Media Bias [Merged]
- Thread starter Cloud Cover
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Thucydides said:
Can we see your calculations?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
$1 billion divided by 365 days divided by 24 hours?
- Reaction score
- 1,400
- Points
- 1,160
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/media/facts/20110309.shtml
March 9, 2011
Main Estimates 2011-2012: An explanation of the $16.6M decline in funding for CBC/Radio-Canada
In The Government Expenditure Plan And The Main Estimates tabled in Parliament on March 1, 2011, funding for CBC/Radio-Canada shows a decline of $16.6 million, or 1.5%, from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012.
The decline has been characterized by some as a “cut” to CBC/Radio-Canada’s budget.
In fact, our funding remains relatively stable at $1.1 billion.
The $16.6 million decline consists of CBC/Radio-Canada’s contribution to two previously announced federal spending reduction initiatives, applicable to all Government departments, agencies and crown corporations:
Salary inflation funding freeze
Funding identified in the 2010-2011 Main Estimates included $13.7 million for salary inflation. That funding was later frozen for all government departments, agencies and crown corporations in the 2010 Federal budget. In CBC/Radio-Canada’s case, the $13.7 million was adjusted by way of a reduction to the $60 million that was approved through the Supplementary Estimates tabled several months after the March budget (the $60 million has been received on a one-time basis since 2001-2002).
Procurement Reform Initiative
A further $2.8 million reduction in 2011-2012 represents the final instalment of incremental cuts related to the Procurement Reform Initiative announced in the 2007 Federal Budget (the total reduction amounts to $14.68 million/year).
As for the $60 million that the Corporation has been receiving on a one-time basis since 2001-2002 and which is vital to the Corporation’s Canadian programming initiatives, we hope to hear shortly about its status for 2011-12.
March 9, 2011
Main Estimates 2011-2012: An explanation of the $16.6M decline in funding for CBC/Radio-Canada
In The Government Expenditure Plan And The Main Estimates tabled in Parliament on March 1, 2011, funding for CBC/Radio-Canada shows a decline of $16.6 million, or 1.5%, from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012.
The decline has been characterized by some as a “cut” to CBC/Radio-Canada’s budget.
In fact, our funding remains relatively stable at $1.1 billion.
The $16.6 million decline consists of CBC/Radio-Canada’s contribution to two previously announced federal spending reduction initiatives, applicable to all Government departments, agencies and crown corporations:
Salary inflation funding freeze
Funding identified in the 2010-2011 Main Estimates included $13.7 million for salary inflation. That funding was later frozen for all government departments, agencies and crown corporations in the 2010 Federal budget. In CBC/Radio-Canada’s case, the $13.7 million was adjusted by way of a reduction to the $60 million that was approved through the Supplementary Estimates tabled several months after the March budget (the $60 million has been received on a one-time basis since 2001-2002).
Procurement Reform Initiative
A further $2.8 million reduction in 2011-2012 represents the final instalment of incremental cuts related to the Procurement Reform Initiative announced in the 2007 Federal Budget (the total reduction amounts to $14.68 million/year).
As for the $60 million that the Corporation has been receiving on a one-time basis since 2001-2002 and which is vital to the Corporation’s Canadian programming initiatives, we hope to hear shortly about its status for 2011-12.
CBC losses $36M in 2010: CRTC
By QMI Agency
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2011/06/03/18236001.html
Canada's national public broadcaster lost nearly $36 million last year, according to recently published figures from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation posted a pre-tax loss of $35.4 million for the year ending Aug. 31, 2010, mainly due to rising costs. In 2009, it lost $22 million.
The CBC gets a $1.1-billion annual subsidy from the federal government and operates in many less profitable and remote regions of the country.
"It all seems like a losing proposition," said Stephen Taylor, director of the National Citizens Coalition, a taxpayer advocacy group.
The NCC wants to see the CBC privatized to ensure an equal playing field in Canada's TV industry.
Taylor said the CBC is taking ad dollars that would otherwise go to private players.
"It's taking essentially the juice out of the competition," he said. "Market-wise, that doesn't help. It doesn't help build better television."
Total CBC revenue was up 1.4% to $1.24 billion from just under $1.23 billion in 2009.
