CBC’s Second Quarter Update:
Advertising market facing a ‘structural decline’; criticism of News ‘Pathetic’
At a second quarter financial update that he labelled a “non-event” today in Vancouver, Richard Stursberg said the CBC is weathering the economic storm. “It’s a better story than we had anticipated,” Stursberg said concerning the recession and staff layoffs. He said the advertising revenue picture has not been as bad as expected, “the numbers have held up and are quite good.”
The Executive Vice President of English Services said it’s good when the updates are “non-events.” He said it indicates fewer concerns about the state of CBC finances.
Stursberg spoke at length about the general media environment in Canada prior to focusing on the CBC’s situation. He said the advertising market in Canada is facing a “structural decline” because of the recession. He added that the impact of the economy has been most acutely felt at Canwest, of which some units are now in receivership. Stursberg said the current economic environment strengthens the argument broadcasters have been making concerning the fee-for-carriage debate. It’s a “very very difficult environment, very tough economically,” he said.
Nevertheless he said CBC Radio has had the best summer on record, while on TV the numbers have “generally gone up,” based on the averages of the first three weeks since the fall TV season launched. He highlighted the ratings for Dragons’ Den, Heartland, The Rick Mercer report, and Battle of the Blades.
He also touched on the relaunch of CBC News, saying it has been a “gigantic undertaking,” while calling the criticism “pathetic” saying it “revolves around whether people are standing or sitting.”
“One thing we should remember is that the papers are owned by our competitors… so I think you can draw your own conclusions about where they are going,” Stursberg said.
|
Email This Post |
| Financial |
I don’t really care if the National presenters are standing, sitting or riding unicycles. What I do care about is the ridiculous spectacle of Wendy Mesley asking six-year-olds and drunks to vote in an asinine straw poll that pits education against NASA. I care about what the public thinks when the public knows what it’s talking about. That must be humiliating for all concerned, well, except maybe for the drunk and the kid.
What an arrogant and pompous man Stursberg is! He betrays a breezy contempt for anyone who is not on-side, whether they be employees or audience members (what also used to be known as citizens). This is a man who I once witnessed dismissing critics of the new Radio Two as goat-slaughtering cheese farmers on Salt Spring Island who are too immobilized by their walkers to change the radio dial. Throughout the countless redevelopment processes of the last three years or so, he has dismissed older audiences as dying ones. I take great offense to this attitude; these are the persons who’ve supported CBC for decades, who write to their MPs when there are budget cuts, who – and I’ve witnessed this myself – attend CRTC and Heritage hearings and wait hours to have their say in support of the principles of public broadcasting. The kinds of audiences that the current CBC senior management are now trying to hail are defined by their consumerism and they won’t give a damn if the CBC dissolves.
I will add that all of the criticism I have read thus far has appeared as comments on the CBC and National’s own websites, as well as on countless non-media websites. Also it is all over twitter and even within the comments of this site. All of this is to say that response to the CBC News rebranding is overwhelmingly negative. And rightly so. Stursberg’s reduction of the arguments to an issue of whether Mansbridge is “standing or sitting” shows an inability to engage. I could go on, but frankly, I am so personally distressed by all of this. I’m 31, a female, AND a person of colour who lives in a metropolitan area. Exactly the kind of person the CBC is courting right now. But I won’t be watching the National tonight. I’m going view a documentary about Graham Spry instead and then maybe listen to an old radio interview with Glenn Gould. Wake me up when the nightmare’s over.
Just who is “pathetic” here? Richard Stursberg should look in the mirror.
First he wrecked Radio 2. Now he’s onto Radio I and TV.
Standing up and dumbing down is not what Canada needs or wants. King Richard thinks he knows better than millions of Canadians – who don’t own newspapers and hate what he has done to CBC.
Stursberg should stand down, along with McGuire and whoever else feeds his ego.
And Hubert should start to be a President and show some vision and competency by bringing back those who actually know something about broadcasting – or also he too should stand down.
this really sums it up doesnt it. he thinks the criticism is pathetic and coming from the cbc’s competitors? who said the man was out of touch. haha.
