CBC/Radio-Canada to cut 10 per cent of workforce, end some programming as it faces $125M budget shortfall : canada

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

I'm a full supporter of the CBC ... the public absolutely needs a publically funded broadcaster and news organisation.

What we don't need is high paid executives that soak so much needless waste just to hold on to supposed high ranked talent. Spread the money around and fund more young journalists, writers, producers and production people. It would be better to have lots of moderately paid professionals, rather than try to spend as much money as possible in a few high priced executives.

And move the headquarters away from an expensive downtown city. Place it in a part of the country that needs the money. We live in a digital world so there is no great need to physically locate your office in the most expensive place possible.

I can't get any reasonable source of where CBC money goes because the federal government doesn't provide a sunshine list of what people actually make and how much they actually spend. Which is also a problem as the costs the CBC incurs should be fully disclosed. How are we to judge how much to give to the CBC if we don't fully understand where their funds go.

There are ways to save the CBC, we don't need to save a few high priced people, high priced contracts in order to do it.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Does that help?

https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/2023-2024-second-quarterly-report

https://site-cbc.radio-canada.ca/documents/impact-and-accountability/finances/2023/2022-2023-Annual-Report.pdf

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's great ... but I shouldn't need a financial degree or specialized training and vocabulary and knowledge in order to be able to understand what an organization has done with public money.

The accountability is to average people ... so the documentation that should be shared should be understood by average people.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Compared to what the actual bookkeeping must look like to manage at this scale, this document is actually quite approachable.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

If any organization really wanted to ... no matter how big or complex they are .. they should be capable of simplifying their profits, costs and expenses in a clear concise way. I shouldn't have to scroll through pages of financial charts to try to interpret for myself where and why the money went and came from. Financial data and political language has turned into a game that is only spoken and understood by a small group of people and everyone else told they are incapable of understanding and should only trust what they are told.

I'm Indigenous and I know from the outside what government bureaucracy sounds like and what kind of language they speak. On one side, they'll say they know what they are doing and to trust them ... then on the other tell you that you don't know what you are talking about when you question them.

There is any easy answer to this and easy response ... it just isn't given which is why there is so much suspicion and animosity towards the CBC. If the proponents of the CBC can't be clear, honest and respectful of dialogue ... how do you expect anyone to support them in the public space? Or maybe that was the plan all along .... to just seed distrust and let the public themselves decide that we should do away with the CBC.

In any case, the future of the CBC does not look good and much like most good things in this world these days, it is being destroyed from within rather than from any outside force.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago

Shouldn't you? How about what an organization does with private money?

Financials of large'ish organizations can be complicated, and CBC is spread out across the country from large cities to small. That's why businesses hire accountants and people with financial backgrounds.

That said, I don't discount that CBC might have some fat to be trimmed, but I wouldn't expect to be able to figure that from just financial reports. It's awhile back but I worked with a bunch of people who migrated out primarily because of the overly-bureaucratic and often "it's who you know" atmosphere.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If you only go after unknowns that want to live in a remote community then all talent will go to the private sector

If you list salaries more people will call for defunding

Which further lowers quality

You saw the same thing with Post Media claiming CBC has tons of expensive real estate but they didn’t list their own holdings

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

CBC actually rents most of its office space now, including the new building in Montreal, it doesn't own the building. Which complicates things about leasing the space to other businesses or modifying the lease agreement depending on their financial situation in a short timeframe.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't trust high priced talent of any kind ... public or private ... because they don't care what happens to any institution public or private - they'll always just go to the highest bidder.

Whereas if you have more moderately paid talent .. you have more individuals working and competing inside their organization. It would never be a utopia and there would still be lots of headaches and stupidity ... but I'd rather put my trust in 20 people rather than 1 person who is working for top dollar.

I would rather place my bets on ten potential talents ... than on one sure bet that could easily just sabotage everything and everyone to make a bit more money.

Every talent comes from somewhere and seeding those chances are liable to spring new talent more often than in endlessly holding onto one overly hyped talent that we're made to believe is irreplaceable

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The 10 of those 20 worth having will be bought out and you’ll be stuck with the 10 not worth having

And with them goes their audience

[–] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 8 points 11 months ago

We shouldn't be having CBC depend on ad revenue either. The federal government needs to fund them better.