"The increase in our revenues is mainly attributable to our performing TV schedules, the broadcast of the FIFA World Cup and increasing revenues for our digital services," said CBC spokesman Jeff Keay.
The loss demonstrated on the CRTC statements is a standard accounting loss, Keay said. "On a budgetary basis the CBC/Radio-Canada runs a balanced budget each year."
Last year, CBC brought in $338.8 million in advertising revenue, up 14.1% over 2009. But expenses were also 2.79% higher as the CBC spent more on programming and promotions, including print ads aimed at boosting public confidence in the broadcaster.
Last month, CBC/Radio-Canada denied a QMI Agency request for more information on how much it spent on to celebrate its 75th anniversary.
Overall, sales and promotional spending was up 16.53%, though administration and general expenses were down 10.69%.
The CBC spent more on programming than it made on programming at $69.6 million versus $66.4 million.
The broadcaster spent nearly 11% less on staff salaries in 2010 than it did in 2009, paying out $540 million to roughly 6,227 employees. The average yearly pay for a CBC staff member was $86,717.
The CRTC also published data on Canada's private broadcasters.
The group, which includes BCE's CTV, Shaw's newly acquired Global and Quebecor's TVA saw high single-digit and double-digit revenue gains as advertisers ramped up spending and pay-TV subscribers spent more money.
The gains however did not translate into more jobs in private-sector broadcasting. The conventional TV workforce shrank by 6.3% in 2010, while the pay and specialty services workforce remained relatively stable.
Quebecor also owns various other media properties including QMI Agency, Sun Media, Journal de Montreal and Canoe.ca.
By QMI Agency
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2011/06/03/18236001.html
Canada's national public broadcaster lost nearly $36 million last year, according to recently published figures from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation posted a pre-tax loss of $35.4 million for the year ending Aug. 31, 2010, mainly due to rising costs. In 2009, it lost $22 million.
The CBC gets a $1.1-billion annual subsidy from the federal government and operates in many less profitable and remote regions of the country.
"It all seems like a losing proposition," said Stephen Taylor, director of the National Citizens Coalition, a taxpayer advocacy group.
The NCC wants to see the CBC privatized to ensure an equal playing field in Canada's TV industry.
Taylor said the CBC is taking ad dollars that would otherwise go to private players.
"It's taking essentially the juice out of the competition," he said. "Market-wise, that doesn't help. It doesn't help build better television."
Total CBC revenue was up 1.4% to $1.24 billion from just under $1.23 billion in 2009.
"The increase in our revenues is mainly attributable to our performing TV schedules, the broadcast of the FIFA World Cup and increasing revenues for our digital services," said CBC spokesman Jeff Keay.
The loss demonstrated on the CRTC statements is a standard accounting loss, Keay said. "On a budgetary basis the CBC/Radio-Canada runs a balanced budget each year."
Last year, CBC brought in $338.8 million in advertising revenue, up 14.1% over 2009. But expenses were also 2.79% higher as the CBC spent more on programming and promotions, including print ads aimed at boosting public confidence in the broadcaster.
Last month, CBC/Radio-Canada denied a QMI Agency request for more information on how much it spent on to celebrate its 75th anniversary.
Overall, sales and promotional spending was up 16.53%, though administration and general expenses were down 10.69%.
The CBC spent more on programming than it made on programming at $69.6 million versus $66.4 million.
The broadcaster spent nearly 11% less on staff salaries in 2010 than it did in 2009, paying out $540 million to roughly 6,227 employees. The average yearly pay for a CBC staff member was $86,717.
The CRTC also published data on Canada's private broadcasters.
The group, which includes BCE's CTV, Shaw's newly acquired Global and Quebecor's TVA saw high single-digit and double-digit revenue gains as advertisers ramped up spending and pay-TV subscribers spent more money.
The gains however did not translate into more jobs in private-sector broadcasting. The conventional TV workforce shrank by 6.3% in 2010, while the pay and specialty services workforce remained relatively stable.
Quebecor also owns various other media properties including QMI Agency, Sun Media, Journal de Montreal and Canoe.ca.
- Reaction score
- 1,400
- Points
- 1,160
CBC should be doing programs like the popular Ice Pilots, Ice Road Truckers (programs about Cdns), even Alaska Gold Rush (filmed in the Yukon last summer). No "actors", film crew and producer. Swords, Life On The Line is more often than not off Newfoundland, and offloading the catch there.