Seems Mr. Stursberg has pulled the wool over his own eyes on this one. It isn’t just the competition levying low-blows to the network. The CBC’s own faithful viewers are urging producers to consider our opinions with the changes, the most significant of which have little to do with the standing. I certainly hope Stursberg is considering the CBC’s own viewer feedback before casting off the criticism as meaningless. The main qualms are the seeming neglect of international affairs, the dumbed down reporting and the flashy tricks that do more in the way of distracting viewers from the news than they do attract attention. Perhaps Stursberg needs to take an hour or two and look at the opinions of the CBC’s audience, before another and more serious complaint will make it onto the list: The network’s stubbornness to consider the views of the very viewers it so desires to attract.
The new CBC is astonishingly bad – nobody cares who is sitting or standing but we care about actually having the news reported.
Stursberg should be fired – particularly given the attititude he takes to what all the viewers are saying.
Speaking of “standing up”, where is Hubert? Or is Stursberg in charge now?
“Stand up”, Hubert. Do your job, which is to save the CBC, not let it be destroyed by a bunch incompetent, inexperienced, wannabe broadcasters and proven losers…
Is that what you want for your legacy? Or maybe even to the last President of the CBC? Either way, you are well on the way.
Richard Stursberg, I hope you will put aside an hour or more, as we viewers have, and go over to here:
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/blog/2009/10/about-the-standing.html#socialcomments
and read what long-time CBC viewers and listeners are taking the time to write with great thoughtfulness. What the horse-hockey does “competition” have to do with this mess? And what competition would that be anyway? The better informed Canadians are, the better we will be able to deal with the plethora of serious issues on our plates as world citizens!
The way I see it, the former Newsworld, especially the daytime segments, is now something that strikes fear in my heart. An uninformed, poorly educated citizenry will not only be poorly equipped to dead with climate change, topsy-turvy economies and all that comes with those 2 big ones, but worse, we will be prey to the minute percentage of humanity that hold power via money and resources. Richard, it is your statement that is pathetic.
We are not too thick to understand the challenges of broadcasting the news, even without financial cutbacks. I have read that CBC worked on these changes for a year. Someone even said 2 years. So, does that mean that we should just shut up and not speak our minds? We are trying to be patient, but when we see the CBC appear overnight like a cookie-cutter copy of many of our least favourite news outlets in the US, it starts to walk and quack like a duck.
Who appoints these guys? How do we get rid of Stursberg. Is he even Canadian?
There is no way CBC can ignore the outpouring of comments by “the people” — the public / the viewers / the TAXPAYERS / the people who make up the viewership which in turn has on impact on advertising. These comments are not “pathetic” and it is wrong for Richard Stursberg to say this. The comments are democracy in action.
For those you who don’t already know…an outpouring of comments are posted on the website of The National — click on Blog; this takes you to a page with blue headlines; scroll down and click on the headline “Welcome to The National;” this takes you to a new page where you can scroll down to read almost 400 comments by viewers. The comments just keep coming, so the 400 mark will be reached soon. Another Blog headline to click on is entitled “About the standing.” Click on this and again you will find upwards of 200 comments by viewers.
The new CBC “makeover” is unacceptable. In fact, it’s more than a makeover — it’s a complete hijacking of the CBC mandate. We need a Royal Commission to get to the bottom of this! Okay, that’s a joke; but there needs to be an explanation to the public regarding what’s the reasoning behind the re-making of CBC news.
I wonder what advertisers are thinking with respect to this outcry from viewers? Also politicians in Ottawa who handle our (taxpayers) money…? I fear for the future of CBC, which in turn means that I fear for the future of Canada. CBC has never been perfect in my eyes (there has been bias in news coverage, for example), but it was always far better than most other broadcasters.
The defender(s?) of the New CBC have got it all wrong. It’s not about the standing or the sets or looking at the back of Manbridge’s head. This latest remake is the straw that has broken viewers collective backs.
I used to rely solely on CBC for news and information, both radio and television, but no longer. I relished in the in depth CONVERSATIONS of Peter Growski and Barbara Frum. I had and still have an attention span greater than a couple of minutes. I don’t need fancy, meaningless graphics or sound effects to hold my attention. What matters is the informative and meaningful conversation and there is less and less of it today.
As I suggested in a post on the National website, titans of the CBC past would not be appreciative (or I think supportive) of CBC news today.
