
CBC asks for $400M in increased government funding to go ad-free - I-M-S
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cbc-radio-canada-ad-free-proposal-1.3871077
======
phaefele
I'd be happy to pay my $45.71 per person per year. The BBC makes amazing shows
- I don't see that Canada can't do the same. As Canadians, if we believe that
we have something to say to the world, we need to fund saying it.

~~~
problems
It provides close to zero value to me, I don't listen to radio at all.

What's your proposal to me? I'm supposed to pay $45.71 so other people can
listen to the radio ad-free? When they can already listen with ads and
basically pay for it themselves?

~~~
fatbird
> I'm supposed to pay $45.71 so other people can listen to the radio ad-free?

Yes. It's part of the basic compact we call a civil society where we don't
insist on a direct line between tax dollars paid and personally-felt value
gained, because we trust that the larger, more comprehensive value of a strong
civil society is worth more than $45.71.

After the number of times I've paid hundreds or thousands in extra property
taxes to fund a stadium I'll never visit, where people I'll never befriend
enjoy a sport I'll never play, I'm okay with this. More happiness all around
benefits me generally.

~~~
amscanne
What you're saying is of course completely true, but it also means that "I'd
be happy to pay my $45.71 per person per year" is equally invalid as a
indicator as to whether some public good or service is worthwhile. I believe
your parent comment was calling that out, rather than making an argument that
it's worth nothing at all.

As an aside, I think it's reaching quite a lot to say that an ad-free CBC is
somehow equivalent to a "strong civil society". I get that you're saying it's
an ingredient, but unless you quantify the value then it's an argument you
could apply to absolutely everything under the sun. (The government should
fund my blog for $0.01 per person, after all a strong civil society is
certainly worth a penny each!)

~~~
fatbird
The parent was saying that he shouldn't have to pay $45.71/year because
there's no direct benefit to him. My response was that a strong civil society
requires some latitude in how directly one needs to benefit in order to
support taxes for things one doesn't directly enjoy. I agree that a mere
willingness to fund something is not, in itself, a measure of some tax-funded
good's actual value.

I do think that there's probably a good argument that a strong civil society
requires a public broadcaster, but my analogy was more about relative equity--
I'm okay with your sports stadium, if you're okay with my public broadcaster,
because our civil society is better when there's public goods for both of us.
And that doesn't even get into the direct economic benefits that are the
mainstay arguments for sports stadiums and public broadcasters.

~~~
problems
> The parent was saying that he shouldn't have to pay $45.71/year because
> there's no direct benefit to him.

It provides no indirect benefit either. Instead it misguides and misinforms
people. The problem is that something like CBC provides no benefit to anyone
in society who doesn't share it's biases. A government mouthpiece is
absolutely not necessary for civilized society. Nor does it truly provide a
benefit to anyone, but a detriment to society at large. I don't believe
society should be forced to pay to pander to a specific political niche.

But if you're making this argument, why stop at socialized media? Certainly
some people could benefit from socialized food or cars? Why do those things
deserve consumer choice, but media doesn't? The market arguably does an even
better job with media than those things.

~~~
fatbird
First, slippery slope is a fallacy: having a public broadcaster does not lead
to socialized cars.

Second, we do have socialized food, it's called welfare, and going forward,
that situation will only increase under the name 'guaranteed basic income'
because we're automating away all the jobs people might have.

Third, you have media choice in Canada: elsewhere you say CTV and Global are
better. Good choice.

> It provides no indirect benefit either.

This is silly. It provides a lot of jobs that pay well or offer good security
or both, which benefits the economy generally in a number of ways. It provides
funding for the arts, also economically beneficial but also culturally
valuable, to some at least. It provides a media outlet directly subject to
government controls, which takes some heat off CTV and Global to meet policy
goals that the CBC can fulfill, like Canadian Content. It provides a public
good for people like me so that when a new levy for a stadium comes around,
I'm okay with paying the levy even if I'll get no direct benefit myself.

> Instead it misguides and misinforms people.

Okay, you don't like seeing a viewpoint you find wrong and harmful to be
funded with your tax dollars; if the gov't funded a version of Fox News up
here, I'd probably feel the same way. Whether or not I actually opposed that
public Fox North would depend on my feeling about whether I can tolerate it as
part of the broader program of public spending--maybe I'd be fine with it if
the CBC was then allowed to drift even further left.