Sell the CBC.
Sell the CBC.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
It may be that government has a duty to deliver information (and entertainment) to people living in remote and isolated communities - places which cannot show a profit for a private broadcaster.
There are two ways to do this:
1. create and maintain a public broadcaster with a specific mandate to serve those regions; or
2. subsidize the private broadcasters to serve those regions as a condition of license.
Neither is especially palatable.
Back in the 1930s, when the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, ancestor of both the CBC, the broadcaster, and the CRTC, the regulator, was formed the need to 'serve' Canadians was balanced with a nationalist requirement to "tell our own story," or to avoid being overwhelmed by the bigger, louder American "story." Many would argue that need still exists. If it does then it, too, can be met in two ways:
1. create and maintain a public broadcaster to "tell our own story;" or
2. subsidize the private broadcasters and, as a condition of license, require the to "tell Canada's stories to Canadians," i.e. to produce Canadian drama, comedy, documentaries and so on.
Either option will have proponents and opponent, but, if you accept the premise that the 'service' is required then one or the other (or, worse, both) bust be chosen.
It seems to me that one of the problems with broadcasters is that they lack a clearly defined editorial position. When I open the Daily Telegraph or the New York Times or even the National Post I have a pretty good idea of the slant that editorialists and reporters will apply to the news of the day. I thinkj we deserve the same from broadcast news agencies - always recognizing that CBC or CTV are, roughly, the equivalent a newspaper in which to 65% of the pages are devoted to the comics, 25% to sports and 10% to real news and opinion.
There are two ways to do this:
1. create and maintain a public broadcaster with a specific mandate to serve those regions; or
2. subsidize the private broadcasters to serve those regions as a condition of license.
Neither is especially palatable.
Back in the 1930s, when the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, ancestor of both the CBC, the broadcaster, and the CRTC, the regulator, was formed the need to 'serve' Canadians was balanced with a nationalist requirement to "tell our own story," or to avoid being overwhelmed by the bigger, louder American "story." Many would argue that need still exists. If it does then it, too, can be met in two ways:
1. create and maintain a public broadcaster to "tell our own story;" or
2. subsidize the private broadcasters and, as a condition of license, require the to "tell Canada's stories to Canadians," i.e. to produce Canadian drama, comedy, documentaries and so on.
Either option will have proponents and opponent, but, if you accept the premise that the 'service' is required then one or the other (or, worse, both) bust be chosen.
It seems to me that one of the problems with broadcasters is that they lack a clearly defined editorial position. When I open the Daily Telegraph or the New York Times or even the National Post I have a pretty good idea of the slant that editorialists and reporters will apply to the news of the day. I thinkj we deserve the same from broadcast news agencies - always recognizing that CBC or CTV are, roughly, the equivalent a newspaper in which to 65% of the pages are devoted to the comics, 25% to sports and 10% to real news and opinion.
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
Further to ERC's thought:
In the 1930s the mechanisms for distribution of the message were radio, movies, papers and books and the pulpit. All of them were used effectively. These days the mechanisms have changed considerably.
Radio was a glorious tool for dissemination because in addition to the novelty factor it broadcast the message in exactly the same manner as farmers used to broadcast their seed. It was a cheap method of covering the ground with a single message. Movies, papers and books and the pulpit didn't offer the same service because any individual could mount a pulpit, or write a book and, to an extent, produce a movie. Equally individuals selected which movies they watched, books they read and churches (and fraternal organizations) they attended. Radio could be used for dissemination of a single unifying message.
Today however that broadcast advantage is long since gone. Now people are back to selecting the messenger, the mechanism of delivery and the message. It now requires a more complex plan to deliver any given message.
Now the first question is: should government be in the business of delivering any message at all? My own personal inclination is to answer no except in the form of keeping the citizenry informed of rules, regulations and upcoming decisions.
But setting that aside and assuming that it is important for government to convey a unifying message then surely they have to look to the advertisers of the world (as they do during elections) and concentrate on producing compelling content that messengers will pick up and distribute for them?