Yes, the content is a little thin on the CBC News Network. No doubt about it. But as someone who worked in news for about 25 years — I can see how hard people are working to make that thing go and it worries me. Under resourced, under staffed — this new format is going burnout the staff so fast — most them are already burned out — it must be awful in there. Feeling for ya guys — really.
“CBC Radio has had the best summer on record” — really? Does that include both CBC Radio 1 and 2?
And they also killed CBC Overnight on Radio 1 this week. We’ve lost perspective.
Has Richard Stursberg every heard of the phrase “consent to operate”? I work in the public sector and we are acutely aware that we operate on behalf of rate-paying citizens.
With all the pre-launch hype, Richard was probably waiting for the accolades to come rolling in. I wish I could say, ‘wow!’ I want to say, ‘wow.’ Your comments about competitors’ views being “pathetic” and summed up by “standing or sitting” is dismissive of opinions opposite to your own, and that seems short-sighted to me.
It’s usually those who are leading change that are the most oblivious to going off-track when implementing change. Do your job as a leader by building on the esteemed journalism that used to be associated with the CBC and The National, admit that some changes didn’t work out as well as you had hoped, and make refinements, using the bloggers as already-volunteered focus group.
I have never blogged before but felt a need to voice my opinion because The National has been a treasure for me at home and when abroad. I want to return to The National but won’t without changes to its current format. Do your job – listen to what is working, fix what isn’t, and give us a reason to start tuning in again.
To remind you, below is the end result that you sought to achieve: “…They want our coverage to be unbiased, engaging and worth watching.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Dear Mr. Richard Stursberg,
Many people have left comments here in this post and in Mr. Peter Mansbridge’s “About the standing” blog post (thanks for the above link).
I just want to say it is my honour to include myself as one of those people who dare to leave “pathetic” criticisms of The National new formats earlier and now.
For some strange reason, I am “pathetic” enough to comment then and now. Since you and Mr. Mansbridge are not accountable to Canadians, and even those like me who loves CBC, there is no reason why you and Mr. Mansbridge should give a shit about how we audiences think.
In an age where respects of customers and viewers rule supreme, I admire your determination to not give a shit about how the viewers (people who care to comment) think.
Good luck.
Of course, you may not need the luck as we “pathetic” CBC viewers and lovers may just stay “pathetic” forever and tune into The National, day in day out.
Nope. Nothing’s changed since I last commented here on this same topic a few months ago, asking for the figures to back up Stursberg’s previous grandiose statements. None came from him or CBC, but we got them from a reliable source!
M. Stursberg can say whatever he wants (and he does), and knows that no one will hold him accountable to sweeping generalities about the state of Mother Corp’s financial health.
But do not despair, people. I just finished complaining on the CBC Contact Us page–everyone at CBC (radio, tv, management, gatekeepers, etc., gets the messages simultaneously!) about another matter, but added a postscript that said: “Ask your marketing people how many thousands of people one written complaint represents. It’s not a minority viewpoint by any count.”
Your viewpoints here and elsewhere count! Big time! Besides, the Ministry reads everything here and from the CBC site as well.
Keep up the good fight, and don’t let these ‘suits’ get away with trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
It ain’t over until the fat lady sings!
[...] I am surprised to read Richard Stursberg, CBC Executive Vice President of English Services, has decided to call criticism of CBC News “pathetic” in an age when customers’ and viewers’ comments are valued, respected, and treated [...]
They killed CBC Overnight ? Nooo!
In calling the critics pathetic it appears that Mr. Stursburg is finally panicking. No amount of spin-doctoring will conceal the plunge in CBC News’ ratings when they will be published.
Mr. Stursburg reminds me of the tale of a Persian king at the turn of the past century. Upon hearing that the price of bread had risen due to bad court policies, The king ordred to have the bakers thrown into their baking furnaces.
A. Ramezani
I must have missed something – is CBC still in existence? Thought it had gone the way of the dodo or the yellowbellied whatever.
Once they killed their own internationally acclaimed CBC Radio Orchestra it was game over. The rest is just cleaning up after the mess Mssrs. Stursberg and Steinmetz and Ms. McGuire have made of things.
Better news coverage and music is found elsewhere on the dial. The world has moved on. CBC TV or Radio just isn’t relevant but they sure have fun spending all that money playing broadcaster. Now, if it was only their own money they were spending….