The point remains that we collectively compromise in order to ensure that the
public good reaches the broadest number of citizens. If you're unable to
tolerate $45.71 a year going to something that your fellow citizens enjoy,
suck it up: I'm sure there's lots you're enjoying now that they'd prefer not
to fund.

~~~
problems
> First, slippery slope is a fallacy: having a public broadcaster does not
> lead to socialized cars.

I was merely trying to draw a comparison to things we can agree shouldn't be
socialized, where consumer choice matters, not that one leads to the other. I
believe slippery slope fallacy requires the implication that in this case,
publicly funding CBC leads to socialized cars. Which I didn't mean to imply is
true if it came off that way. Just to draw a comparison to see how you thought
of it differently, because I find them fairly comparable personally.

Even in welfare or the mincome proposals you have consumer choice over where
to spend and exactly how much to spend on food. Which you don't in this case
with CBC's media. That's the part I have a problem with.

> I'm sure there's lots you're enjoying now that they'd prefer not to fund.

And I'm quite confident there's not. In fact, there are very, very few things
I feel that the government should be funding. I'm more than willing to give up
just about anything the government provides me if they're willing to do the
same.

Why is the opposite proposal of saying we should remove these things rejected
outright? How about we all just pay for the stuff we use instead of paying for
other people's stuff? If we had a mincome-style system, would you be more okay
with this sort of proposal?

I'd be much more open to mincome proposals if we could get rid of cruft like
this we're paying for. I think it could generate real economic efficiency in
cases like this.

------
walterbell
From a 2007 article about the cancellation of a critically acclaimed CBC show,
[http://thetyee.ca/Entertainment/2007/12/03/NoIntelligence/](http://thetyee.ca/Entertainment/2007/12/03/NoIntelligence/)

 _" The CBC was born out of similar circumstances many years ago when there
was a media monopoly and a feeling amongst people that it was necessary to
have an alternate source of information and intelligence for the Canadian
people. And now in exactly the same times I think it is really essential. The
CBC is a threat because it's able to warn us of things that are going on in
Canada that some of the other private corporate interests in Canada wouldn't
want to warn us of because they may benefit from them.

"So I think we are really on that train. But I do think that there are a lot
of people out there who are passionate about the CBC and curious about what's
going on too because there have been so many changes, a lot of them not for
the better. And we frankly need to figure out some way to get more funding
back into the corporation while at the same time looking who in the CBC is
making the big decisions."_

------
Tiktaalik
On this topic I spotted this tweet with a graph comparing per capita
expenditure on public broadcasting. Canada is at the bottom along with the
USA.

[https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status/803353503225630720](https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status/803353503225630720)

~~~
Tiktaalik
Additionally this graph explains why I've watched more fan translated Danish
shows than Canadian TV. Low funding does not yield good TV.

------
falsedan
I'm old enough to remember the "it's your 8c/day" slogan for the (AU) ABC. CBC
is proposing $46/year, which is only 12c. Pretty good deal!

------
kobayashi
For those of you who are outside of Canada, and even for the many within,
please take some time to consider the possibility that the CBC is not a
benevolent public broadcaster, and is perhaps not actually putting out high-
quality, unique, and novel information that would be inaccessible to Canadians
without its public subsidies. Tristin Hopper[0] does a wonderful job of
explaining a centrist's argument against funding the CBC/the CBC's modus
operandi.

[0] Tristin Hopper: Maybe CBC could use its resources to do something other
than steal other people’s ideas [http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-
comment/blog.html?b=ne...](http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-
comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tristin-hopper-maybe-
cbc-could-use-its-resources-to-do-something-other-than-steal-other-peoples-
ideas)

------
kitcar
Note the CBC already has $675 million in funding from the Federal Budget -
this is on top of that. [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-
business/liberals-p...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-
business/liberals-pledge-675-million-in-cbc-funding/article29354285/)

~~~
criddell
Yeah, but for ad-free Beachcombers, it might be worth it.

~~~
stevewillows
Bring back Danger Bay and I'm in!

------
neom
Personally I think this is great and I think CBC does a pretty good (loved
DNTO) job. However, the comments section of that CBC article seem to
drastically disagree unfortunately. :(

~~~
criddell
What would you say to the people calling for the dismantling of the CBC?

~~~
neom
It's hard because I see both sides of the coin, I worry about the same worry
that most people point at, bureaucracy, blah blah blah. It's just that without
a Canadian voice in the world, I feel we'll lose a lot, much of the original
CBC programing (especially radio) talk a lot about what it means to be
Canadian, where we came from. My parents and parents parents and I were all
born in North Western Ontario and I feel like there was something special
about listening to the CBC and understanding the culture.

~~~
CountSessine
_without a Canadian voice in the world_

Why do people say this? CBC doesn't speak to the world; where are their
broadcast towers in Europe or elsewhere? They're a Canadian broadcaster whose
habit is to talk _at_ the Canadian public in a voice betraying contempt and
impatience. The CBC certainly doesn't speak for me.

