TMCLELLA@UALTAVM.BITNET (Tim Mclellan) (08/15/89)
In article <3249@watale.waterloo.edu>, tom@mims-iris.uucp (Tom Haapanen) writes: > >It's not that I like taxes, but somebody's got to pay the bills... > I don't like taxes either. And I don't like subsidizing CBC to the tune of $50 million (a year?). If CTV can get by with little or no federal help, why shouldn't the CBC be expected to start being a self-sufficient network too? I realize that once upon a time, there were a lot of people who couldn't gain access to broadcast TV. The CBC helped fill that gap. But how many people still don't have access to some form of broadcast TV? What with satellites and dishes, and just plain old cablevision, are there that many people who need the subsidized services of CBC? -- Tim McLellan University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada "Personal shopping only." Bitnet: TMCLELLA@UALTAVM.BITNET
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (08/16/89)
In article <639@UALTAVM.BITNET> TMCLELLA@UALTAVM.BITNET (Tim Mclellan) writes:
I don't like taxes either. And I don't like subsidizing CBC to the
tune of $50 million (a year?). If CTV can get by with little or no
federal help, why shouldn't the CBC be expected to start being a
self-sufficient network too?
Hmm, all debating about the virtue of the CBC aside, perhaps you
should concentrate your efforts on getting rid of Significant
Expenses. Like this daycare scam. That's BILLIONS of $$$. Not this
piddly million stuff.
I realize that once upon a time, there were a lot of people who
couldn't gain access to broadcast TV. The CBC helped fill that
gap. But how many people still don't have access to some form of
broadcast TV? What with satellites and dishes, and just plain old
cablevision, are there that many people who need the subsidized
services of CBC?
I'm not so sure that the mission of the CBC is still to give people
access to TV in isolated parts of the country. I think that CBC has
now taken on a more cultural preservation role, and in that I believe
it does a fine job of giving us an alternative to American
gunshots-and-car-chases TV shows.
--
Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu
Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canadaacton@anchor.cs.ubc.ca (Donald Acton) (08/16/89)
In article <KIM.89Aug16025916@watsup.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes: }>In article <639@UALTAVM.BITNET> TMCLELLA@UALTAVM.BITNET (Tim Mclellan) writes: }> }> I don't like taxes either. And I don't like subsidizing CBC to the }> tune of $50 million (a year?). }Hmm, all debating about the virtue of the CBC aside, perhaps you }should concentrate your efforts on getting rid of Significant }Expenses. Like this daycare scam. That's BILLIONS of $$$. Not this }piddly million stuff. If the subsidy to the CBC were in fact $50 million dollars it would indeed be piddly stuff based on the past and present spending habits of our federal government. But it isn't. In the last federal budget the subsidy to the CBC was in excess of $900 million dollars hardly a trifling amount and this is a recurring expense. But before anyone gets too excited that this means I support daycare it doesn't. Just think of the billions that could be saved if the government abandoned the CBC, and its plans for a national daycare program. But while on the topic of government waste there are two new buildings in the Ottawa/Hull area that are going to cost us well over a billion dollars by the time they are completed. I speak of the National Gallery and the Museum of Civilization (or whatever). Based on conversations I have had with friends who have actually been to both of these places they are very impressive monuments to the power brokers of Ottawa. But, they appear to have been very difficult buildings to construct. (ex My friend didn't think there was a straight line in the Museum of Civilization.) If the government were truly concerned with controlling spending I am sure they could have constructed something to properly house these collections for half the cost. After all look at the cost of the "Big O", vs Skydome, vs BC Place Stadium. All these structures serve basically the same function yet there is an order of magnitude difference in cost between the least expensive and the most and it certainly can't be said that the most expensive is the best or most successful. } I think that CBC has }now taken on a more cultural preservation role, and in that I believe }it does a fine job of giving us an alternative to American }gunshots-and-car-chases TV shows. Do we need to finance a complete Radio and Television Network to preserve culture? If one thinks that the government has any role in preserving culture, which I don't think it does, then it would be a lot cheaper to finance select shows and directly buy TV time instead of trying to provide a generally mediocre service with a few bright gems. Anyway isn't the NFB supposed to be doing that sort of thing too? Donald Acton
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (08/28/89)
In article <639@UALTAVM.BITNET> TMCLELLA@UALTAVM.BITNET writes: >I don't like taxes either. And I don't like subsidizing CBC to the tune of >$50 million (a year?). If CTV can get by with little or no federal help, why >shouldn't the CBC be expected to start being a self-sufficient network too? I don't own a television, however, I like the quality of CBC produced documentaries. Most networks don't produce documentaries because they are not money earners. I think that the CBC should be efficient and not wasteful or money resources (from our taxes) but apart from that I don't mind my taxes going to the CBC. I listen to CBC radio every day, most of the day. I love having no commercials. I love listening to good quality programming. The journalists are also very good, in my opinion. CBC has my support. In general, I guess I like having an alternate to U.S. programming. > Tim McLellan University of Alberta Elizabeth
dre@myrias.com (Duane Eitzen) (08/28/89)
In article <1989Aug27.190417.10461@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >I don't own a television, however, I like the quality of CBC produced >documentaries. Most networks don't produce documentaries because they >are not money earners. I think that the CBC should be efficient and >not wasteful or money resources (from our taxes) but apart from that I >don't mind my taxes going to the CBC. You enjoy listening to CBC. I enjoy listening to my CD collection. You don't help me pay for my CD's. Why should I help you pay for the CBC? Many people will respond that the CBC supports Canadian culture. I don't know what the governments definition of culture is, but to me it is simply the things that a group of people like doing or the way they like to live their lives. This means that if something is part of our culture, it will (by definition) be popular. If the CBC is so popular, then it can support itself. If it is not so popular,then no matter how distinctly Canadian it tries to be, it is NOT Canadian culture. Yes, I firmly believe that Bill Cosby is a larger part of Canadian culture than the Beachcombers. More Canadians watch Cosby, and (I suspect) most Canadians relate better to and are influenced more by him. This is not detroying Canadian culture, it IS our culture. And it is a very scary thought, to me, that some people want to change it forcibly (i.e. determine what people like doing or the way they live their lives). dre.