This is the same guy who got on stage at an interactive conference and told the entire room that the web would not have been successful if tv didn’t decide to make it that way. That there were no successful online newspapers operating.
He nearly killed Telefilm. He’s doing the same to CBC, but is using viewer numbers to prop up his argument, and some toady lieutenants to do the dirty work.
Enjoy your Tim Horton’s.
If the management of CBC’s idea of re-inventing itself is to label criticism (mostly from its current, soon to be marginalized) audience as ‘pathetic’, then it is quite clear that decisions have been made and the disconnect with a certain portion of the CBC audience has already been factored into the ‘business’ plan.
What I think they are missing is that the ‘pathetic’ constiuency that will now drift to alternatives are the people who made the biggest stink when not so friendly governments of the past (or present) questioned spending money on a public broadcaster.
I really can’t rationalize public funding an organization who’s driving principal is to attract viewers and increase advertising revenue. If that’s the case, why isn’t it a private business?
If, however, CBC’s mandate is to reflect a Canadian perspective of the world through its news and programming, then public funding makes sense.
The most recent changes seem to me to be a clumsy attempt to increase ratings (although I am perplexed as to who that might be) rather than to reflect a ‘national identify’.
Now why should I pay taxes for that?
Mr. Stursberg denigrates critical comment from newspaper companies owned by CBC competitors, suggesting they have ulterior motives. These would be the same competitors with whom CBC has “joined forces” in order to seek compensation from Cable Companies on the fee-for-carriage issue, no? So, they are your friends when it comes to potentially getting additional money, but your detractors when it comes to reflecting the very sentiments a majority of your own audience is articulating. These would be the same companies that depend upon advertising for their viability, and with whom CBC competes each year, for hundreds of millions in advertising dollars, while accepting nearly a Billion dollars in tax subsidies? Those companies? Those detractors? Talk about pathetic!
Stursberg’s competence, or lack thereof, speaks for itself. However, the unforgivable sin is that he is blatantly insulting the Canadian public, who pay his salary and bonus. It is he who is “pathetic”, not the Canadian public.
Hubert – what are you going to do about this? And Board of Directors, what are going to do about Hubert if he continues, as he has done for almost two years, to do nothing?
Both the CBC News revamp and Stursberg’s response to the (abundant) criticisms that it has generated are tremendously condescending. CBC viewers are intelligent and thoughtful and they want news that is intelligent and thoughtful too. They don’t need be pandered to with hyperactive graphics, background beats and buzz words, and their criticisms should be taken seriously. Wasn’t this overhaul supposed to be motivated by a responsiveness to what viewers want?
Pathetic? Only revolves around sitting or standing? I suggest you visit your own website to read the comments. Most people were concerned with the shallow content.
I want you fired, and won’t be a satisfied person until you are, Turdberg.
Richard Stursberg:
As we close out the first week of the new CBC News, let’s take a moment to consider the reaction our changes have wrought throughout the country. Judging from media coverage and associated commentary, you would be forgiven for thinking the nation has been seized by an obsession with Peter Mansbridge’s chair (more precisely, its absence). Peter himself called it first and correctly in a pre-launch interview for a Toronto Star TV guide cover story. When we change anything about our newscasts, we hear about it. Don’t be disheartened. The sets and graphics look fantastic; as good as any in the world. We’re quickly moving into a rhythm and pace with the new style and new programs. And– this is the most important part– our commitment to telling the relevant news stories of the day, as we’ve always done, remains undiminished, even as the tools change, as they always do. Don’t be worried about the cheap shots from some at our competitor news organizations. Remember it’s in their interest that we should fail. In a fast-changing game, we’re redefining how news is presented to Canadians. And big changes make big splashes. Don’t worry about the noise, which is already subsiding. Congratulations for the stories you broke this week and on the context and depth you provided.
Richard Stursberg
Executive Vice-President
English
I really like the new look and feel of the National and the CBC news in general. It’s much faster paced, they cover a god range of news and it’s a polished new way of presnting the news. Great Work CBC!
Authority, creditability and trust are earned over time and easily destroyed. As a public institution, I had never questioned CBC news’s motivation and integrity as it had long been an institution that informed Canadians with unbiased news that has depth and international reach.
