CBC has been Canada’s number one network for trustworthy information, whether it is in the form of news or entertainment. According to CBC's mandate: “We tell YOUR stories, actively contributing to Canada's cultural expression, promoting a shared national identity and consciousness, and reflecting the country’s multicultural and multiracial nature”(CBC). In the 1920’s, Canada's national public broadcaster had become “a leader in producing and distributing distinctive Canadian content.”(CBC) So what happened? After taking a closer look at CBCs current broadcasting lineup, it is apparent there is a lack of sincere multicultural programming. It can be strongly argued that over the past decade, CBC has lost its niche for Canadian television. On
…show more content…
“We realize that in European countries, the term ‘multiculturalism’ has lost much of its appeal in recent years” (Roth, d’Haenens, & Le Brun, 2001, pg. 381). CBC admitted that they needed popular programming which is “absolutely necessary to attract the advertising needed to fund Canadian programs” (“Harsh realities”, 1995, para. 9). This must be the excuse for “Schitt’s Creek”. The ratings and attention towards the famous actors, support CBC’s statement that popular demand is what keeps them running. Without these seemingly un-Canadian shows, CBC would suffer “in a world where consumers are being offered more programming choices than ever” (“Harsh realities”, 1995, para. 4). The Broadcasting Act, 1991, suggests that the Canadian broadcasting system should, through its programming, “serve the needs and interests, and reflect the the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society” (Roth, d’Haenens, & Le Brun, 2001, pg. …show more content…
7). It can be argued that this was felt simply because of financial purposes, but they have a point about what certain funding should be used for. The funny part is, CBC knows it and are aware that the “drastic restructuring required to achieve these goals will be painful” (“Harsh realities”, 1995, para. 5). It can be strongly argued that CBC should not be hosting shows like “Schitt’s Creek”, “anytime the CBC creates programs that could be produced by the other networks it takes away funds for truly original programming” (“Harsh realities”, 1995, para.
“We realize that in European countries, the term ‘multiculturalism’ has lost much of its appeal in recent years” (Roth, d’Haenens, & Le Brun, 2001, pg. 381). CBC admitted that they needed popular programming which is “absolutely necessary to attract the advertising needed to fund Canadian programs” (“Harsh realities”, 1995, para. 9). This must be the excuse for “Schitt’s Creek”. The ratings and attention towards the famous actors, support CBC’s statement that popular demand is what keeps them running. Without these seemingly un-Canadian shows, CBC would suffer “in a world where consumers are being offered more programming choices than ever” (“Harsh realities”, 1995, para. 4). The Broadcasting Act, 1991, suggests that the Canadian broadcasting system should, through its programming, “serve the needs and interests, and reflect the the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society” (Roth, d’Haenens, & Le Brun, 2001, pg. …show more content…
7). It can be argued that this was felt simply because of financial purposes, but they have a point about what certain funding should be used for. The funny part is, CBC knows it and are aware that the “drastic restructuring required to achieve these goals will be painful” (“Harsh realities”, 1995, para. 5). It can be strongly argued that CBC should not be hosting shows like “Schitt’s Creek”, “anytime the CBC creates programs that could be produced by the other networks it takes away funds for truly original programming” (“Harsh realities”, 1995, para.