Around the NHL — Episode XLXIX

[Beville]

From a much wider perspective, HNIC started in 1952 and Don Cherry was fired in 2019. HNIC was a lot more for many decades before Don Cherry.

2019?

Jesus, that time has flown by. Only seems like yesterday.

Glad he was booted though.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

The Canadian Brainwash Corporation. Who cares.

Nah, we need the CBC (and Global and CTV). Otherwise we'd never get any sort of Canadian programming on television. Hollywood is just to big and powerful not to have a carve-out for local talent and culture.

 

[Micklebot]

I can buy into many of the "CBC is an integral part of Canada" arguments that justify CBC's existence, but that doesn't really work for me when it comes to HNIC. CBC is publicly funded and I assume has to pay some relatively large amount for NHL broadcast rights... so the question is why should our tax dollars be going in to the pockets of millionaires and billionaires?

Did HNIC lose money for the CBC? Presumably it being one of the more popular draws might mean it's potentially profitable, no?

 

[Masked]

Nah, we need the CBC (and Global and CTV). Otherwise we'd never get any sort of Canadian programming on television. Hollywood is just to big and powerful not to have a carve-out for local talent and culture.

Crap Canadian programming is hardly necessary. Subsidizing mediocre Cancon means there's no effort to try and produce great shows.

 

[Micklebot]

Crap Canadian programming is hardly necessary. Subsidizing mediocre Cancon means there's no effort to try and produce great shows.

BBC produces lots of great subsidized Brit con, but you get what you pay for, they provide significantly more funding.

 

[Senscore]

You'd think with all the Canadian talent out there CBC would make shows people actually want to watch.


Kids on YouTube with zero budget make more interesting stuff than CBC.

 

[Masked]

BBC produces lots of great subsidized Brit con, but you get what you pay for, they provide significantly more funding.

The UK's private broadcasters also produce some great content. In Canada, we get Hudson & Rex and Law & Order: Toronto from our private broadcasters.

It's not even the UK. I can name a half dozen Australian shows that are better than any Canadian show that doesn't star Jared Keeso.

 

[Micklebot]

The UK's private broadcasters also produce some great content. In Canada, we get Hudson & Rex and Law & Order: Toronto from our private broadcasters.

It's not even the UK. I can name a half dozen Australian shows that are better than any Canadian show that doesn't star Jared Keeso.

Are they perhaps incentivized to produce better content because they have to compete with BBC's well funded high quality content?

 

[Micklebot]

So Hillier as HC in Toronto, eh? That's a choice I guess.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

The UK's private broadcasters also produce some great content. In Canada, we get Hudson & Rex and Law & Order: Toronto from our private broadcasters.

It's not even the UK. I can name a half dozen Australian shows that are better than any Canadian show that doesn't star Jared Keeso.

i think thats at least in part because of the funding differences. Other g7 countries fund their public broadcaster at much higher levels and Canada is one of the lowest. But funding it more would anger some even more.

 

[PatrickEaves]

BBC produces lots of great subsidized Brit con, but you get what you pay for, they provide significantly more funding.

8 out of of 9 cats and would i lie to you are both channel 4 content which is a public broadcaster with zero taxpayer funding, and they are still better than cbc content.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

Did HNIC lose money for the CBC? Presumably it being one of the more popular draws might mean it's potentially profitable, no?

I did a quick Google but couldnt find any definitive statement as to whether it is or is not currently profitable.

I do remember reading in the distant past that it was profitable... but that was like the 80s or 90s, and the cost of the broadcast rights have gone up so much that it's really hard for me to imagine that is still true.

 

[Emerica]

So Hillier as HC in Toronto, eh? That's a choice I guess.

Super uninspiring hire. Leafs fans thought David Carle was coming to be their saviour at one point lol

 

[Oscar The Grouch]

Owned by a company usually means they need to make a profit to survive, and if not, they're not being supported through public funds. None of that applies to the CBC.

You're right. So public media might be biased towards the government and private media are biased towards their shareholders.

But somehow only one those entities are responsible for "brain-washing"

Take a look down South at what's gone on with CBS.

 

[Masked]

Are they perhaps incentivized to produce better content because they have to compete with BBC's well funded high quality content?

I think it has more to do with our broadcasters having focused on simsubbing US shows instead of producing quality programming. They cheaped out on producing their mandated CanCon.

 

[Masked]

8 out of of 9 cats and would i lie to you are both channel 4 content which is a public broadcaster with zero taxpayer funding, and they are still better than cbc content.

Derry Girls was a channel 4 show that's one of the best comedies from anywhere.