With recent structural changes to CBC news, I now question management’s motivation and mandate. Is CBC here to sell news papers (or in this case the TV show) with beautifully packaged and simplified news for mass appeal and consumption, or is its mandate to provide a shared public voice to Canadians. If it’s a shared public voice, then I do not want this voice to be superficial, shallow and commercial, I want it to have depth and contain view points from varied perspectives, including international ones. As I believe superficial, shallow, commercial content begets a public that is superficially informed, and will not be equipped and have depth in information to ask critical questions that affects the world.
Over the past week, CBC news has received thousands of responses that are direct, focused and passionate, if the public ones are an indication, CBC is now well aware of what the Canadians public wants vs. the original audience research sample size – involving 125 people from across CBC news. Please be accountable to the public and acknowledge these feedback, after which provide public corrective actions to address these concerns. CBC news I believe is losing authority, creditability and trust if it continues to state these feedback as “noise” or as “pathetic!”
Canadians build public institutions, we do not destroy them!
I don’t read any of the newspapers – the only “mainstream” media I was watching was the National – now you are not hearing the feedback on your new format, you are making a joke of it – and you will learn the lesson that in todays world things shift fast – you’ve lost me completely and forever, due to the format change and your pathetic response to real feedback – you are the ones focusing on the standing and you are not hearing the feedback – well you’ve now lost be for good and I suspect I am not alone.
Pathetic? Really?
Mr. Stursberg, you might try listening to your audience.
Examine the criticism Mr. Stursberg and realize that your viewers are unimpressed with the poor quality of the new CBC News. CBC has lost its intelligence (I haven’t even seen Bob Macdonald on The National since the changes took place!)
I want in-depth coverage of international news. I want a variety of viewpoints presented with depth and thought.
CBC has become shallow and even unworthy of public support, so if you want to label someone “pathetic” it might be the consultants who messed up the CBC.
Or, take a look in the mirror.
Let them eat cake, huh Mr. Stursberg? Hopefully, after seeing CBCNN (nee Newsworld) ratings start to fall as the curiosity factor wears thin, some heads will soon be rolling, your own among them. Viva la CBC Revolution!
“Pathetic” indeed…
To: Timothy W. Casgrain, Chair, Board of Directors
CBC, Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6
C.C. Hubert T. Lacroix, President and CEO
Dear Mr. Casgrain:
I am writing to express my extreme disapproval with respect to the drastic changes of The National and CBC Newsworld – now called CBC News Network. These changes are unacceptable.
As a long-time viewer of CBC news, I am shocked at the flashy “makeover” of the news. As a Canadian taxpayer, I do not approve of my tax dollars supporting this lower quality of CBC news programming. It seems to me that the mandate of CBC has been hijacked.
If you care to look, you can find numerous comments posted by loyal CBC viewers on the Blog of the website of The National. At the time of the writing of this letter, 462 comments have been posted, and the vast majority of these are in protest of both the new look and content of the “new” CBC news. I urge you to read these comments in order to learn exactly what viewers do not approve of – things like too many flashy graphics, moving backgrounds, less international news content, and etc.
The CBC Radio-Canada website states: “As President and CEO, Mr. Lacroix is responsible for ensuring that CBC/Radio-Canada is a well-managed organisation, in order that Canada’s national public broadcaster can continue to provide Canadians with distinctive, innovative and compelling programming of the highest quality, created by, for and about Canadians.”
It seems to me that CBC is not being well-managed. With respect to CBC news, Canadians are most definitely not being provided with distinctive, innovative and compelling programming of the highest quality.
I expect CBC directors, administrators and managers to acknowledge viewer feedback, and to respond accordingly. The CBC news makeover is not a winner. Many long-time viewers have already been lost,
including me.
Sincerely, “Gooseislander”
(my real name is being signed to the letter I am sending in the mail)
Well, from top to bottom the concept of public broadcasting vis a vis the CBC is in quite a mess.
Thank you, current leadership, for not only ignoring the taxpayers, but for your disdain.
No doubt you will put the decline of the CBC on your collective resumes. I hope it will be soon.
Richard Stursberg writes: “[B]ig changes make big splashes. Don’t worry about the noise, which is already subsiding.”
If the howls of protest are subsiding, it can only be because viewers who value sober, intelligent, in-depth news coverage have switched off the CBC and gone in search of alternatives.