An alternative to spending 1 BCAD a year on the CBC as it is would be to focus the CBC on dry, "Lorne Green - Voice of Doom", "A. Spokesman" news gathering while much of the rest of the money went back into Arts Canada and the National Film Board and also the provision of high-speed broadband data transmission to remote locations.
The message, assuming that such a message is important, could be crafted through the sponsorship of the NFB and Arts Canada. Of course the productions would have to be of sufficient quality to compete with US franchises like CSI, Law and Order and NCIS etc....
In the 1930s the mechanisms for distribution of the message were radio, movies, papers and books and the pulpit. All of them were used effectively. These days the mechanisms have changed considerably.
Radio was a glorious tool for dissemination because in addition to the novelty factor it broadcast the message in exactly the same manner as farmers used to broadcast their seed. It was a cheap method of covering the ground with a single message. Movies, papers and books and the pulpit didn't offer the same service because any individual could mount a pulpit, or write a book and, to an extent, produce a movie. Equally individuals selected which movies they watched, books they read and churches (and fraternal organizations) they attended. Radio could be used for dissemination of a single unifying message.
Today however that broadcast advantage is long since gone. Now people are back to selecting the messenger, the mechanism of delivery and the message. It now requires a more complex plan to deliver any given message.
Now the first question is: should government be in the business of delivering any message at all? My own personal inclination is to answer no except in the form of keeping the citizenry informed of rules, regulations and upcoming decisions.
But setting that aside and assuming that it is important for government to convey a unifying message then surely they have to look to the advertisers of the world (as they do during elections) and concentrate on producing compelling content that messengers will pick up and distribute for them?
An alternative to spending 1 BCAD a year on the CBC as it is would be to focus the CBC on dry, "Lorne Green - Voice of Doom", "A. Spokesman" news gathering while much of the rest of the money went back into Arts Canada and the National Film Board and also the provision of high-speed broadband data transmission to remote locations.
The message, assuming that such a message is important, could be crafted through the sponsorship of the NFB and Arts Canada. Of course the productions would have to be of sufficient quality to compete with US franchises like CSI, Law and Order and NCIS etc....
- Reaction score
- 17,044
- Points
- 1,010
Kirkhill- I would argue that government funding in the arts virtually gaurantees that the art produced will not have broad market appeal. The artist (producer/director/actor) in no way has to consider making the damned project pay if they know, deep down, that the Goverrnment will under write their losses. That is not to say that free market art is automatically a success- it is just that I am not forced to pay through my taxes for failures!
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
SKT -
You're right and I agree fully. As I noted, I don't see a need for government messaging myself in any case.
But.....
Having said that, if there is to be government sponsored messaging to make us all better citizens then the least we can do is attempt to make the experience as painless as possible.
I wouldn't force private broadcasters/narrowcasters/ISPs to carry the government message. I would leave it up to them to carry whatever they liked. It would be up to the "artist"/bureaucrat to create a product that others considered worth carrying.
And perhaps we should stipulate that the "creator" doesn't get paid (or paid in full) unless they achieve market success. No sales, no revenue.
Which, actually, would mean freeing up more funds for the subsidizing of data transfer systems........Do they need subsidizing? There seems to be an awful lot of activity on that front in any case - including places like Iraq, Afghanistan and China.
You're right and I agree fully. As I noted, I don't see a need for government messaging myself in any case.
But.....
Having said that, if there is to be government sponsored messaging to make us all better citizens then the least we can do is attempt to make the experience as painless as possible.
I wouldn't force private broadcasters/narrowcasters/ISPs to carry the government message. I would leave it up to them to carry whatever they liked. It would be up to the "artist"/bureaucrat to create a product that others considered worth carrying.
And perhaps we should stipulate that the "creator" doesn't get paid (or paid in full) unless they achieve market success. No sales, no revenue.
Which, actually, would mean freeing up more funds for the subsidizing of data transfer systems........Do they need subsidizing? There seems to be an awful lot of activity on that front in any case - including places like Iraq, Afghanistan and China.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
SeaKingTacco said:
Many years, even centuries ago, when "great men" and the "state" were synonymous, in both Europe and Asia, public funding (patronage by the "great men" using the revenues they collected from their "people") was the main source of artistic support. Maybe it should still be the same, today.