 

[Relapsing]

i think thats at least in part because of the funding differences. Other g7 countries fund their public broadcaster at much higher levels and Canada is one of the lowest. But funding it more would anger some even more.

They're going to be angry one way or another.

 

[Relapsing]

You're right. So public media might be biased towards the government and private media are biased towards their shareholders.

But somehow only one those entities are responsible for "brain-washing"

Take a look down South at what's gone on with CBS.

You mean the broadcaster who has been bullied by a certain influential American person (I use the term person loosely here) into being more friendly towards him?

Would that be an example of a private broadcaster that's biased towards the government?

What about the broadcasters that are run by government friendly billionaires? Are they biased towards their shareholders, or the government?

 

[Micklebot]

I did a quick Google but couldnt find any definitive statement as to whether it is or is not currently profitable.

I do remember reading in the distant past that it was profitable... but that was like the 80s or 90s, and the cost of the broadcast rights have gone up so much that it's really hard for me to imagine that is still true.

Here's what I found; it's a bit more recent than 90s

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is hemorrhaging billions of dollars after losing the rights to Hockey Night In Canada, according to an internal federal memo.

According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the television network is out more than $2 billion after losing the 12-year licensing rights to Hockey Night In Canada. The memo, which was obtained via Access To Information, contradicts claims by network executive that the HNIC contract was only worth a “few dollars.”

https://torontosun.com/news/national/memo-cbc-loses-in-the-billions-after-hnic-fallout

Now, that's projecting 1 years loss across the 12 year contract, and Rogers paid roughly doubt that for the rights, so the article feels a bit misleading, but then again, the contract is a fixed cost, and inflation likely means those annual loses increase year to year rather than stay steady for 12 consecutive years.

On the flip side, the CBC head was quoted as saying they didn't make money of HNIC, stating “We have not lost hundreds of millions of dollars on the hockey contract,” then CBC head Hubert Lacroix said in 2015 testimony at the Senate communications committee. “We lost a few dollars.”

Seems like best case it was probably a bit of a wash. idk.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

You need to stop believing everything PP says my brother! CBC is part of the Canadian fabric, I grew up watching CBC like millions of Canadians. CBC is an integral part of Canada.

IF the CBC is as much as an “integral part of Canada” then moving away from annual taxpayer funded bailouts, to a subscriber styled, or Public Broadcasting funding shouldn’t be a problem….. the original purpose or mandate of the CBC, when conceived no longer applies today and needs to either compete on its own, or some type of membership subscription to gets it funding.

Just as Canada Post is no longer the only game in town, the CBC has to be kicked out of the nest and make it on its own.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

Every media company is owned by a company with interests they want to advance. So I guess they are all brainwash companies.

But Taxpayers that do not agree with the “interests” being advanced by every other media company, is NOT being annually being bailed out by the taxpayers…. Only the CBC

 

[Relapsing]

IF the CBC is as much as an “integral part of Canada” then moving away from annual taxpayer funded bailouts, to a subscriber styled, or Public Broadcasting funding shouldn’t be a problem….. the original purpose or mandate of the CBC, when conceived no longer applies today and needs to either compete on its own, or some type of membership subscription to gets it funding.

Just as Canada Post is no longer the only game in town, the CBC has to be kicked out of the nest and make it on its own.

Original purpose of the CBC when founded in 1936:

The original purpose of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), established by Parliament in 1936, was to create a national public broadcaster that would act as an instrument of national unity. It was specifically designed to promote Canadian culture, foster a shared national spirit, and counterbalance the heavy influence of American media spilling across the border.

Which of this no longer applies?

When does repeating political talking points become discussing politics? I feel like I'm at a campaign stop for people I don't vote for.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

Original purpose of the CBC when founded in 1936:

The original purpose of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), established by Parliament in 1936, was to create a national public broadcaster that would act as an instrument of national unity. It was specifically designed to promote Canadian culture, foster a shared national spirit, and counterbalance the heavy influence of American media spilling across the border.

Which of this no longer applies?

When does repeating political talking points become discussing politics? I feel like I'm at a campaign stop for people I don't vote for.

The CBC’s mandate, was to promote Canadian culture, strengthen national unity, and provide a public broadcasting service that private media couldn't. I think it’s safe to say the that private media does at least as much if not more than the cbc on these matters.


The CBC has become a heavily subsidized broadcaster with declining viewership, growing competition from digital media, and persistent accusations of political bias. If it is no longer effectively delivering on its original mandate, Canadians should seriously consider whether it still deserves taxpayer funding.