~~~
neom
People immigrate to and travel to Canada buddy. :)

------
figjamjam
For those who are unaware; the UK TV tax of roughly $15 a month. I never
signed up. I'd get a threatening call from the BBC every 6 months trying to
shake me down with threats of fines and jail time. I told them that I didn't
have TV or the internet at home. Their response was internet on the phone or
at work was sufficient to be liable. I told them to b*gger off and they did.
For 6 months.

In general; I'm not a fan of states forcing people to pay for things they
don't want.

~~~
jtchang
I'm positive that my taxes go to things I don't want as well as things I do.

~~~
figjamjam
Agreed, I now live in a tax haven. It's every bit as awesome as I imagined it
to be :)

I wouldn't mind paying some tax but there is a point where you're paying for
your own propaganda / chains.

~~~
branchless
Tax haven "nice" or tax haven "we pay for our services by either depleting
bountiful natural resources / mental regime / letting others avoid tax and
taking a cut" ?

~~~
figjamjam
The government makes it's money via property and consumption taxes. And there
is no military to fund. The economy is also helped by foreign tax avoidance.
Interestingly; you'll find that the US is now by far the biggest enabler of
foreign tax avoidance in the world. So I'm not sure what moral conclusion
you're trying to allude to. At least here the same tax avoidance schemes are
available to everyone.

~~~
branchless
> The economy is also helped by foreign tax avoidance

I hate it then. I also hate all the avoidance the UK and US enable.

------
vivekd
As a Canadian I oppose this, and not because I'm worried about money or taxes.
I oppose this because the CBC provides news and entertainment in a way that
directly competes with Canada's privately owned news and TV networks. As the
government owned network grows private sources will lose their audience and
voice, and Canadians will only be left with one voice, the government's voice.

Further, unlike the BBC, the CBC answers directly to parliament. This means
that the ruling party has direct control over the network and, should they
desire, they can make it show only news and programs favorable to them. This
makes the CBC a threat to Canadian democracy.

------
canada_dry
Part of me loves the idea of a commercial free CBC, but I wonder whether it
will make them just another bloated bureaucracy - less hungry and also much
less likely to bite the hand that feeds them.

~~~
neom
CBC has a pretty good history of pushing back against both itself and the
government, I've never felt the CBC was corrupt or a government mouthpiece, I
do worry about that last point also though.

~~~
MrBlue
CBC employees were targeted by their employer for making critical comments
about Harper on their personal social media accounts.

~~~
neom
Link?

------
ar15saveslives
...then another $400M, and another, and another. Never ending story.

------
samstave
Assuming that CBC were to get this, how does this not make CBC a literal paid-
mouthpiece for whatever the government might ask?

Assume that the CBC is ad-free with this money(grant?) then what stipulations
may the government make regarding what they may or may-not run?

I am fine with things being ad-free, it just seems like a request like this
would be rife with manipulation/corruption... even if not day-one -- but even
within five years - the narrative is then owned.

~~~
jdc
Wouldn't that make every ad funded newspaper and TV channel a paid mouthpiece
of its advertisers?

~~~
samstave
Well, technically they tacitly are... meaning that if the advertiser didn't
like what they were saying, the advertiser can pull funding... but if the
funder (sans ads) is a state/government agent, then its much less desirable.

~~~
derrickdirge
But if the public doesn't like how the government is running a public
institution, they can elect different public officials.

To have anything resembling a similar amount of say about how a privately
funded media company operates, I have to boycott _all_ of its advertisers,
which likely entails long-term lifestyle changes.

------
simonhamp
Interesting cover: 'the advertising revenue would go to privates'.

Aside of the obvious (private) joke, that simply sounds like bold-faced wealth
redistribution in the wrong direction: get the gov (at the expense of the
taxpayer) to sub the movement of money to the private sector.

Not that consumers really benefit financially either way. Still the rich get
richer.

~~~
taurath
To me, the question is: Does the public want an information service that isn't
beholden to their advertising money, but instead beholden to their chosen
representatives, and are they willing to pay for it?

