[beezlebroxxxxxx]

I think CBC should transition to being entirely publicly funded and move away from creating most if not all of its original programming.

Instead, they should focus on 3 things: news, children's educational television, and high quality documentaries (in reality, even the docs might be irrelevant with the NFB). They should be ad-free (online and on television), and completely independent from profit or revenue concerns. There should be no bonuses for executives.

Parliament should also pass something like a "fairness doctrine" that is obligatory if any news agency receives any public funding.

[sbarre]

> There should be no bonuses for executives.

The problem with this is, as they say, that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Running a successful broadcaster is hard, and there's a limited pool of talent that can do this well.

So if you want to be successful, and not a public-money-wasting amateur-hour operation, you need to attract experienced professional talent. And if you aren't competitive on salary, why would they come to you?

I understand the spirit of your idea though.. Maybe bonuses should be based on specific metrics - like viewership or fundraising - that and publicly tracked and paid out in a very transparent way instead?

And maybe they shouldn't be only for executives.

Ad-free is a tough one, but maybe they have limited categories for advertisements, say things that are of public interest like events? Not sure...

[beezlebroxxxxxx]

There shouldn't be a bonus, just a salary. If the salary is big enough, then you'll get talent. Executive's often fail upwards because they obsess over getting their bonus even when the org is failing or in trouble. The idea that bonuses are mandatory is something executives repeat ad nauseum because it is obviously in their own interest.

With executive bonuses all you get are executives who focus on short term metrics ("how do I maximize the chances of getting my bonus?") over their roles as public servants and the long term sustainability of the organization. Maximizing their chances of getting a bonus might make sense when the metric is profit, or share price, or revenue, because theoretically the executive's interest would align with the employees and the organization. But, when the point of the organization is a public service and disconnected from profit, revenue, or share value, then maximizing the executive seeking their bonus over all else does not easily or really align with public service or the organization's sustainability.

There are many other incentives to working in public service, for one example: public servants in Canada get frankly an insane defined benefit pension. Few people in Canada nowadays are able to get as good retirement benefits. There are also people who have dedicated decades to working at the CBC or in public service. The assumption seems to be that only ~executives~ from some chosen ~executive class~ can run an org, but in fact that is only a relatively recent idea. Choosing someone with proven dedication to the org, and with proven skills in many of the departments of the org, someone who has worked their way up, is probably a far better choice compared to someone from outside who has only private experience. It's also the way that executives were hired or developed for decades before the bonus obsession.

[allanmacgregor]

So we are paying millions of dollars in executive bonuses, and the CBC keeps getting worse? Not on my dime

[sbarre]

Did you read my post at all?