Carney pledges $150M boost to 'underfunded' CBC
Carney pledges $150M boost to 'underfunded' CBC
52 comments
-
"When we compare ourselves to the U.K., France or Germany, we see that our public broadcaster is underfunded," Carney said in French during a campaign stop in Montreal. "That has to change."
"We expect that in the coming years, we will continue to increase that funding until it can be compared to that provided by other public broadcasters."
Carney also said funding of the CBC and Radio-Canada would be made statutory, meaning any changes would have to be approved by Parliament, not just the government's cabinet.
"Canadians themselves and their entire Parliament must decide on the future of Radio-Canada/CBC — not ideologues," he said.
Wow, just wow. There's more, read the article.
-
It's dangerous to like a leader as much as I like this guy. There's much in his world view that inspires ambivalence. But then every actual move is just so on point that it's hard to ignore this nagging doubt -- because it's just too good to be true.
Like what's the absolute worst thing he's done so far? In my book it was scrapping the carbon tax; it was defusing something that could cost the election, in a way that can even be easily reverted, at a time when it's about the least important short-term concern.
-
His policy proposals are acceptable but in this day and age that is not how elections are won, especially with misinformation being pumped directly into our veins.
Elections are won on vibes and he comes across as calm and rational in a time when Canadians are desperate for that energy (with an agent of chaos ie. Trump breathing down our collective necks).
If we're being completely real, the liberals were getting decimated in this election regardless of who they put forth if not for Trump's aggressive threats towards Canada's sovereignty and economy.
-
Yeah, that's the hilarious thing. If Trump really wanted Canada under his thumb all he'd have to do was literally nothing. If he'd just shut up about Canada and waited then we'd have elected a right-wing stooge who would've sold us out for a nickel.
People keep trying to justify Trump's actions as some kind of convoluted master plan (either his own or Putin's) but really, he's just an idiot, and the only reason why he's been successful is because he lives in a nation of craven cowards who refuse to stand up to him.
-
I'm going to reiterate a prediction I first made about 5 months ago, that Poilievre was going to win at least a minority but it would actually be very tight. He campaigned hard for 2 years off-season while receiving little to no journalistic scrutiny -- just propaganda from the right-wing rags. I always believed his lead would be heavily eroded when the general public started paying attention to him, rather than just his base built on grievance politics.
I never could have dared hope I'd be this wrong. But the factors I identified are still in play, and the difference largely amounts to strong circumstantial reinforcements. I.e. the new elements are the undercutting of his fake issues and Dumpster showing us what not to do so much more clearly (understandably to a wide audience) than I anticipated.
Having serious stakes really amps up how tired many of us actually are with politicians running on vibes. I don't think it's accurate to call Carney's behavior vibes when it's marked by things like answering questions and fulfilling promises. Vibes are a big part of what's getting rejected so hard with both Poilievre and to a lesser but still significant extent Singh. And it's because this time we can't afford to just play the usual "it's time for something else" whack-a-mole.
At this point I wouldn't reduce anyone's views and choices to being vibes based. Even the really bad ones are rooted in deeply held ideology and deliberate movements to radicalize people by appealing to/infiltrating those ideologies.
-
The stakes in Canada are certainly higher than in the US where many do not know or are just now learning what a tariff is.
Perhaps this election is less vibes based due to those high stakes but I do feel Carney is the right vibe, or at least the one Canadians are looking for, even if it is not intentional and just happens to be who he is.
He is in many ways the antithesis to Trump, in terms of being relatively dry and matter of fact, which is the type of leader Canadians are looking to rally around.
I appreciate your insights. Far right wolf-in-sheeps-clothing conservatives have seen success globally by presenting themselves as reformists and it seemed like Canada was about to go down the same path.
Perhaps it wouldn't have played out that way once Poilievre's lack of substance received broader scrutinity but Trudeau's and the Liberal party's approval rating just a few months ago would suggest otherwise. Poilievre, Jenni Byrne and the rest of the conservative party likely assumed this would be a cakewalk.
Credit to Trudeau for realizing people were tired of him and Canada for having a system where a new leader could be voted in by the party before an election was called, so that it didn't turn into the shitshow that was the Biden-Harris handoff.
-
I don't know if I'd say the stakes are higher. Poilievre could win and I'd still rather be here than the states (for as long as here still isn't). 😛
For vibes, I look more to Charlie Angus. And it's probably for the best that he can reflect what's in our hearts and give us that catharsis, without being in a position to really enflame tensions. There's already a considerable difference between what I'd want to say and do and what my smarter more measured, dispassionate self would say and do. And then Carney finds a stance and tone that's close to my latter option, but I must begrudgingly admit is even better.
-
-
-
-
I know right? I have to fight myself to keep my skepticism healthy.
-
Doubt your own party leader?
This is one of those "tell me your political leaning without telling me" type comments.
E: I acknowledge this joke didn't hit and ultimately was super unclear.
-
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell me what you think I'm telling you. I'm struggling to see the gotcha in making a choice while preserving skepticism.
-
I suspect a big part of it is me not being particularly clear in my messaging nor successfully using an overtly obvious comedic tone. It's a miss on my part by virtue of drive-by commentary ha ha.
The main intent to my joke was pointing to the asymmetry between how the left and right tend to view party leaders - the left tends to be more skeptical to the leader of their own movement, where the right tends to evangelize them, and how Canada is USA light in this context (MAGA for instance is a Trump religion, whereas there was no such movement around Kamala - PP attempted to emulate this, where Carney kind of jumped in as the Liberals "best compromise" (in light of Trudeau and Freeland's numbers)).
It's also why the Overton window continuously moves right.
-
Ah, ok. Comedy is hard. 😄
-
-
-
-
-
I think everyone knows how great the BBC is. But, not everyone knows just how big and important it is. It is the largest broadcast news organization in the world. It has more than 5500 journalists and 50 foreign news bureaus. Canada shouldn't compete with the BBC, but it should at least be BBC-like within its own borders.
Other national broadcasters are also great. Look at Australia's Triple J for example. Not only does it expose young Australians to Australian music they wouldn't otherwise hear on commercial radio, it also has science programs aimed at children and young adults. I love Dr. Karl's stuff, even though I'm definitely not in the target demographic (being non-Australian and old).
IMO, the statutory funding isn't enough either. It's a step in the right direction. But, if all it takes is parliament voting, then it's vulnerable to the next PC majority. If it's made independent enough, that should also help it avoid accusations of being a government mouthpiece.
-
Seems to be mid 20th-century liberal with national projects.
Nice.
-
52 comments