Thats the basis of pretty much all government services, and even government
itself. Its not for their direct financial benefit, just as purchasing a cable
subscription isn't to one's direct financial benefit. But its moving where the
money goes towards something more accountable to the people.

~~~
branchless
Exactly. It's a serious problem in the UK but I don't think the BBC is exempt.

We have private papers like The Telegraph, whose chief political editor
resigned due to pressure from advertisers:

[https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-
oborne/why-i-...](https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-
have-resigned-from-telegraph)

But the BBC is part of the establishment, regularly running property porn
shows and glossing over the financial crisis.

I have no solution, I just wanted to point out that national broadcasters are
not "for the people" all the time. The BBC basically got beaten down by Blair
who made the BBC chase ratings which was the perfect way to dumb it down and
neuter it after they opposed the Iraq war. Having a "popular" national
broadcaster is truly pointless because if they can compete on ratings they can
derive their revenue from adverts. Just another thing in the UK that has been
subtly eroded.

------
MegaDeKay
I wonder what it would cost them to broadcast over the air instead? They
stopped doing so in the transition from analog to digital, leaving people like
me without cable to do without our "public broadcaster". Now pardon me while I
select from the other two major (private) broadcasters that somehow managed to
transition over.

~~~
remir
Where are you located? Here in Montréal, you can watch HD TV over the air
using a ATSC tuner. The picture quality is excellent, better than HD cable
even.

~~~
MegaDeKay
Saskatchewan. The only CBC transmitter left in the province is in Regina and I
am nowhere near in range. All the rest of the transmitters in the province in
the link below were analog and have been decomissioned. At least Global and
CTV broadcast digital OTA and the picture quality is indeed excellent.

[http://www.cbc.radio-
canada.ca/en/explore/strategies/dtv/cov...](http://www.cbc.radio-
canada.ca/en/explore/strategies/dtv/coverage-maps/)

------
redthrowaway
Why on Earth the taxpayer is subsidizing the CBC to crowd out private media is
beyond me. It's not 1930. We don't need a state broadcaster to serve an
otherwise unserved nation. To the extent the CBC _does_ have a legitimate
function, that function most certainly does _not_ include sports, dramas,
comedies, etc. By all means, let them adopt the PBS/NPR model. But get them
out of the private market, and put my tax dollars to better use.

~~~
wapz
In Japan we're required to pay for TV for NHK. If you live in apartments that
get the premium channels you're required to pay for it, too (about $250/year).
The regular broadcast is around $135/year I believe.

------
dugditches
The saddest thing is the only good content on CBC radio now is 'From The
Archives' where they play old recordings.

Content on CBC just isn't what it used to be. All the local anchors try to
hard to be hip and with it.

Gone are the days of Peter Gzowski.

------
throwaway23421
oh hey an even more thoroughly government controlled media outlet. their
reporting is so biased and so far politically left its embarrassing to listen
to. fuck those guys

------
codeinchaos
having worked within the CBC, I don't trust the leadership at all! mis-
management of funds is a CBC tradition and pastime!

they continue to struggle to understand the digital era, and the executives
have gone on record plenty of times in their own town halls expressing their
confusion and dismissal of "that thing called the internet".

and while the CBC continues to compare itself to BBC at every turn, that is
not a fair comparison, more like a toad contemplating itself a deer.

~~~
MrBlue
This exactly. My GF works at the CBC which gives me some insight to what's
going on behind closed doors and let me tell you that I've never seen such
incompetence and mismanagement at the management level. An additional $400M
will go up in smoke the minute the cheque clears with very little to show.

~~~
josho
Having worked at large corporations myself I can assure you that the CBC does
not have a monopoly on mismanagement.

