Immorality of CBC funding

[Anonymous]

It really irks me that we are forced to pay $1.2 billion per year to pay for this propaganda machine for the federal Liberal party.



Omar Khadr segment highlights problems taxpayers have with Mother Corp



Some have suggested the CBC'S French-language service, Radio-Canada, should not have aired an interview with convicted terrorist Omar Khadr this past Sunday on its popular television talk show Tout le monde en parle.



Nope, the interview should have gone ahead. Even state broadcasters have a right to free speech.



Was Radio-Canada's choice of Easter Sunday to broadcast an interview with a former Islamic extremist a deliberate attempt to provoke Christians on their highest holiday? Maybe, but probably not.



And while the studio audience offered Khadr a fawning standing ovation and the host, Guy Lepage, tossed up a few friendly questions, there was nothing wrong with the show having Khadr as a guest – JUST NOT ON YOUR DIME AND MINE.



The Khadr appearance was a sophomoric effort to turn public opinion in his favour, to encourage him that he has plenty of elite support and tweak the noses of those who object to his current treatment by the federal government and courts.



However, while the episode may qualify as "fair comment," it is as good an example as any of why the CBC should no longer receive an annual taxpayer subsidy in the neighbourhood of $1.2 billion (or roughly four times what they P.E.I. government receives in equalization).



As legitimate as the CBC'S pro-Khadr views are (wrong, but legitimate), there are millions of Canadians with equally legitimate and valid views against his repatriation to Canada from an American prison, his early release from a Canadian jail and the federal government's 2017 compensation to him of $10.5 million. Yet the CBC never represents those opponents' views with the same amount of time or respect. Mother Corp's annual budget, though, comes equally from the taxes of his opponents and supporters.



That's the immorality of CBC funding.



If CTV falls all over itself to support Omar Khadr, or Justin Trudeau, or any one of a hundred fashionably liberal celebrities and politicians, so be it. At least it is doing so without the government taking money from taxpayers to subsidize the network's point of view.



If the Toronto Star or Globe and Mail or websites such as vice.com take biased positions, even if they pretend their opinions are real news, at least you are not compelled under law to give your cash to their efforts.



But you are forced to pay for the CBC whether you like it or not, whether you agree with the network or not, whether you watch or listen, or not.



If there was ever a justification for funding the CBC, that justification has evaporated in a media landscape with hundreds of channels, websites and streaming services.



The CBC likes to claim it is where Canadians tell one another their stories, but it hasn't told a story I was interested in in decades. Yet here I am every year kicking in my share of Mother Corp's budget.



(Indeed, most years I subsidize CBC to broadcast stories and opinions diametrically opposed to my own.)



I was a supporter of Khadr being repatriated from Guantanamo Bay because he is a Canadian citizen. I argued for him to receive the surgery he needed to save his eyesight – at taxpayer expense.



I welcomed the volunteerism of staff and students at Edmonton's King's University to help Khadr earn a degree. I backed his bail release in 2015. And while I opposed the federal payout to him (and still do), I thought it fair that a judge declared last month that his sentence was at an end.



But the point is the CBC is once again taking sides on a contentious issue using everyone's tax dollars. The only way to stop that is to end Ottawa's massive annual subsidy to CBC.

[Anonymous]

Even when former prime minister Harper had a majority, he never even suggested privatizing the CBC, as I recall.

[Wazzzup]

I thought progs hate corporate welfare. (BTW I generally agree with them on that)  What could be a bigger example of corporate welfare than a big corporation that could survive on its own getting taxpayer money?

[Anonymous]

I thought progs hate corporate welfare. (BTW I generally agree with them on that)  What could be a bigger example of corporate welfare than a big corporation that could survive on its own getting taxpayer money?

The political left in Canada does not oppose corporate welfare..



They just want to make sure the corporations they don't like, don't receive public monies.

[Thiel]

It really irks me that we are forced to pay $1.2 billion per year to pay for this propaganda machine for the federal Liberal party.



Omar Khadr segment highlights problems taxpayers have with Mother Corp



Some have suggested the CBC'S French-language service, Radio-Canada, should not have aired an interview with convicted terrorist Omar Khadr this past Sunday on its popular television talk show Tout le monde en parle.



Nope, the interview should have gone ahead. Even state broadcasters have a right to free speech.



Was Radio-Canada's choice of Easter Sunday to broadcast an interview with a former Islamic extremist a deliberate attempt to provoke Christians on their highest holiday? Maybe, but probably not.



And while the studio audience offered Khadr a fawning standing ovation and the host, Guy Lepage, tossed up a few friendly questions, there was nothing wrong with the show having Khadr as a guest – JUST NOT ON YOUR DIME AND MINE.



The Khadr appearance was a sophomoric effort to turn public opinion in his favour, to encourage him that he has plenty of elite support and tweak the noses of those who object to his current treatment by the federal government and courts.



However, while the episode may qualify as "fair comment," it is as good an example as any of why the CBC should no longer receive an annual taxpayer subsidy in the neighbourhood of $1.2 billion (or roughly four times what they P.E.I. government receives in equalization).



As legitimate as the CBC'S pro-Khadr views are (wrong, but legitimate), there are millions of Canadians with equally legitimate and valid views against his repatriation to Canada from an American prison, his early release from a Canadian jail and the federal government's 2017 compensation to him of $10.5 million. Yet the CBC never represents those opponents' views with the same amount of time or respect. Mother Corp's annual budget, though, comes equally from the taxes of his opponents and supporters.



That's the immorality of CBC funding.



