This morning, the Globe and Mail published a profile of CBC’s executive in charge of all English-media, Richard Stursberg.
Stursberg has come under much fire recently for his movement toward favouring TV programs which draw audience share (and, of course, advertiser revenue), as opposed to those which are more cultural and/or Canadian in nature. (Witness the bumping of Marketplace for two American game shows.)
At least from a ratings point of view, early indications are that CBC Television’s share is moving up — just past Global TV in prime-time now.
The full article is definitely worth a read. Here are some highlights from the Globe sidebar:
On CBC choosing not to renew the rights to the Hockey Night in Canada theme song:
Was the jingle a nice jingle? Yeah, certainly it was. Were we disappointed to have it taken away? Sure. But on the other hand, it’s something that’s not going to make any difference to Hockey Night in Canada. People come to Hockey Night in Canada because they’re coming for the hockey. They’re not coming to listen to the jingle.
On selling the U.S. and international rights to more than 1,000 hours of television product, including The Border, and 1,000 more hours of television shows produced in-house, to ContentFilm PLC of Britain:
The way it works is, the signing authorities are delegated by the board to the president and the president to me. It fell way below my signing authority in terms of the value of it. We don’t have any particular requirement in any of our policies to take any of that stuff to public tender.
On why the investigative consumer-report show Marketplace is being pushed aside in the fall season to make way for the resolutely American game show, Jeopardy!
The only reason we put American shows on in the first instance is to generate revenue. … For every extra dollar of margin we can generate out of a show like Jeopardy!, it just means an extra dollar we can put into Canadian programming. It’s not as though the money is going anywhere else.
Your thoughts are welcome about the article itself or topics raised in the article. Personal attacks will not be approved for publication. Remember, folks. You’re welcome to attack the idea or decision, not the person.
|
Email This Post |
| Executives |
Jeopardy! Another reason not to watch CBC.
In some ways Mr Stursberg makes great sense, if one sees CBC Television as in some way a quasi-public-commercial operation, which in truth I suppose it is. That being said, the question becomes, at least for me, why can’t CBC Television be more like CBC Radio?
With all their issues, Radio One and Radio 2 (and R3)are much loved institutions in this country; people care passionately about CBC Radio, and it delivers, for the most part, a truly thoughtful and engaging, quality product everyday. The private radio stations can’t come close to CBC. But CBC Television: what exactly is going on there?
If the CBC is to be a public alternative to the commercial crap we are offered by the private sector, then let us fund it properly. If it is simply to become another vehicle to deliver eyeballs to advertisers, then let’s sell it to CanWest, General Electric or Moses Znaimer (the proceeds from the sale could go to CBC Radio). This weird state of being not quite a public broadcaster, but not quite a commercial operation is simply not working; not for the viewer, and not for the wonderful CBC employees (of which I am not one).
you know something, I think he might be right about the HNIC comment. I was all annoyed by the lack of song, but then I realized that it’s still going to be hockey, and if the game is on CBC vs TSN or whatever, I’ll watch it on CBC. Frankly, I’ll watch it wherever it’s on high def.
It seems that a version of the Peter Principle is alive and well in our national public broadcaster. We now have Richard Stursberg as chief horseman of an apocalyptic quartet who, with his companions Boyce, Steinmetz and McGuire, is engaged in an apparently successful operation to revision Canadian public radio in his own image. Forget McLuhan and any hint that radio and television are separate animals. Just merge them and then let’s see what happens.
Canadian public television, from its inception, has been a problem child. Canadian public radio has been the internationally recognized genius in the family. Enter a radio-illiterate “Daddy Dearest” and supportive Canadians must sit back and watch the destruction of an essential component in our cultural heritage. It doesn’t matter how many listeners object. It doesn’t matter how many articulate arguments are presented in speeches, on web-sites, in the press or in the suggestions of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Cultural Heritage. It doesn’t matter how many heart-felt pleas to save well-loved programs and hosts appear in letters to the editor and internet blogs. Rallies across the country in every province and every major city mean absolutely nothing.
After this piece by Wells, it’s clear that Stursberg is not vision-handicapped. The problem is that it’s such a destructive vision that the emerging question is whether Canadian public radio will survive, let alone continue as an international leader in the world of broadcasting. One has to ask, how is it that, in a public corporation devoted to communication, any single individual can wield this kind of power unaccountable to any system of checks and balances.
As for television, with time limits for commercials disappearing, we can presumably look forward to a 50-50 split between content and advertising on our public broadcaster. Graham Spry must be turning over in his grave.
Who’s afraid of Richard Stursberg? Not the Globe & Mail, where you can comment freely on this article.
Let’s see…
In order to ensure more quality, intelligent canadian programming, let’s bring in more mind-numbing american programming.
I think cam trowsdale’s comments are sound, if not cynical, but he does raise an important question regarding Mr. Stursberg’s accountability. He crowned himself King as a way of centralizing power with him at the top and everybody else below. In the old days, when there were co-VPs to Radio, TV and CBC.ca, the leadership had more checks and balances. Now it does not and as the article suggests, Mr. Stursberg’s choices, including significant closures of the CBC’s in-house departments, like publicity, have changed the face of CBC “unalterably”.
Anytime you chase ratings instead of ideas, you do so at the expense of the other. Buying Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune at the expense of Marketplace is the latest example. Regrettably, there will be more.
somebody isn’t reading the viewing figures very closely now are they…. don’t they call it creative accounting when numbers get distorted?
Mr. Stursberg is NOT one of my favourite people at CBC right now.
It is TRULY amazing as to what he is doing to this once great national broadcaster of ours.
Imagine putting on shows like Jeopardy & Wheel of Fortune on what is supposedly a public broadcaster. These have absolutely NO business being on a public broadcaster.
Even worse, what he is doing to CBC Radio 2 & the way he responds to e-mails.
I am fortunate that at age 50, I can remember when CBC TV & CBC Radio WERE ICONS of Canadian broadcasting. It truly made us feel like a nation.
It is obvious there is no such thing as INTELLIGENT broadcasting in our nation any more!!!
And therein lies the revived paradox of financing CBC’s TV arm. In what many of us - myself included - would consider a more ideal world, CBC would have multiple TV channels, like BBC, and have the audience numbers on each to survive handily without being seen by the private networks as (too much) a threat through the mere fact of their existence.
A pity that so many seem to view such an ideal as itself a threat.
Daddy Dearest?
Is that an allusion to Mommy Dearest the movie?
If I remember correctly that was about someone who was secretly deranged and abusive.
Sorry Allan. I wish it were so but it isn’t You can’t comment freely on the Wells’ Globe article in a blog submission. Unfortunately, I speak from personal experience.
Cam
I can’t trash Mr. Stursberg on the CBC blog? In that case, I have absolutely no comment.
I know one true thing, from experience. When an enterprise is bad, a bad experience, going badly, it’s because it is bad at the very top.
And it seems that Mr. Richard Stursberg is proud to claim that position.
(You’re right of course, Cam, The Globe & Mail is not really into free speech either. )
I agree with you on that one Allan.
So where can we go to voice our completely UNBIASED opinions???
There are any number of free blogging services, Usenet still exists, and there are a plethora of unmoderated forums out there.
If you mean, is there a place where you can say whatever crap comes to mind where someone else has already done the legwork of getting an audience for you, then you’re probably better off making up a really big poster and sneaking it into a ballgame.
Alla is right.- Organizations are led from the top - where the buck should stop. The fly in the ointment is heavily unionized organizations like the CBC. Union mentality contributes greatly to the rot from within. To blame just the one at the top in this situation is naive.