The PBS public broadcasting model works quite well in the USA. If it is biased, then no doubt, that is what its audience wants. PBS does not act as a national or local news agency, like the US commercial networks do. Its scope is vastly smaller than the CBC's or BBC's.
There is no need for PBS to duplicate what is already available from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Reuters, and many other news providers. PBS fills a niche.
With government funding, the CBC crowds out potential private sector competitors that would fill its role if given a chance. The Tyee.ca is a good example.
With voluntary donations, the CBC would no doubt be smaller, but it could fill a niche as PBS does, and be just as helpful.
Yet it would make the CBC accountable to Canadians, not to the government. You're again begging the question: why isn't the government accountable to Canadians? This leads to a certain confusion with your proposal. On one hand, you suggest that individual Canadians value an impartial CBC such that they will donate in sufficient quantities to fund its operations. On the other, you suggest that individual Canadians don't value an impartial CBC enough to vote for parties that promise such.
There is no confusion. Whether the CBC attracts sufficient donations would depend on the quality of their service, and the effectiveness of their marketing, etc.
At present, CBC funding is controlled by the Prime Minister, who also appoints the board and president. Furthermore, as the video states, the Ombudsman has always been a former CBC employee, which suggests a probable pro-CBC bias. Moreover, the CBC is not accountable directly to Canadians. Perhaps that is why many people do not want to be forced to fund the CBC with their taxes.
Anyway, has any politician actually promised to make the CBC impartial? Any such promise would have to stipulate that the CBC would be funded directly by Canadians, not by the government.
To avoid a CBC corporate bias, the CBC could be required to refuse corporate donations exceeding $1000, for example. Then at the outset you're restricting the possible universe of CBC funding to one vastly smaller than that of the already-impoverished PBS.
Not if a box were proved on everyone's tax form, allowing an anonymous, voluntary donation.
Your plan regarding individual donors suffers irreparably from the "free-rider problem" of group action. The benefit of a publicly-broadcasting CBC is available to everyone, yet the costs would only be borne by those who choose to donate. Even if everyone would be willing to donate in proportion to their benefit, in sufficient quantity to fund CBC operations, it's to each individual's benefit to not donate. This is a classic issue of game theory, and the Nash equilibrium is such that very few people donate and the CBC is not funded.
Numerous charities and religious organizations survive and thrive on donations. PBS has survived on donations for many years. The CBC can too. Perhaps the "Nash equilibrium" ignores other important factors that influence people's economic decisions.
Similarly, this is why public infrastructure such as roads and parks are generally funded by tax revenues. When they are not funded by tax revenues, the alternative is universally tolls or gated access (limiting the benefits to those who pay) rather than voluntary donations.
Roads are necessary. The CBC is not. So your comparison is not valid.
The "left-ish" argument in favour of the CBC considers the public news provider to be something akin to public infrastructure, where there is considerable social benefit to having an independent-of-corporate-influence news provider. If you consider that goal to be worthwhile (and many people don't), then there is no practical alternative but a taxpayer subsidy.
I agree that independent journalism is a worthy goal. But the CBC earns over $500,000,000 from advertising every year. Can it be independent of corporate influence? And how about the Amanda Land RBC controversy?
As well, what about freedom from political influence? Do Canadians not value that? If so, then the CBC should not be funded by the government.
Also, Canadians must surely want the CBC to judge itself honestly. But that seems unlikely, given that the Ombudsman is and has always been a former CBC employee. As the video points out, it is not clear that the CBC has ever intended the Ombudsman to be impartial.
The PBS public broadcasting model works quite well in the USA. If it is biased, then no doubt, that is what its audience wants. PBS does not act as a national or local news agency, like the US commercial networks do. Its scope is vastly smaller than the CBC's or BBC's.
Yet it would make the CBC accountable to Canadians, not to the government. You're again begging the question: why isn't the government accountable to Canadians? This leads to a certain confusion with your proposal. On one hand, you suggest that individual Canadians value an impartial CBC such that they will donate in sufficient quantities to fund its operations. On the other, you suggest that individual Canadians don't value an impartial CBC enough to vote for parties that promise such.
To avoid a CBC corporate bias, the CBC could be required to refuse corporate donations exceeding $1000, for example. Then at the outset you're restricting the possible universe of CBC funding to one vastly smaller than that of the already-impoverished PBS. Your plan regarding individual donors suffers irreparably from the "free-rider problem" of group action. The benefit of a publicly-broadcasting CBC is available to everyone, yet the costs would only be borne by those who choose to donate. Even if everyone would be willing to donate in proportion to their benefit, in sufficient quantity to fund CBC operations, it's to each individual's benefit to not donate. This is a classic issue of game theory, and the Nash equilibrium is such that very few people donate and the CBC is not funded. Similarly, this is why public infrastructure such as roads and parks are generally funded by tax revenues. When they are not funded by tax revenues, the alternative is universally tolls or gated access (limiting the benefits to those who pay) rather than voluntary donations. The "left-ish" argument in favour of the CBC considers the public news provider to be something akin to public infrastructure, where there is considerable social benefit to having an independent-of-corporate-influence news provider. If you consider that goal to be worthwhile (and many people don't), then there is no practical alternative but a taxpayer subsidy.