Print

Print


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
The comparison is interesting but not very apt.  CBC television relies on
advertising revenue as it is the only arm of the public television networks
that generates a profit.
 
There is ongoing controversy regarding both the network's reliance on
advertising revenue and its broadcasting of such incredibly popular sports
programs as Hockey Night In Canada (surely the most Cdn. of entertainment!)
Some critics think that CBC should just set up a video camera and shoot
stage plays.  But there really is no other true Canadian channel.  We're
currently running at 80% Canadian content.  Other Cdn. networks provide some
Cdn. programming while surviving financially by broadcasting popular U.S.
shows.  We like to think that our programming complements what the other
networks have to offer rather than competing with them.
 
The mandate of CBC tv is, loosely, to provide Canadian programming to which
all Canadians can have access.  This includes drama (movies, mini-series,
dramatic series) arts, variety, children's, and, of course, news, current
affairs and documentary programming.
 
As well, government funding is tenuous and handed down yearly in the federal
government's budget.  We will hear this week what they have in store for us,
but it's not sounding good.  There are rumours of huge cuts.  About four
years ago, we had a 10% cut in our operating budget.  Ten owned and operated
stations across Canada were closed and thousands were laid off.
 
I'm not good with statistics but I think that it costs about $6 a year for
each Canadian to run the CBC, radio & tv.
 
 
T.
 
 
 
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>With a population of approximately 30 million Canada spends up to 1 billion
>per year on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - the public broadcaster
>for both radio and television with services in several languages (French,
>English, Inuit...) It makes for a very interesting comparison.
>
>
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 30 Jan 1995 [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>> Again, Paul doesn't seem to be relating the matter to questions  of film and
>>> television. I assume there are other political activism listserv's available
>>> for cheerleading and so forth. The fact is $285 million in tax dollars are
>>> being spent. Is this subsidy truly necessary?
>>>
>>> Larry Jarvik
>>> Center for the Study of Popular Culture
>>>
>>
>>Mr. Jarvik --
>>
>>YES, thought should precede action.  So how about a little thought on the
>>part of Congress before ramming a bill through the legislature during the
>>first month which would significantly cut funding for public broadcasting??
>>Certainly there are those who will argue that the "public" in "public
>>broadcasting" ceases to be relevant, what with the influence of AT&T and
>>other corporate "underwriters."  Perhaps the need of NPR and PBS to turn
>>to corporations and foundations for additional support is symptomatic of
>>a larger problem with regard to how we, as a nation, through public (as
>>well as private) policy decision making, have tended to value the role of
>>culture, education and the arts.
>>In response to your question, "Is this subsidy truly necessary?" many
>>factors need to be considered.  The fact is, in the Big Picture, $285
>>million is not an exorbitant amount of tax revenue to allocate for public
>>broadcasting when you consider that it comes out to roughly one dollar
>>per citizen.  Add to that our total spending on the arts is about $14 per
>>person annually, compared with nations like Germany, Japan, France, or
>>Great Britian who spend anywhere from $25 to $70 per person annually, and it
>>becomes clear that we already spend SIGNIFICANTLY less than other nations on
>>various cultural forms.  What could possibly be the incentive for cutting
>>it more?
>>While I'll grant you that channels such as American Movie Classics, TNN,
>>Discovery, A&E, and so forth provide decent quality programming (despite
>>particular problems some of us might have with the level of corporate
>>interest involved), these channels appear on cable and/or satellite TV.
>>Approximately 24% of the communities in the United States proper (i.e. as
>>a geographical entity as opposed to a penetrating Market) are not yet
>>wired for cable.  These are mostly rural communities who depend on
>>"public" broadcasting to bring them anything which is even remotely
>>dissimilar from the commercial fare on traditional "broadcast"
>>television.  Secondly, and I think this point is crucial, cable and/or
>>satellite requires, by definition, capital outlay from its consumers in
>>order to participate at all.  Certain members of the public, because of
>>economic barriers, would be denied access to these forms of cultural
>>capital.  The best part of this arrangement, of course, is that we (read:
>>those of us who can afford it, or perhaps those of us who skimp on the
>>groceries so we can afford it) get to pay for the privelege of being
>>targeted as potential customers of the national and multi-national
>>conglomerates, who determine to a significant extent
>>both the types of cultural forms which will be made available for
>>consumption, as well as defining the limits or boundaries of "legitimate"
>>public discourse.
>>Lastly (although there is certainly PLENTY more to discuss), as
>>subscribers to these lists I can assume that we are all either scholars
>>of media forms, or at least individuals with something more than a
>>passing interest in the relation of mediated forms of cultural expression
>>to the larger social mileu.  We have a stake, whether we like it or not,
>>in the fate of public broadcasting.  Therefore, I would argue that it is
>>perfectly legitimate to post a call-to-action to this list, especially in
>>light of what I see as Congress' irresponsible knee-jerk reaction.
>>Forcing PBS and NPR to become even more accountable to private capital
>>interests than they already are by having to compete for market share will
>>mean the death of public broadcasting as we know it.
>>
>>And I for one shall not have the blood of Big Bird on MY hands!
>>
>>Edward B Hargrove
>>Department of Curriculum & Instruction
>>University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign
>>
>>"Listen, I've said enough.  You do what you want with this thing.  There's
>>just one more thing, though.  This town needs this little measley
>>one-horse institution if only so that people can have some place to go
>>without crawlin' to Potter!"
>>        -James Stewart as George Bailey in "It's A Wonderful Life"
>>                [as though I really needed to cite that one]
>>
>>
>
>
_____________________
Tara Ellis
[log in to unmask]