Hacker News Reader

Comment by appleiigs | Hacker News Reader

The whole thing is baffling to me.

First, why wouldn't they just keep the ads and ask for more funding. It would be a smaller ask.

Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media? Maybe the GlobeandMail should ditch their crappy pay wall or maybe the National Post shouldn't auto-play videos.

Third, if CBC had no ads, it'll be a better experience and it would gain customers from the privates. It's a fairer playing field if CBC has to fund itself. The whole problem of govt funded corps is that they have an unfair advantage against privates, but they're saying the opposite?

(I guess it's not as bad as the NDP in Alberta taking $1.3B of taxpayer money and giving it to the electricity producers.)

View on HN

Because then you've got the worst of both worlds - you're still going cap-in-hand looking for money but you're also delivering a product covered in advertising that most people don't want.

Second, why do they want taxpayers to effectively fund the private media?

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is publicly owned. Doing basic research is a great way to avoid looking foolish before commenting on the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporat...

My question was why do the want to fund private media. If you read the article it says "Critics have said that the CBC is taking ad revenue away from private media that are struggling financially." I wasn't asking why taxpayers were funding the CBC, a public company.

EDIT: regarding "worst of both worlds", CBC gets to fulfill it's mandate at a cheaper cost with ads.

I think there is merit to the argument that the government should do its best to not compete with private industry unless that competition is "fair" and warranted. Given that ad space is currently abundant and declining in value the "not warranted" part is pretty clear and that a public broadcaster need not run at a profit the "fair" part is a pretty good point too.

They are not considering "funding" private media so much as no longer undermining it to some (I think small) extent. (I am largely undecided on this point myself.)

But there's no certainty that if CBC goes ad-free the same amount of ad revenue will naturally flow to its competitors. I think you're assuming there's a fixed amount of money in the economy that must go somewhere if CBC stops carrying ads.

Consider the possibility that company X advertises on CBC and 3 other private broadcasters. CBC stops showing ads, but it doesn't follow that company X will now increase its ad spend at the other vendors. Now it's true that the privately owned outlets might raise their ad prices a bit now that there are fewer ad slots available across the media as a whole, or they might increase their ratio of advertising to programming - at least up to the point where consumers get sick of hearing so many ads.

Anyway, private media outlets might make more money out of this...but then again they might not. It's no sure thing and so it's inaccurate to claim that ad spending will automatically shift towards the remaining market participants.

We are on the same page I think. The CBC is saying $158mm will go to private media. You say that's inaccurate. I'm saying if it is accurate, taxpayers shouldn't be paying $400mm more for $158mm to go to private media.

I'm guessing they're facing conflicts of interest that they would not have to deal with if they were not beholden to advertisers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com