That’s what I did.
now watch ctvnews network,Tom Clark,does afine job,like Don Neuman use to provide for us, my local news and bbc. Good bye CBC.
Stursburg has to go. Someone show him the door he was looking for when he tried to barge through the union picket in Ottawa, when they were locked out by him and his flunkies a few summers ago.
he is an arrogant ass, and serves no purpose as a vice president of CBC. He should be fired! his words and actions hurt a national broadcasting institution
It is disappointing to see that the concerns of Canadians are being labeled as “pathetic” because they don’t support the changes being made with CBC Newsworld.
I don’t care if the anchor is standing or sitting, but the moving backdrop during the morning news, and very quick coverage of various issues, with some fluffy content mixed in with true hard news is a strange mix.
I truly hope this is something Stursburg will take seriously – that the taxpayers supporting CBC TV and radio are concerned and troubled by these changes, and that it’s reducing the high level of credibility that CBC News once had within the media.
Shame on you for dismissing us.
CBC has dumbed down Radio 2 by eliminating classical music during evening and night hours. On television, we lost the BBC world news in the 6 p.m. slot — the only news broadcast with a world perspective. What next?
John Doyle got it absolutely right in the Globe this morning. Stursberg and the rest of CBC management are so far off course they are endangering the franchise.
The word pathetic can be defined as follows: “miserably or contemptibly inadequate.”
This sounds like what the CBC is becoming, under the “leadership” of people like Mr. Stursberg. Anyone so quick to arrogantly dismiss feedback from (previously) loyal viewers should not be in that job.
I am sure there are still dedicated members of the CBC team struggling to make the CBC an effective and vibrant public broadcaster. They also deserve better than this.
Over to BBC for world news and CTV (reluctantly) for local news from now on.
I found your site one hour ago and almost wept with gratitude to discover I am not alone.
I don’t have a TV but I saw a few clips from the new National . I was gob smacked.
Radio 2 was decimated, then came Radio 1, and now the assault on the National. One wonders if perhaps the fate of other programs of excellence such as As It Happens will be kissed with a sledge hammer.
A pox on arragant top dog suits. May they leave soon and may their pockets be empty.
Years of “pathetic” management decisions at CBC have resulted in 20+ years of decay in the organization. They can blame pundits and government cutbacks for their situation but the CBC has made their own bed. Newsworld quickly became the Antique Roadshow/re-run channel with little to no unique programming. The main network generally lacked creativity (thank god for the run on East Coast comedians) bringing in boring foreign content. The network has tried to re-make itself every few years and the directions shifts, dumping of personalities, and inability to find its place in the country is a testament to the monumental failure in leadership. The same leadership that calls our opnions “pathetic”.
Mr. Stursburg,
I may be male, over 50, and well educated but I am not pathetic.
Your attitude to your audience shows the major problem with todays CBC. I don’t really care whether Mr. Mansbridge sits or stands. He can be as uncomfortable as you wish to make him. That’s between him and you. What I expect is sound intelligent coverage of news that is important. I do not need twenty second sound bites. I do not need a background with continual sensory overload. Inform me don’t nauseate me. If I want the other I can watch Music TV with the children who never watch your news and never will.
You will no doubt continue to lose your audience with attempts to attract those who will never have an interest in what you offer at the expense of those have been loyal for years..
I left CBC radio years ago and now have left CBC Newsworld. I will continue to read the “pathetic” newspapers which provide the information I desire.
I am waiting for the day I can check on my tax return whether I wish to continue to support the CBC. That will be the last day you receive a paycheck.
Best of luck with your ever dwindling audience.
CBC News now reminds me of gimmicky quiz shows. Some reports are so truncated as to be confusing or worse.
I now rely on BBC World and Telegraph.co.uk and various other on-line sources.
Lifetime viewers of The National, my wife and I are giving up on our beloved CBC for now. Their attempts to dangle flashy entertainment-like imagery, and beam light and noise in our faces and ears while presenting a disjointed and “world-news-starved” broadcast is embarrassing. It’s not that we refuse to watch this nonsense… we simply can’t watch it! It hurts our senses, and doesn’t give us the range of news that we were used to and expect as educated citizens. We are gone for now, but we will return if and when the CBC that we loved comes back.
