Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlFlynn · 06-10-2003, 01:26 PM

The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), Canada's public broadcaster, has been a mainstay of Canada's cultural cohesion for over fifty years now. I find that its news coverage and entertainment programming is on par with or superior to most private efforts.

Evangelion · 06-10-2003, 02:25 PM

I agree with simian.

In Australia, the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission; state-owned and state-run) has achieved a similar reputation to that of the Beeb. Not only that, but it has actually been openly attacked by the government for being too aggressive in its criticism of the state!

I turn to the ABC for the information that the commercial stations don't provide, the depth of analysis that they can't provide, and the objectivity they refuse to provide.

Koiyotnik · 06-10-2003, 02:29 PM

I was waiting for someone to give homage to the CBC.
You can't beat their hockey coverage. I feel lost without the voices of CBC's commentators like Ron MacLean and Kelly Hrudey.

Evangelion · 06-10-2003, 02:35 PM

I think the old "State-run-TV is the bane of the nation" canard is horribly over-used.

Sure, it can be accurately applied to various countries in which the government is notorious for corruption and authoritarianism. But Western democracies, such as those in Europe and Australiasia? Pfffffffffffft!

Given the history of heavy-handed tactics by the American government (regardless of which party is in power) I would certainly be wary of the state-owned media in that nation. By contrast, Australia and GB don't have anything to worry about, IMHO.

I can't really speak for the Canucks because I'm not familiar with their state-owned media - but I reckon it's a fair bet that they're pretty even with ours.

meritocrat · 06-10-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist
Well then it would either be funded by lots of advertising (and product placement), which comes from the profits that companies make out of people - and/or it would be pay-per-view... and then poorer people (some elderly, etc) mightn't be able to afford it. But as you've said in the past, you don't really care about the poor. If it was pay-per-view, there would be lots of administrative costs to make sure only those that have paid for it get the BBC, so then the total costs to the public would be more. The cost per faithful viewer would probably be less though.
BTW, corporations try to milk as much profit out of consumers as possible - so they'd want to minimize the costs of programs (e.g. do reality shows, etc) and make as much advertising revenue and/or money from paytv. But government-run TV stations don't make a profit... they're simply given a budget (usually a tight one).

But anyway, you're entitled to your opinion, but apparently most of the people in the UK or at least most of the government doesn't want things changed.

The shows I've seen on the BBC usually seem to be very educational and have high standards of journalism, etc.... I guess there would be other kinds of shows on it too.

I guess there is nothing that would convince you since you don't like the idea of people paying for something (like the BBC) that they may not personally watch. You probably believe in "user-pays" for everything... like sick people (and their insurance companies - assuming they have insurance) being responsible for paying medical bills, people paying all the costs of their education (no public schools), etc.

Why is that of any relevance?

LymanLover · 06-10-2003, 03:11 PM

Which part? I think the first paragraph of ex's post is highly relevant.

lunachick · 06-10-2003, 03:58 PM

I agree with Simian. And not just for TV, but radio, too.

excreationist · 06-10-2003, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by meritocrat
Why is that of any relevance?

The first part is a response to "In general why should the state own broadcasting institutions. They can perfectly operate within the private sector.".
The second part is a response to "Nothing justifies the licence fee any more. BBC programming is just as 'unimaginitive' as other networks."
The last bit is me saying that this discussion may be a waste of time as far as you are concerned since you may believe that as much as possible, there should be a "user-pays" system - even in extreme cases such as education and the health system.

meritocrat · 06-10-2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist

The last bit is me saying that this discussion may be a waste of time as far as you are concerned since you may believe that as much as possible, there should be a "user-pays" system - even in extreme cases such as education and the health system.

And? What is THAT of relevance?

excreationist · 06-10-2003, 07:55 PM

meritocrat:
I'll drop those comments for now....

So what do you think should happen to the BBC? I guess you'd want it to be sold to private investors. Then what should happen? Should it be pay-per-view or free to air? If it is free to air, should taxes fund it, or advertisements/product placement?.

Do you have any ideas on this or not?

Quote:

In general why should the state own broadcasting institutions.

Well I responded to that earlier.... and why *shouldn't* it own some broadcasting institutions?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-10-2003, 01:26 PM	#11
EarlFlynn Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Posts: 1,806	The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), Canada's public broadcaster, has been a mainstay of Canada's cultural cohesion for over fifty years now. I find that its news coverage and entertainment programming is on par with or superior to most private efforts.

06-10-2003, 02:25 PM	#12
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	I agree with simian. In Australia, the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission; state-owned and state-run) has achieved a similar reputation to that of the Beeb. Not only that, but it has actually been openly attacked by the government for being too aggressive in its criticism of the state! I turn to the ABC for the information that the commercial stations don't provide, the depth of analysis that they can't provide, and the objectivity they refuse to provide.

06-10-2003, 02:29 PM	#13
Koiyotnik Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: St Catharines, ON, Canada Posts: 1,920	I was waiting for someone to give homage to the CBC. You can't beat their hockey coverage. I feel lost without the voices of CBC's commentators like Ron MacLean and Kelly Hrudey.

06-10-2003, 02:35 PM	#14
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	I think the old "State-run-TV is the bane of the nation" canard is horribly over-used. Sure, it can be accurately applied to various countries in which the government is notorious for corruption and authoritarianism. But Western democracies, such as those in Europe and Australiasia? Pfffffffffffft! Given the history of heavy-handed tactics by the American government (regardless of which party is in power) I would certainly be wary of the state-owned media in that nation. By contrast, Australia and GB don't have anything to worry about, IMHO. I can't really speak for the Canucks because I'm not familiar with their state-owned media - but I reckon it's a fair bet that they're pretty even with ours.

06-10-2003, 03:11 PM	#16
LymanLover Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,982	Which part? I think the first paragraph of ex's post is highly relevant.

06-10-2003, 03:58 PM	#17
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895	I agree with Simian. And not just for TV, but radio, too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.