This morning, the National Post published part of a response from the CBC, challenging the assertions of one of its scribes. Lorne Gunter wrote on Monday that the CBC shouldn’t exist, our ratings are going down, and that Richard Stursberg eats babies (metaphorically speaking).
The CBC, as you might expect, responded. But take a look (highlighted) at what the National Post edited out of the CBC’s letter:
Lorne Gunter appears to exist in an intriguing alternative universe; let’s call it Gunter Land and consider how it differs from the world the rest of us inhabit. In the real world, CBC president Hubert T. Lacroix offered his endorsement of recommendations from a recent Heritage Committee report. His comments (available to the real world for review at http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/ speeches/20080522.shtml) actually focused on the need for improved governance and accountability for the CBC/ Radio-Canada through a multi-year memorandum of understanding on its mandate. In fact, it was the Heritage Committee that recommended stable and predictable funding.
While in Gunter Land the CBC need not exist, Canadians would lose a distinctly Canadian prime-time alternative to the wealth of U. S. programming currently available on other Canadian networks. And in stark contrast to Gunter Land, CBC audiences are growing, not shrinking; our radio audiences are at historic highs and our television market share of 7.8% is at its highest level since 2001.
And as noted in most newspapers yesterday (excluding the Post), we actually beat Global in prime time this past season for the first time since 1995. In GunterLand, CBC News “insults millions of Canadians” with its news coverage. In the real world, CBC News is considered one of the most respected and credible organizations in broadcast journalism. This is demonstrated through survey data and a host of domestic and international awards. We closely track the audience response to our programming and occasionally there are objections. But where are these “millions of Canadians”? Citizens of GunterLand, apparently.
Finally, in the real universe, CBC operates with one of the lowest public subsidies in the industrialized world. It is a fraction of that provided to the BBC, which provides service in only one language and a single time zone. In fact, Canadians get real world value from the CBC every day, despite the peculiar view from Gunter Land
This editing must be some kind of oversight. I mean, I know that the National Post is owned by the same company that owns Global Television. But they wouldn’t edit that just because they’d be embarrassed that they’re losing ratings to us? Naw… couldn’t be. 
|
Email This Post |
| CBC Television, The Media Landscape |
The BBC does far more than provide “service in only one language and a single time zone.” A quick examination of the website would give you a better appreciation for the scope of its efforts.
isn’t CBC and Global in cahoots with each other in several markets?
I think that the NP article had a very good point - the CBC basically consumes the whole cultural budget of the government. Wouldn’t Canadians get a broader reflection of their culture if the CBC let some others have a shot at it? Especially in light of CBC’s groupthink. Canadians get a very narrow view of their culture from such a group of like minded people.
I think that the NP article had a very good point - the CBC basically consumes the whole cultural budget of the government.
Please. it doesn’t even cover the government budget just for broadcast media, never mind other media or the arts. That CTF money he mentions? The privates get about 60% of it. That’s over $100 mil right there. And that’s the tip of the iceberg.
Also, governmental cultural spending is higher than you might think. A lower estimate for 2007’s federal spending is about 3.1 billion, and provincial and local governments typically match or better that amount. Say 7.5 billion on an average year in total, so in fact, the CBC “soaks up” less than 15% of the cultural budget.
You just kind of throw “the CBC’s groupthink” in there, eh?
Absolutely, BBC covers at least…what? 30? 40 languages, the last time I checked? I need to refresh my memory on that point, but it does remind me of one of the goals that CBC should probably have for the long term. If Canada is expecting immigrants speaking those languages to move here, or people from abroad in general to have an interest in what we do over here, then that’s multi-lingual news service is something CBC has to get into.
And that means frustrating the ambitions of the likes of Lorne Gunter.
Not a bad thing in this context, I believe.
if we allowed the cbc to go private or dissolve our news would be reduced to entertainment (cnn or foxnews style programs) that truly insult audiences. the focus on news content would be ratings-friendly pieces as opposed to what the cbc provides us today…world class broadcast journalism. the subsidy provided to the cbc is a pittance. in my view, the cbc should focus more on journalism and less on entertainment. i would rather let ctv and global handle entertainment (with stronger prime time cancon regulations) and have the cbc become a news-only (and sports) organization.
Kev - thanks for the info. I had no idea that Canadian taxpayers shelled out such huge quantities of cash to the culture industry!!! If true, the CBC is indeed a piker when it comes to turning hard earned cash into left wing nonsense.
Capital G - the CBC should get out of “journalism” and “editorialism” until it figures out a way to add diversity to its thinking. The CBC mantra is growing tired.
Only a true leftie would think that a Billion a year from taxpayers is a pittance. There’s nothing like spending someone else’s money to make it seem easy.
At least global has a working website. Where is your beloved CBC.ca?? Huh??
Goddamn lefties, spending all Mike’s money.
Would you have called C.D. Howe a “true leftie”, I wonder?
I can’t figure out if Dwight agrees with the CBCers who think that $1Billion a year of taxpayers a year is a pittance. Dwight ,what is CD Howe’s position on $1Billion a year being a pittance? And what does it have to do with your comment? I don’t think $1Billion a year of taxpayers money is a pittance. Do you?
Hey Joe - I wouldn’t mind the CBC spending all my money if they hadn’t slipped into such a biased mess. That’s my main gripe. Read the posts on this web site - not very many opposing opinions around here. If you work at the CBC, you know what a leftie love fest it is - filled with heavy unionists. Everybody’s nice and warm in their own embrace, patting each other on the back at their cracks against the right - waiting for the next government handout. $200 million more taxpayer money a year. Shame.
Mike: you don’t know who C. D. Howe was?
Media concentration is a serious problem in this country. As Tod points out the National Post and Global are both owned by the same company and will coordinate their message for their benefit not the benefit of Canadians. This point is missed by most of the anti-CBC commenter’s here.
If you people want to concern yourself about wasted tax-payer dollars speak out against nuclear power and the tax dollars that go down the drain at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Isn’t this comparison completely irrelevant - CBC beats Global News?
As far as I know, the Global national news programme is on at 6 pm, and at 11 (this is in Ontario, at least). `The National’ is aired at 10 pm on the main network (not forgetting, CBC recently gave up its national broadcast at 6 pm - perhaps the ratings were too high).
The two programmes don’t even compete head to head (nothing, by the way, on how the `national’ is doing against CTV news…)
It is, in any case, beside the point: the point being, the CBC receives massive subsidies from the taxpayer, while as far as I know, Global news does not. That’s the difference…
ps - isn’t this letter to Lorne a little snide for representatives of a “public” (ie. state-owned) firm?