Hacker News Reader

> Why does entertainment need public funding?

You know that CBC isn't all about entertainment, but also hires a lot of journalists, right? And I don't see Disney or Marvel making content with the Canadian culture and heritage in mind.

> but also hires a lot of journalists, right?

That... weird. Having government approved journalists on government payroll sure sounds like something out of China, Russia or Cuba.

I mean let's face it, will they really critisize and investigate the hands that signs their check?

It also has the second order effect of making it harder for independant medias to compete, since they can't just get free government money.

> And I don't see Disney or Marvel making content with the Canadian culture and heritage in mind.

Is there a market for it? Right now this content is dumped by a single player that's subsidized. No reason to enter this space.

Gosh I've had this conversations more times than years I've lived I'd expect. I suspect I understand your position, never the less.. last I'd checked, we'd pretty fully embraced socialism for quite some time now. I'm fine with whatever the majority want if the direction was to change, however... Maxime Bernier didn't exactly do well.

My only nit pick on the CBC is that I believe the very REASON Canada has so much fantastic media is because the government funds independent artists, could someone like Matt Dusk have had a career in any other country? He certainly doesn't say so. Leonard Cohen, Drake, Shania Twain, all funded by the government, because of the Canadian Content mandate, the mandate dutifully fulfilled by our national broadcaster. Additionally, I very much enjoy shows like DNTO, Quirks & Quarks and especially: not having them chocked full of advertising.

> Leonard Cohen, Drake, Shania Twain, all funded by the government, because of the Canadian Content mandate, the mandate dutifully fulfilled by our national broadcaster

It's interesting to consider Justin Bieber's houses right here in California were purchased in part with Canadian government subsidies [0].

[0] https://www.velvetropes.com/backstage/justin-bieber-house

I'm fine with a federally funded broadcaster. Media in Canada (news and entertainment) has really nose-dived since private industry all amalgamated in the 2000s. It's not perfect, but it's not as bad as it could be. (that's kind of the Great Canadian Motto)

Most newspapers are all copy/paste nationwide now, and the majority of TV production is handled by the people who own the medium into the house (cable/fibre/satellite), making "Canadian, eh!" versions of American culture and passing it off as CanCon.

The CBC are out there at least trying to keep it real. Most of them, at least.

> That... weird. Having government approved journalists on government payroll sure sounds like something out of China, Russia or Cuba.

The government doesn't actively handle the hiring, CBC has journalistic independence from the government. They in fact handle all of their internal systems (email, data, phone) independently from the government.

> I mean let's face it, will they really critisize and investigate the hands that signs their check?

They do all the time in fact, and they report on themselves even if it shines a negative light.

Example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/khan-cbc-canadaland-tweet-che...

> Is there a market for it? Right now this content is dumped by a single player that's subsidized. No reason to enter this space.

When the majority of the private content available is from the US, it's also hard to compete with the torrents of culture they push on us. At least CBC is actively pushing content that is culturally significant.

> The government doesn't actively handle the hiring, CBC has journalistic independence from the government. They in fact handle all of their internal systems (email, data, phone) independently from the government.

But, at the end of the year, who signs the check?

> it's also hard to compete with the torrents of culture they push on us

Not sure "pushing" is the correct term. I remember when Hulu and Netflix started to disrupt the market a lot of Canadians were trying to trick those companies into serving them, with fake addresses and VPNs.

Didn't radio stations used to play "Government mandated Canadian Content" at night because listeners were just tuning out if they did it during peak hours? [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content#Regulations

Doctors make more in the States. The CBC is not an entertainment organization and some things are worthwhile but cannot compete in the market.

> Meaning medical staff ultimately is on government payroll.

They aren't government employees though. They all bill the same insurance, but they still have to compete on service, efficiency, availability, and friendliness. So inevitably some healthcare providers will do better than others.

> Why does entertainment need public funding?

Because it's more than just "entertainment".

> Marvel and Disney made billions last year by simply making content that people want to watch

And now you have powerful forces who want to perma-extend copyright terms and lock up popular culture behind paywalls until everyone who cares about it is dead. And even longer than that.

> What does that tell us about the people working there full time?

In professional sports, it's common for some teams to advertise themselves as feeder teams for the big names. The pitch is "Join us and see where you could end up one day."

> They aren't government employees though. They all bill the same insurance

That sounds like using contractors to skirt employment laws for public servants.

> Because it's more than just "entertainment".

sitcoms that end up on netflix?

> In professional sports, it's common for some teams to advertise themselves as feeder teams for the big names. The pitch is "Join us and see where you could end up one day."

Again, what does that tells us about those who join those teams but can't transfer out? They weren't good enough for the real teams.

Could you picture Google bragging about their interns going to Apple or Tesla?

> That sounds like using contractors to skirt employment laws for public servants.

Not sure which employment laws are being skirted here but whatevs.

Defence companies typically also have the same buyers as healthcare providers - governments. Unlike healthcare providers, they're even more limited in who they can sell to. So whatever you're saying applies to them too.

> sitcoms that end up on netflix?

First off, cultural exports are a good thing to have. But also, the CBC does other valuable work. Other people in this thread have also explained this to you but it seems like your mind is made up, so I won't bother.

> They weren't good enough for the real teams.

Yeah maybe, so what? No shame in that; everyone's gotta work somewhere. You're also ruling out people who are there for personal reasons, or because they genuinely like the place, or they don't have any "higher" aims.

> Could you picture Google bragging about their interns going to Apple or Tesla?

Last time I checked, Apple or Tesla (or Google) weren't planning to sell liquor in Ontario. They're not competitors.

> Yeah maybe, so what? No shame in that; everyone's gotta work somewhere. You're also ruling out people who are there for personal reasons, or because they genuinely like the place, or they don't have any "higher" aims.

No shame indeed. It's just weird that they brag about their best interns leaving for better companies. Usually, the point of having internships is to attract and retain talent.

> Last time I checked, Apple or Tesla (or Google) weren't planning to sell liquor in Ontario. They're not competitors.

They are when it comes to tech hiring. By their own admission, they hire from the same pool.