It is fair to say that rich men and women should patronize the arts - and they do, but who is to say that Li Ka Shing or Hillary Weston have a better "eye" for what will be great in 250 years than does a board of artists like the Canada Council for the Arts.
- Reaction score
- 17,044
- Points
- 1,010
Edward,
Hillary Weston is a better judge of art than the Canada Council because she is spending her money!
The Canada Council is spending my money.
Now, I must be state that I support Government Funding for the Arts- for Museums, even theatres. I would even go as far as a fund for new artists to get them started in their careers.
But fund TV shows? No thanks.
Hillary Weston is a better judge of art than the Canada Council because she is spending her money!
The Canada Council is spending my money.
Now, I must be state that I support Government Funding for the Arts- for Museums, even theatres. I would even go as far as a fund for new artists to get them started in their careers.
But fund TV shows? No thanks.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
If William Shakespeare were alive today he would be writing for TV. If Beethoven were alive today he would be writing music for the screen, as Prokofiev did in the 1930s. TV and film are means of delivery, not ends in themselves. Consider, just as an example, Arthur Miler's The Crucible: it was a Tony award winner in 1953 and is now part of the American canon; it also translated easily to film, especially in the much rewarded 1996 version. Marshall McLuhan was wrong, the medium is not the message, it is just a way of transmitting the message to audiences.
Edit: Typo and two silly grammar errors. :-[
Edit: Typo and two silly grammar errors. :-[
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
E.R. Campbell said:
Ever watch Andrew Coyne, Chantal Hebert, and Alan Gregg or Craig Oliver, Jane Taber, and Robert Fife? Trust me, Marshall McLuhan was right. Those 6 people had their heads so thoroughly planted up their own and each other's, that 2 sets of 3 wise men had no clue what was happening right under their noses. They were watching each other instead of the voters.
- Reaction score
- 22,034
- Points
- 1,360
Dennis Ruhl said:
Actually, Dennis, of all these six, it's not the CBC panel I think is out of it...it's Craig Oliver and his apoplectic rantings of hatred against Harper he manages to build into almost every commentary about government that gets me shaking my head. When he really gets going, his nostrils flare and his eyes bulge and look like they'll pop right out of his head.
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Dennis Ruhl said:
In my opinion the "talking heads" (too often "shouting heads") are the TV equivalent of newspaper columnists. I know what to expect from e.g. Lawrence Martin or John Ivison and they rarely deviate too far from their own, individual and fairly fixed positions. Ditto Oliver and Fife (and I agree 100% with G2G and I put Fife in the same league).
What annoys me are people like Terry Milewski who pretends to be a 'reporter' when he is, really, a commentator; I think worse of his bosses who play along with this charade.
But I don't watch the TV news to be informed. That, information, is the business of e.g. Foreign Affairs, The Economist and even my daily newspapers - which do employ some reporters. I watch TV, including the CBC news, to be entertained - same reason I enjoy a symphony concert or the ballet, although the end state is different, I am often stimulated and made to think by a symphony or the ballet but I am, almost always, only mildly amused by the CBC news.
__________
P.S. It's not all dross on the CBC. I am entertained and stimulated on Sundays by e.g. Mary Hynes on CBC radio.
- Reaction score
- 17,044
- Points
- 1,010
Edward,
That is part of the problem- for the most part, the stuff on CBC radio is really pretty good (I too, am a Mary Hynes fan ). How do we keep that part and get rid of the stuff the taxpayer shouldn't be funding. And who decides?
That is part of the problem- for the most part, the stuff on CBC radio is really pretty good (I too, am a Mary Hynes fan ). How do we keep that part and get rid of the stuff the taxpayer shouldn't be funding. And who decides?
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
SeaKingTacco said:
As to how we keep the "good stuff" - maybe something like this:
1. Keep CBC radio pretty much 'as is,' including Radio Canada International, it has a small but discerning audience and it fulfills and important part of the real need for a public broadcaster, it provides news, information and entertainment to people in remote areas;
2. Auction off CBC TV, all of it; and
3. Offer generous public subsidies to all TV broadcasters who will agree to serve rural and remote areas and make serving rural and remote areas, with those subsidies, a condition of licence for any network that serves more than one province.
Who decides? The government of the day; we hired them to make tough, unpopular decisions. Let's see if they are worthy of their hire.
