CBC Television recently underwent a makeover. Apparently, the reasons for the brand update were the result of, in the words of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting spokesperson Ian Morrison, “moving in the direction of the private sector,” where the style of news delivery frequently overtakes its substance.

Indeed, programs such as the The National now feature more graphics coupled with more flashes of information devoid of context known as a “ticker” crawling along the bottom of the screen. Just watch Peter Mansbridge amble around the soundstage every night without being reminded of, say, CNN’s John King.

Furthermore, by giving programs to both Evan Solomon and Mark Kelley on the renamed CBC News Network, the CBC has tried to cash in on its “George Stroumboulopoulos” formula-for-success by introducing two new current affairs talk shows with young-ish male hosts.

It appears as though Canada’s public broadcaster is trying very hard to appeal to a younger, faster-paced generation of Canadians.

Since two-thirds of its operating budget comes from Canadian taxpayers, the CBC has always had to work doubly hard to justify its existence in the face of increasing public opposition on the assumption that having a public broadcaster in today’s day and age is a waste of taxpayer’s money.

While those who think that the CBC is unnecessary always seem to misrepresent the extent to which the CBC is in cahoots with government, supporters of the mothership always seem to make some half-hearted attempt to justify the broadcaster as being inseparable from Canadian identity. This too is an exaggeration.

Now, I was weaned on CBC radio. From an early age, it was always on in my parents’ house, to the extent that the theme song to As it Happens has probably been burned into my subconscious.

Many other Canadians had similar experiences. Many, however, did not. Many do not listen to or watch CBC news programming as adults either. This is where the assumption that CBC is some sort of pillar of what it means to be Canadian falls flat on its face.

But the most serious problem with the CBC-as-Canadian-culture argument is that it ignores its real merit as a news network: its ability, due to public funding, to produce highly informative, in-depth content. Programs such as television’s The Fifth Estate or radio’s Dispatches continually provide quality investigative journalism which assists the public in understanding issues in more depth than the typical two-minute news bite. The bevy of awards which CBC journalists win every year reiterates this.

A quick glance across the media spectrum in this country is enough to recognize that serious news coverage is hard to come by with private networks. They neither have the financial means nor the willingness to engage in serious research-intensive programming. Instead, they’re content to break stories without any serious engagement with contemporary public issues.

Unfortunately, serious news does not necessarily translate into a large audience, which has likely led to the increased private-network style of CBC’s television format. Since it must come to the government with cap in hand each year, the network’s focus on audience results is unsurprising.

Nonetheless, it is a blow to those in Canada who appreciate serious journalism, who see benefit in funding a media source which can inform Canadians beyond the limited scope of private broadcasters. As more pressure is put upon the network to adopt private network practises, it may only be a matter of time until its most informative programs are slashed.

Private media companies simply do not produce the type of news programming that CBC does. When it comes to the great CBC debate, the division between culture and cost-saving is too simplistic to encompass the role the broadcaster plays in ensuring an informed public.

Andrew Tod is a politics student at the University of Winnipeg.

Published in Volume 64, Number 13 of The Uniter (November 26, 2009)