News have to be from a unbiased source.
Well that eliminates the CBC, aka the most biased news agency in Canada. Good grief, man! CBC IS left-wing Canada. :frusty:
News have to be from a unbiased source.
I believe what you really meant was: I never watch CBC-TV, so whether or not other people do, and irrespective of the fact that the corporation serves listeners as well as viewers, and operates in a language I don't care about, it should be cast adrift without a penny from Canada; as a nation we have nothing to say to each other or to the world.So we give 1 billion dollars in tax payers money and the CBC says they still need more. WTF !! Time to end this ??
Umm ... that's my point.
Who really gives a hoot about what "international awards" and "people and associations that know more about the broadcast industry than you" ... are you serious?
Hey, if that is the attitude, then no money for the CBC, Harper should kill it right now.
That is the problem. I do not need the CBC, especially now that hockey is not in their future. Yet they need my money as a taxpayer to keep on going. Then we have the attitude that the CBC is actually good for you and me, because people who know better tells us it is. The CBC stands for 1. sit down. 2. shut up. 3. pay up.
In my opinion, that position is not easy to defend.
Pull the plug!
:deadhorse:
What you really meant was: I never watch CBC-TV, so whether or not other people do, and irrespective of the fact that the corporation serves listeners as well as viewers, and operates in a language I don't care about, it should be cast adrift without a penny from Canada; as a nation we have nothing to say to each other or to the world.
But maybe if they carried the Super Bowl, or more American football …
I've heard from somebody that works for the CBC that the CBC employs 6,000 people- 50% of whom are Managers or Executives. What other organization has a management to employee ratio of 1:1? It's bad enough that the taxpayers are on the hook for this level of management incompetence but now the taxpayers are going to also subsidize Rogers through the NHL deal where CBC will televise Hockey Night in Canada while Rogers will collect the ad revenue (while supposedly paying the production costs). CBC will still have significant costs just supporting the Management staff to "supervise" the technicians running the control rooms across the nation.
Rogers cannot maintain the Hockey Night in Canada over the air broadcasts without the CBC because Rogers only has over the air television stations in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton & Winnipeg. Time for the government to step in and stop the cash flow. If there are special circumstances such as providing services where only subsidized television or radio can survive, then spin off those stations and subsidize them. Sell the balance of the CBC if any part of it is saleable (to anyone but Rogers).
That would be less than a penny a day. If we still had pennies.What Bruce doesn't know is that the CBC costs each Canadian only ~$1.30 a year and has not gotten a raise in over 10 years to do their work, but that won't stop him form arguing his point. would he be able to do his job on the same budget as in 1993.
Well that eliminates the CBC, aka the most biased news agency in Canada. Good grief, man! CBC IS left-wing Canada. :frusty:
Well that eliminates the CBC, aka the most biased news agency in Canada. Good grief, man! CBC IS left-wing Canada. :frusty:
Uniquely Canadian like Coronation Street every weeknight in primetime?I find it ironic that the same people who drape themselves in the canadian flag at every chance want to destroy anything that are uniquely canadian, in favour of american institutions or lack of same.
Uniquely Canadian like Coronation Street every weeknight in primetime?
That's the CBC's mandate I guess, telling Wetherfield stories to Canadians! :canada:
How about uniquely Canadian like you said the CBC was?Increase the budget if you want original programming.
What Bruce doesn't know is that the CBC costs each Canadian only ~$1.30 a year and has not gotten a raise in over 10 years to do their work, but that won't stop him form arguing his point. would he be able to do his job on the same budget as in 1993.