My recently-immigrated Dutch husband was at first amazed by the shallowness of Canada’s flagship television news, then scornful and finally disinterested. And that was before the recent redesign. I can only tell him that both CBC radio and television used to have some substance.
It’s a shame that at a time when editorial and curatorial voice is being lost in the whelter of on-line do-it-yourself offerings, the CBC has not seen the opportunity of becoming THE source for in-depth, stimulating, high quality programming. Instead, they’ve confused public (non-commercial) broadcasting with that strange form of “democracy” expressed in advertising ratings. Democracy has nothing to do with advertising and neither should public broadcasting. The whole situation would be clarified if there were no ads on the CBC. I wish the corporation’s executives would apply themselves to that task rather than making the CBC indistinguishable from commerical networks and supplying politicians (and dismayed viewers) the argument for eliminating its funding all together.
Mcguire and Stursburg are a lethally bad combination for Canadian broadcasting. They have destroyed every vestige of quality in what was formally a cultural icon (cbc radio 2) now they have done the same to all news
presentation, with a trivial shallow approach. CBC mandate is to foster quality thought which is not available on commercial channels, I want it to have depth and contain view points from varied perspectives, including international ones. Stursburg and Mcquire should look at viewer satisfaction with the news and clearly reading the responses in the Globe and on the web this change is an abysmal failure, as were the changes to radio 2. I now listen to abc classic fm on the internet, where I often hear Canadian recordings, and I watch bbc news. No more national. No more radio 2. no more cbc. Gone.
If this was a first for RS, then it might even be forgiven. But the man, and his loyal crew, are very well known for what they think of the audience.
They are cows to be milked, rather than supporters who should be thanked.
I have made a decision; I am moving to Le telejournal: Céline Galipeau still thinks I am intelligent and that I can digest well 5minutes long news.
Your new format is for the mentally dead. There is no depth in what you present; snippets do not make for well developed information.
I don’t understand who your target audience is but one thing is clear
YOU THINK WE ALL WANT TO HAVE THE NEWS IN SHORT FORM as if we only checked out our Iphones to now what’s going on in the world.
This is not sufficient so good bye and good luck
Beatriz Aronna another ‘pathetic citizen’
PS1 you all look ridiculous standing in the middle of the room going from sensory oveload monitor to sensory monitor
PS2 I will possibly watch the Thursdays at issue panel if you don’t cancelled it because is too long a segment!
While this comment may not pertain specifically to this thread, CBC radio 2 used to be where I went to first. This is no longer the case.
In an era of struggling labels that put forth the foundation of all music we listen to today, your lack of dedication and grace to this genre is sad. I was a great supporter of public broadcasting and classical music. Now I will find that elsewhere, irrespective of nation or source (downloading from internet etc).
By the way, I am 25 and the younger generation you are trying to target, and you have absolutely lost me. Classical music if the foundation of everything we have today, and it is the responsibility of public institutions such as yourselves to promote that.
I am your target audience and you have lost me completely.
Ever since my mid-teens I have always been able to count on the CBC, especially CBC radio. When it came to news journalism and other programming, I could usually count on it being professional with high standards second to none.
From first thing in the morning to late at night CBC was my only choice when I had the opportunity to tune in. And there were very few programs that would not hold my interest. Now things have reversed. I have dropped Radio 2 except for Sundays, and find myself only tuning in to Radio 1 for an occasional newscast or the noon and early afternoon programming. Beyond the previously mentioned and As It Happens in the evenings, my radio is off more than on.
Programs are being repeated – in the same week no less. The 7 am news world report that I receive in my area borders on silliness. Is it necessary to dramatize the newscast by inserting comments such as ‘ breaking news! ‘ , or ‘ this just in! ‘ .
And as for the National. well there is no sense in repeating what others have said before me. No one is against change. From time to time everything needs a new coat of paint to help freshen things up. The real issue is that underneath all the new glitter, it is the quality of the product that is disappearing alarmingly fast. I have no interest in a diet of sugary slop. That I can get anywhere and anytime.
If the ratings are up thats not a bad thing. I just have a feeling that many new listeners may not stick around for the long term. A diet of syrup and cotton candy can only hold ones interest so long. Maybe management thinks the loyalty the CBC has built up over many years is nothing but an old boys club and needs to be swept away. I just feel that the CBC is severing that invisible thread that connects many of us together around our country.