursberg said. “Of that, about $275 million comes from the public subsidy, and about $305 million comes from earned revenue. In other words, about 55 per cent of our total revenue is earned and about 45 per cent actually comes from government.”
”Although we are the public broadcaster, we must rely on private revenue for more than half our budget,” he said.
Stursberg noted that only the New Zealand and American governments spend less money per capita on public broadcasting than Canada does.
Canadian taxpayers spend about $33 per year for all CBC and Radio-Canada services. In Britain, residents there pay more than triple that amount. France, Germany and Italy spend an average of $81 per capita on public broadcasting and “have intensely vibrant national cultures and are under no cultural pressure from the USA” said Stursberg.
Blog reaction:
- MHP’s Musings: “Next time you complain about CBC-TV programming and use the “And I pay your salary” line, it’s only 45% of that salary you’re paying.”
|
Email This Post |
| CBC Television, Financial |
My jaw just hit the floor.
Perhaps its time to cut off CBC from tax dollars all together. I’m sure there is a lot fat that could be trimmed.
[...] InsideTheCBC.ca | CBC Television now gets more money from advertising than taxpayers: Inside the CBC “?English television now costs about $580 million in total, which includes Newsworld,” Stursberg said. “Of that, about $275 million comes from the public subsidy, and about $305 million comes from earned revenue. In other words, about 55 per cent of our total revenue is earned and about 45 per cent actually comes from government.” [...]
Hm. France, Germany, and Italy. What cultural firewall could these three nations have? Even the UK is isolated from the US by substantial cultural and linguistic differences, not to mention the huge amount of public money they lay out (really, is the marginal Canadian tax dollar best spent on more CBC? That’s a reach…).
Canada, on the other hand, is a substantial source of the talent that appears on all those American shows. Okay, Hugh Laurie stars on House, but for every Laurie, there’s a Jim Carrey, an Alex Trebek, a Michael Fox, a Mike Meyers, a Peter Jennings….
Matt: the whole point of CBC being a Crown Corporation and getting federal money at all is to keep it from being influenced politically by any (group of) advertiser(s). I’d prefer that remain in force. BBC at its best being our goal, not Pravda at its worst.
To those fat trimmers out there…
Don’t we remember from health class or some other source that there are GOOD fats and BAD fats? If we’re just trimming fat, are we depriving ourselves the health benefits of the GOOD fats?
Suck on a lemon if fat’s such a devilish plunder.
Dwight: please elaborate on your theory of how advertising might create a Pravda-like public broadcaster. I’m fascinated!
I think a PBS-like destiny is the more probable eschaton.
yeah sure, but radio generates no revenue at all. So government funding still beats advertising overall.