Yet somehow despite corporations mismanagement they still are more productive
than many a small business.

~~~
adgezaza
^ this guy is paid by the tax payers

------
tunap
The price sounds low. My initial question, "doesn't NHL advertising alone come
close to this?" seems to be answered already.

Not anymore. [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-
tv...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-tv-
broadcasters-see-revenue-shrink-cbc-hit-by-loss-of-nhl-
rights/article29860418/)

------
stevewillows
In my view, the CBC is stronger with reporting than it is with the cheesy,
low-budget original programming -- and I think they should focus on that.

When it comes to programming, I get that they want to have a 'Canadian voice'
\-- but the shows are always so cheesy. I'd rather they air some of the
stronger programming from the BBC.

I'm not in-the-know, but they really messed up by losing Hockey Night in
Canada.

------
datamingle
Why don't they just have an optional premium subscription that makes it ad-
free.

------
bmh100
Let's look at the full "Creative Canada" proposal [1]. After reading through
the full document, the arguments for moving away from advertising seem to
focus on financial stability (page 6) [1]:

"Depoliticize CBC/Radio-Canada funding so that it is predictable and stable,
tied to the existing five-year licence cycle, indexed to inflation, and
separated from the election and annual government budget cycles. This would be
similar to how the BBC now operates. Indexation is critical – without it,
inflation of just 1.5% per year would erode the new government funding of $150
million to zero in just six years."

Yet, let's also look at the cultural arguments being made (page 29) [1]:

"Our focus would be more firmly on the needs of citizens, creators and our
industry partners without the constant preoccupation of monetizing each of our
initiatives.

It would create greater opportunities to find and nurture new talent. It would
create more room for distinct Canadian programming, made by Canadians,
featuring Canadians and telling the stories Canadian creators want to tell.

We would focus less on commercial return and more on cultural impact,
exploring more ways to help Canadian content and creators thrive and grow. We
would be able to commission programming that takes risks and has the time to
find an audience without being overly driven by the need to deliver immediate
success."

Advertising can take many forms. Let's take a closer look at the BBC, whose
model is frequently referenced. Does this proposed "ad-free" model include a
restriction on the shows themselves to avoid product placement? Does this
include an obligation to blur, mute, bleep, or cut brands? The BBC allows
product placement [2]. Does this proposed model restrict sponsorships and
sponsored messages? The BBC also allows sponsorships, sponsorship credits, and
limited messages by sponsors [2].

Now, with broader questions: will there be a ban on home shopping shows (think
QVC)? Will there be a ban on infomercials? Will overlay commercials (the small
banners that run during shows) be banned?

If other forms of advertising, such as those permitted by BBC, are still
allowed, the broadcaster will still have commercial pressures. If shows are
allowed to sell product placement and sponsorships, Canadian creators will
still be under pressure for short-term monetization. What restrictions does
CBC actually propose? I wish I could answer, but there are none. Without
closing the earlier mentioned loopholes, CBC will not be ad free and will
therefore be unable to fully achieve its cultural goals.

[1]:
[http://future.cbc.ca/images/acreativecanada.pdf](http://future.cbc.ca/images/acreativecanada.pdf)

[2]:
[http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-504-3931](http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-504-3931)

------
PierreRochard
$400,000,000 per year to produce audio content? Seems high. NPR is at
$140,000,000.

~~~
notatoad
CBC produces at least 4 radio streams (Radio 1/2/3 in english, and at least
one in french), and at least three TV channels (CBC TV, CBC News Network, and
Radio-Canada)

~~~
aroberge
To add to what you already have listed: there is a second radio stream in
French (called Espace Musique) as well as a French equivalent to CBC News
Network (called RDI for Réseau de l'information). There are also regional
broadcast (in both French and English) as well as an international version.

------
tfw62192
Canada just HAS to go and do EVERYTHING right...

------
appleiigs
The whole thing is baffling to me.

First, why wouldn't they just keep the ads _and_ ask for more funding. It
would be a smaller ask.

Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media?
Maybe the GlobeandMail should ditch their crappy pay wall or maybe the
National Post shouldn't auto-play videos.

Third, if CBC had no ads, it'll be a better experience and it would gain
customers from the privates. It's a fairer playing field if CBC has to fund
itself. The whole problem of govt funded corps is that they have an unfair
advantage against privates, but they're saying the opposite?

(I guess it's not as bad as the NDP in Alberta taking $1.3B of taxpayer money
and giving it to the electricity producers.)

~~~
anigbrowl
Because then you've got the worst of both worlds - you're still going cap-in-
hand looking for money but you're also delivering a product covered in
advertising that most people don't want.

 _Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media?_

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is publicly owned. Doing basic research
is a great way to avoid looking foolish before commenting on the internet:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation)

~~~
appleiigs
My question was why do the want to fund _private_ media. If you read the
article it says "Critics have said that the CBC is taking ad revenue away from
private media that are struggling financially." I wasn't asking why taxpayers
were funding the CBC, a public company.

EDIT: regarding "worst of both worlds", CBC gets to fulfill it's mandate at a
cheaper cost with ads.

~~~
anigbrowl
But there's no certainty that if CBC goes ad-free the same amount of ad
revenue will naturally flow to its competitors. I think you're assuming
there's a fixed amount of money in the economy that must go somewhere if CBC
stops carrying ads.

Consider the possibility that company X advertises on CBC and 3 other private
broadcasters. CBC stops showing ads, but it doesn't follow that company X will
now increase its ad spend at the other vendors. Now it's true that the
privately owned outlets might raise their ad prices a bit now that there are
fewer ad slots available across the media as a whole, or they might increase
their ratio of advertising to programming - at least up to the point where
consumers get sick of hearing so many ads.

Anyway, private media outlets might make more money out of this...but then
again they might not. It's no sure thing and so it's inaccurate to claim that
ad spending will automatically shift towards the remaining market
participants.

~~~
appleiigs
We are on the same page I think. The CBC is saying $158mm will go to private
media. You say that's inaccurate. I'm saying if it is accurate, taxpayers
shouldn't be paying $400mm more for $158mm to go to private media.

