As with J.J., I apologize profusely for taking so long to address your comment. I’m very sorry for your loss of your local station in Denver, and your “gain” of “2TheDeuce.” (Seriously, that’s their new brand? Eek!)

It’s funny in the very unfunny way how news sets are now being remodelled all in a very generic way, with specific colour schemes, layouts, carefully placed panel TVs, etc. It reminds me of how fast-food joints are all modeled to particular specs in order to make people hungry so they buy something, but too uncomfortable to stay very long, so there’s always room for more customers.

Maybe there are some realms best left free of marketing’s influence?

Welcome to the conversation! I only hope my egregious lateness in getting to your comment hasn’t discouraged you from continuing to contribute.

Actually, in a way, my unexpected absence has benefitted this particular discussion, as it’s allowed time for the CBC to work into its new skin, and for us in the audience to try getting used to it.

Sadly, I don’t feel it’s working.

You are very right in a lot of your observances on CBC, J.J., but I’m not sure you’re accounting for their dire financial situations. For decades CBC’s budget has been slashed by the government, forcing them to work with less and rely more on advertizing, thus pitting them, as you noted, against Global, CTV and other private competitors.

The problem with this is that CBC is not a private broadcaster, and shouldn’t be forced to act like one. Their high quality of journalism, openess to new forms of art, promotion of innovative music, promotion of intellectual discourse and appreciation for Canadian culture are rapidly eroding hallmarks of the CBC. These things are not popular commercially, and so need to be pursued by other means–namely by way of government funding and private donations.

Right now their attempt to be more hip, young, in-your-face and, ultimately, more attractive to advertizers, is ill-fated. All that I see happening is a loss of quality control in the newsroom, and almost deperate clinging to “Strombo” and the few other venture that have kinda, sorta worked…maybe.

You applaud CBC’s daring to be different, but from my perspective this is exactly what they are sacraficing. Investing in news that’s relevant and thoughtful, regardless of its lack of sexiness, stood out as a bold move in todays market oversaturated with loud, angry people, seizure-enducing cuts from one story to another, obnoxiously vapid banter amongst over-styled tv personalities; and all the other “new” stuff they’re trying out.

Now I admit that the CBC will never reclaim the prominence it once had. People just aren’t as interested by and large as they were. I concede that a much smaller-scale CBC is likely the reality becaue the justification for funding just isn’t there. But even a smaller version is better than losing it entirely, and getting just an awkward clone of the other networks in return.

I could go on. But, like I said, your words pretty much describe this situation.

Thanks for another fine example of interesting writing!

Debi

As a kid growing up in Cleveland, Ohio with London’s CFPL on cable in the 80-90s, as well as getting CBC Windsor over the air a bunch (Windsor is 160 mi. away), I can honestly say that “It’s about time”!!! I like the CBC’s new direction. It like it because its still simplistic compared to US tastes, but it gives CBC a spark it never had. I have always liked Canadian news since I was a kid, and I don’t think there is much to worry about in losing its unique presentation style. Yes, I know it is a bit more to their look than you may be used to, but it seems that more US stations are actually going the Canadian route of doing news. Look at WBZ-TV (Boston) or WCCO-TV intros/graphics on youtube and you’ll catch my drift. I am glad that CBC has made things interesting, instead of just keeping us comfortable. I was living in Seattle for the last 7 years, and got CBC BC on cable there, and I always felt that outside the “National”, CBC’s local product was lacking a direction and look. It was trying to be hip, while keeping its rigid, staid look. After awhile, it was a hot mess to look at (the Canada Now show). You can’t do both. CBC has now set the bar so that they can be more flexible and innovative at a faster rate, instead of being slow and mythodical. Trust me, they will become the BBC of North America with this new direction I think. And I don’t blame ‘em, for they have to go out there and compete with Global and CTV, plus all the BBC and US offerings out there in a crowded media spectrum. Also, the graphics are nothing like anything we have here, and seem to be very sophisticated and polished. I could only wish that US stations would take the risk and do what the CBC is doing…And one more thing…a few years back, once Strombo’s show hit the airwaves (The Hour), I had a feeling that CBC was using that as a test for what they are doing now…think about it, before The Hour, when has CBC put on anything that skewed (and was directly relevant) to the youth demographic?

Good to have you in on the conversation!

You are definitely right about change of any kind causing unease, and that we’d all do well to step back, take a deep breath and try to give CBC a fair, more objective assessment that involves less of our own fear of everything new and different. Honestly, we have to get bent out of shape just because they rearranged the furniture. It’s not necessarily the harbinger doom.

Then again, the writing is on the wall…at least as it’s displayed on a multitude of panel television screens.

As for CBC’s long-standing experimentation with social media, I agree. They have been at it for a while, and to a successful degree. I even wrote about it on an earlier form of this blog. However, this has more been in talking about social media through traditional means, or using social media tools for broadcasting. Their room for improvement lies in building and keeping connected with an actual community, including two-way dialogue and all. The higher-ups there just haven’t quite grasped the significance of the “Web 2.0″ mentality, and the savvy, demanding and extremely giving audience it has created.

Thanks very much for the comment.

I share your concern that CBC’s research and understanding of their audience leaves something to be desired. Further, my worry is that there’s really nowhere left to go, at least in the video/audio news broadcast business, if and when CBC goes the way of the Fox. To my mind CBC isn’t just part of an ongoing trend, but the last artisans in a dying craft. What will be left if traditional journalism doesn’t adjust to the changing market?

Plus, Evan Solomon now has a daily show. How can that be a bad thing?

Prior to the wholesale changes at CBC, I was a regular CBC Radio listener (everyday on my walk to work), and CBC Newsworld (every night before I fall asleep). As you’ve pointed out, the stylistic similarities between the new CBC and Fox, CNN et al., is uncanny, and unfortunate. Content wise, I find it similarly hurried and busy, while there are fewer redeeming, indepth pieces to keep me interested. Far be it for me to argue with the “research” the heads of CBC have done, but in the end, loyal viewers such as myself will grow weary of compromised coverage. I’ll simply have to go elsewhere.