[–] vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Fuck them for defunding CBC. They have too much value to lose to austerity.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Inflation (increasing production cost, hardware, licensing, salaries) and dwindling ad revenue was a double-whammy on their finance projection, and now they sadly have to adjust where layoffs are necessary.. :(

[–] vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean, I get it, but I also don't think our federal broadcaster should have ever had to rely on ad dollars.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

I wish they did manage to rely entirely on public funding...

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

CBC/Radio-Canada — which received around $1.3 billion in public funding in the 2022-2023 fiscal year

Well, that's all I needed to hear. Shut the entire thing down and reduce our taxes, please. FFS.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 36 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Should we shut down public funding for schools while we're at it?

How dare the government spend money to keep the public educated and informed!

/s

P.S. You're an idiot.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You're right, why put an extra $1.3 billion per year into our school system when we can "educate and inform" Canadians through programming like Fridge Wars and Hockey Night In Canada?.

/s

If you'd like to continue funding a dying media group, be my guest. I'd rather not use tax dollars to support an unsustainable entertainment broadcaster.

[–] jcrm@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah because that's what all the money is going towards. Definitely not the incredible news coverage and investigative journalism. There's also this wild thing called "cultural programming" the CBC does, like highlighting and funding Canadian media and stories.

Fuck all the people like you complaining about them taking your tax dollars. If everyone paid equally for it, their current budget totals ~$3/month for every Canadian. If you wanna bitch about wasted tax dollars, how about we talk about the tens of billions in subsidies going to oil and gas?

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Definitely not the incredible news coverage and investigative journalism.

I don't disagree, as I also enjoy their news and investigative journalism, but that's beside the point.

There's also this wild thing called "cultural programming" the CBC does, like highlighting and funding Canadian media and stories.

They are mandated to, but they also aren't the only ones doing it.

Fuck all the people like you complaining about them taking your tax dollars. If everyone paid equally for it, their current budget totals ~$3/month for every Canadian.

Forced $45 a year, plus they paywall their News Network.

I would rather my tax dollars go elsewhere, but that's just me. $45 per person is a lot. We could double Parks Canada's funding if we gave it to them instead.

If you wanna bitch about wasted tax dollars, how about we talk about the tens of billions in subsidies going to oil and gas?

Can't we do both? After all, we give the CBC almost as much as we give the Department of the Environment.

[–] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ you're really licking the boots of American news corps and billionaires eh? $45 is worth the quality reality based news we get.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

Imagine if we doubled that to 90$/year. Hopefully they could free themselves up from having to serve ads to make ends meet, and make the news network free for all.

[–] atomWood@lemm.ee 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I’m personally happy with my taxes funding public services like CBC.

While you could argue that we get taxed a lot, and that our taxes are not always well spent, the average person receives a ton of value for the amount of money they put in.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

the average person receives a ton of value

I don't doubt that they're offering value to some people with the sheer number of TV and radio programming they offer, but the argument is whether taxpayers should be supporting them.

They generate over a half billion a year from ads and non-government funding, and they charge people (like Netflix does) for their “premium” content.

If they can't sustain themselves through a normal business model, I don't see why we have to keep their business going. $1.3 billion a year is not chump change.

Just to put that into perspective, we give the CBC more than we give Canada Post, VIA Rail, Canadian Museum for Human Rights, Canadian Museum of Nature ,Canadian Transportation Agency, Department for Women and Gender Equality, Library and Archives of Canada, National Film Board, National Museum of Science and Technology, COMBINED.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Just to put that into perspective, we give the CBC more than we give Canada Post, VIA Rail, Canadian Museum for Human Rights, Canadian Museum of Nature ,Canadian Transportation Agency, Department for Women and Gender Equality, Library and Archives of Canada, National Film Board, National Museum of Science and Technology, COMBINED.

What kind of Gish Gallop-ass argument is this? Random museums, a rail operator, various crown corps?

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry if that overwhelmed you.

The previous poster said that CBC offers "a ton of value" to the average Canadian.

I was pointing out that while true, we give them more money than other programs and services (combined) that offer all Canadians more value.

If you believe that an entertainment broadcaster deserves more money than our national postal and rail services (among a ton of other resources), then that's your choice.

I don't think they do, and I think Canadians would benefit more from having $1.3 billion allocated to other things.

Heck, the CBC gets more than Parks Canada, National Research Council of Canada, and almost as much as the Department of the Environment!

