Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!brewster
From: brewster@watdcsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Free trade, Canadian culture, $$
Message-ID: <3047@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Feb-87 13:39:20 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3047
Posted: Sun Feb 22 13:39:20 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Feb-87 21:36:44 EST
References: <191@fornax.uucp>
Distribution: can
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 89


>From: chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman)
 
>>>Canada has 10% of the US population; does the CBC
>>>cost more to run than 10% of what it costs to run one of {NBC,ABC,CBS}?
>> 
>>     Lets not[ed.] compare apples and oranges.  Is the cost to the Canadian
>>     government for subsidizing CBC more than 10% of the cost to the
>>     American government for subsidizing NBC,ABC, and CBS combined ?

>If you want to talk about subsidization go ahead but my comment was directed
>more at the people who constantly carp about how innefficient the CBC.
>My question was: is the CBC relatively less/more efficient/costly
>than a US network?

   If you want to talk about how costly the CBC is to run you are talking 
   straight dollar figures, in which case the analysis of subsidized versus
   non-subsidized costs is valid and even necessary.    If you want to talk
   about the relative efficiency of the CBC in comparison to other networks
   then you are going to have problems.  Sure, CBC and NBC both put on 20
   hours of programming per day (as an example), but surely efficiency must
   include some measure of the quality of said programming, the ability to
   attract advertising, the ability to attract viewers, etc.   Efficiency
   cannot be measured in straight dollars. 

   The people who carp about efficiency are not necessarily carping about the
   total amount spent by CBC, but carping about what this money actually buys.
   Note that many people complain about both the actual money spent, and the
   product that this money buys. 

>>     If the cbc is such a great deal, why hasn't it been able to 
>>     operate insuch a way as to become financially independent? 

>Why should it? Seriously.  Not every aspect of life has to be run as
>a business venture you know - although to hear some people talk you
>would never realize it.

   That is the typical government bureaucratic attitude, "Not everything has
   to operate to break even you know, why if we didn't spend money on (insert
   program of your choice) then no one would".  Doesn't this ring a red light
   somewhere in your head that indicates that maybe the program shouldn't be
   funded at all, or that the program should at least be carefully
   scrutinized.

   I agree with you that not everything has to operate as a business.
   But, if you are not going to operate as a business then there should be
   valid, clearly explained reasons, why it is :
   a) essential that you operate in the first place,
   b) essential that you avoid operating as a business and instead operate
      using government subsidies. 

   And the government, as a supporting body should have the right to review
   items a and b whenever it chooses and if need be discontinue the program.
   The problem with government support is that it is much easier to get going
   than it is to stop.  People seem to assume that because the government
   chooses to support some program at some time (CBC 20 years ago), that they
   have a moral obligation to continue this support ad infinitum. 

   Arguements in favour of supporting CBC in the form of :
   a) but we have supported it for a long time
   b) but not everything has to break even
   c) but this is a medium for supporting the Canadian national identity
   d) but it brings the country together

   are rhetoric aimed at avoiding an analysis of what the CBC actually does
   and how much it costs the tax payer for this service. 

>So nothing should be done in a democracy unless a majority supports it?
>I don't know any country that actually runs that way.
>I also don't think it is always preferable either, e.g. what about the
>rights of minorities.

    The rights of minorities is an oversold political turkey.  In a democratic
    state, if the majority of voters support A, then A should happen.  If the
    majority of voters oppose A, but some minority wants A, then A shouldn't
    happen.    This is the supposed basis of a democracy.  
    
    Where possible, where the wishes of the  minority don't clash with the
    wish of the majority, they can be accomodated.  Lets hypothesize that the
    majority of Canadians don't support the national governments subsidization
    of the CBC, but a small minority actually does (obviously Barbara and pals
    would like CBC to keep going).   Are you saying that the representatives
    in parliament should continue funding because there exists a minority
    somewhere in Canada that wants funding continued. 

						   Try not  to become  a  man
UUCP  : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster    of success but rather  try
Else  : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657                to  become a  man of value.
                                                         Albert Einstein