If CTV falls all over itself to support Omar Khadr, or Justin Trudeau, or any one of a hundred fashionably liberal celebrities and politicians, so be it. At least it is doing so without the government taking money from taxpayers to subsidize the network's point of view.



If the Toronto Star or Globe and Mail or websites such as vice.com take biased positions, even if they pretend their opinions are real news, at least you are not compelled under law to give your cash to their efforts.



But you are forced to pay for the CBC whether you like it or not, whether you agree with the network or not, whether you watch or listen, or not.



If there was ever a justification for funding the CBC, that justification has evaporated in a media landscape with hundreds of channels, websites and streaming services.



The CBC likes to claim it is where Canadians tell one another their stories, but it hasn't told a story I was interested in in decades. Yet here I am every year kicking in my share of Mother Corp's budget.



(Indeed, most years I subsidize CBC to broadcast stories and opinions diametrically opposed to my own.)



I was a supporter of Khadr being repatriated from Guantanamo Bay because he is a Canadian citizen. I argued for him to receive the surgery he needed to save his eyesight – at taxpayer expense.



I welcomed the volunteerism of staff and students at Edmonton's King's University to help Khadr earn a degree. I backed his bail release in 2015. And while I opposed the federal payout to him (and still do), I thought it fair that a judge declared last month that his sentence was at an end.



But the point is the CBC is once again taking sides on a contentious issue using everyone's tax dollars. The only way to stop that is to end Ottawa's massive annual subsidy to CBC.

It is fine that all the private liberal media outlets gush over Omar Khadr, but the CBC. They get an awful lot of our money and we should not have to pay over one billion bucks annually to get the same biased opinions TorStar spews without costing us a dime.



It is unethical that a crown media corporation takes our money to compete with private media companies.

[Thiel]

I thought progs hate corporate welfare. (BTW I generally agree with them on that)  What could be a bigger example of corporate welfare than a big corporation that could survive on its own getting taxpayer money?

The political left in Canada does not oppose corporate welfare..



They just want to make sure the corporations they don't like, don't receive public monies.

Stephen Harper talked a good game about ridding the country of corporate welfare, but the realities of a minority government set in. When he finally got his majority, the reality of dealing with negative third party advertising bought by companies that suck the corporate welfare tit set in.



And it's the progressive left that supports corporate welfare. Carbon tax revenue goes for corporate welfare. And when you "we will invest", it means you will give your tax dollars to corporate freeloaders.

[Bricktop]

Same thing with the ABC here. 1 billion taxpayer dollars to push the leftist agenda.

[Anonymous]

The CBC should have been sold in the 90's under Chretien.

[Anonymous]

The CBC should have been sold in the 90's under Chretien.

The sold CN Rail.

[Anonymous]

I thought progs hate corporate welfare. (BTW I generally agree with them on that)  What could be a bigger example of corporate welfare than a big corporation that could survive on its own getting taxpayer money?

The political left in Canada does not oppose corporate welfare..



They just want to make sure the corporations they don't like, don't receive public monies.

Stephen Harper talked a good game about ridding the country of corporate welfare, but the realities of a minority government set in. When he finally got his majority, the reality of dealing with negative third party advertising bought by companies that suck the corporate welfare tit set in.



And it's the progressive left that supports corporate welfare. Carbon tax revenue goes for corporate welfare. And when you "we will invest", it means you will give your tax dollars to corporate freeloaders.

Trudeau is offering $430 million in corporate welfare for zero emissions venicles. Sohi made the announcement yesterday.

[Bricktop]

That's $430M of YOUR money.

[Anonymous]

I thought progs hate corporate welfare. (BTW I generally agree with them on that)  What could be a bigger example of corporate welfare than a big corporation that could survive on its own getting taxpayer money?

The political left in Canada does not oppose corporate welfare..



They just want to make sure the corporations they don't like, don't receive public monies.

Stephen Harper talked a good game about ridding the country of corporate welfare, but the realities of a minority government set in. When he finally got his majority, the reality of dealing with negative third party advertising bought by companies that suck the corporate welfare tit set in.



And it's the progressive left that supports corporate welfare. Carbon tax revenue goes for corporate welfare. And when you "we will invest", it means you will give your tax dollars to corporate freeloaders.

Trudeau is offering $430 million in corporate welfare for zero emissions venicles. Sohi made the announcement yesterday.

So, Trudeau is giving our money corporations to make electric cars. Six more months out of touch elitist pos.

[Gaon]

It should be illegal for the state to own a media company. It is absolutely immoral.

[Bricktop]

Its origins lies in the need for TV broadcasting to reach every corner of the land (or in the case of the UK, the Empire).



Private channels saw no profit in building infrastructure to reach remoter areas, and so governments copied the UK's BBC to allow people throughout the land and empire to access TV broadcasting.



In large countries with remote areas, like Australia and Canada, the government broadcaster is still the only access to live broadcast TV.



Unfortunately, like ALL government public services, the left flooded in and took control.

[Gaon]

Its origins lies in the need for TV broadcasting to reach every corner of the land (or in the case of the UK, the Empire).



Private channels saw no profit in building infrastructure to reach remoter areas, and so governments copied the UK's BBC to allow people throughout the land and empire to access TV broadcasting.



In large countries with remote areas, like Australia and Canada, the government broadcaster is still the only access to live broadcast TV.



Unfortunately, like ALL government public services, the left flooded in and took control.

I thought that might be the genesis of state owned broadcasters. But, since the mass media can reach the furthest corners of the world, it's time for Canada, Britain and Australia to sell public broadcast corporations.