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

entertainment broadcaster

I think it's a safe bet that most Canadians consider CBC primarily a news organization. Either way, comparing their budget to organizations that can bill customers directly, like Parks Canada or Canada Post, is incredibly dishonest.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I think it’s a safe bet that most Canadians consider CBC primarily a news organization.

Maybe. Maybe not. The fact is, the CBC doesn't do only news, so we are funding their large entertainment wing, too.

Either way, comparing their budget to organizations that can bill customers directly is incredibly dishonest.

Well, CBC also has alternate revenue streams, including direct billing for their paid services (like Netflix or Disney).

What's dishonest is the CBC claiming that their News Network is not publicly funded.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago

I agree, that is dishonest. All CBC services should be free for all Canadians, even if that requires a larger budget.

[–] charles@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you read the article you linked, you'll see at the bottom that News Network is not allowed to receive public funds due to rules by the CRTC.

You'll also see that even the CBC acknowledges that News Network benefits from the other CBC services that do receive funds, but that it doesn't mean that News Network is publicly funded.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It quite literally says, "As such, while CBC News Network does not receive public funds directly, it does, in fact, operate using publicly-funded resources.".

We can split hairs, but they were not being very transparent or honest.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

As such, while CBC News Network does not receive public funds directly, it does, in fact, operate using publicly-funded resources."

Seems pretty transparent and honest to me.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It would be if the CBC said it, but they didn't. They said the opposite. What I quoted was what the report uncovered.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

I guess you can keep on whining then.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Maybe. Maybe not. The fact is, the CBC doesn’t do only news, so we are funding their large entertainment wing, too.

That's true. Out of curiosity, do you know how each branch fares in terms of income generation? Because it may very well be that their entertainment wing is helping subsidize the news part. - not saying this is the case, I don't know, just considering the possibility that cutting the entertainment part might make it harder to do the news part

Also, some of the entertainment also serves a social good purpose... not saying all of it, but definitely some of it. It's hard to really call the whole thing wasteful just because it's categorized as entertainment. Providing access to culture is one of the things that a broadcast corporation should be doing.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago

If they can’t sustain themselves through a normal business model, I don’t see why we have to keep their business going.

The "why" is because it's probably a net positive for society. That's how it goes for public services, stuff that might not be viable via a normal business model but still should be done, so we all share the bill.

[–] ashtrix@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How much reduction do you expect to see in your taxes by shutting down CBC? Of course I'd like to see them cut costs but having a public broadcaster for Canadians is worth the couple of dollars you'll save

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

At 1.3B$/year that would be an average of $34.21/year per Canadian if we round it out to 38M, but more realistically if we go with how many tax returns there were in 2023 (around 31.8M), that would be an average of $40.88/year per taxpayer.

At the current rate of inflation, that's like one meal for a family of four at McDonalds.

Does the CBC need to absolutely return a profit? Should hospitals be held to the same target of becoming profitable no matter what? It's a public service, it's our culture, we have great reporters who are keeping the government accountable by constantly digging. I'm not saying it should be careless financially and it needs to balance its budget so that it doesn't waste the taxpayers money, but to me that is the price of a healthy democracy.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

At the current rate of inflation, that’s like one meal for a family of four at McDonalds.

And that's if you divide it homogeneously across all tax brackets, which you shouldn't, but it's good napkin math.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

How about we cut all federal funding for fossil fuel and mining companies instead?

Oil Change International finds Canadian governments provided $14 billion per year to oil, gas, coal. Source

The Canadian government announced that the 2022 budget would feature up to $3.8 billion in funding to support mining efforts in Canada over the next eight years. Source

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Why stop there? Cut subsidies to livestock and other environmentally destructive industries, too.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio-Canada announced Monday that it plans to cut about 10 per cent of its workforce and axe some programming to cope with a potential $125 million budget shortfall.

The corporation said earlier this year it had begun cutting $25 million through measures such as limiting travel, sponsorships and marketing, and delaying technology initiatives.

The public broadcaster blamed its budget issues on "rising production costs, declining television advertising revenue and fierce competition from the digital giants."

Chris Waddell, professor emeritus at Carleton University's school of journalism, said the cuts come as no surprise at a time when news organizations around the world are struggling.

In June, Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE) Inc. announced it would be axing 1,300 positions and closing or selling nine radio stations.

At the time, Bell — the parent company of CTV National News, BNN and CP24 — said the job cuts were a response to unfavourable public policy and regulatory conditions that it could no longer wait out.

The original article contains 744 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Canada

Communities

Rules