In 2016, the Trudeau Government took the bait and launched a subsidy scheme to help the struggling media industry. We can surmise that this scheme was filled with good intentions, just another example of the Liberals fondness for moving money around under the delusion that doing so is an economic, job saving miracle.
The Prime Minister made some valid points about how media consolidation has gutted the base product, leaving content consumers with homogenized, watered down infotainment. I see this in my own backyard. A once proud broadsheet newspaper was bought out by a regional competitor who stuffs the pages with stories from the flagship operation, reducing the local news and sports. This is shrewd business to maximize profits except that subscribers are shrewd too, and refusing to pay for a crappy product.
If Trudeau feels like he has had his pockets picked by these media companies, what did he expect? And did he ever countenance the notion that tossing millions of dollars into a media black hole has delayed a reckoning that has to happen? Lost in much of the reporting about the Bell downsizing yesterday is the proposed SALE of some assets across Canada. That’s a positive sign, that these assets will reinvent themselves with local content that should have never been cut in the first place.
Lastly, is the Prime Minister equally “pissed” with the CBC as it sheds 800 jobs? Ah, all those billions spent on our “most trusted news source” only to see local content reduced and jobs disappear. Ms. Tait isn’t ruling out “performance pay” for Senior Management as things swirl the drain, proving that executive greed isn’t confined to private broadcasters and newspapers.
That is a good point about there being a sale of some of these assets, and that it may actually result in local folks coming forward to give the people the reconnection they need with their community.
Why does this government allow the rollup of small media companies then complain when the oligopolists limit workers rights and salaries, maximize profits and reduce services? Why does this government allow the rollup of smaller grocery companies then complain when the oligopolists limit workers rights and salaries, maximize profits and reduce services? Why does this government allow the rollup of smaller banks then complain when the oligopolists limit workers rights and salaries, maximize profits and reduce services? Why does this government allow the rollup of smaller commercial carrier companies then complain when the oligopolists limit workers rights and salaries, maximize profits and reduce services? Why does this government allow the rollup of smaller pharmacies then complain when the oligopolists limit workers rights and salaries, maximize profits and reduce services? Etc.
Good questions that I am unable to shed much light upon.
I could add another question tho’…
With the media landscape in a period of transition from hard assets (including journalists sitting in a huge newsroom) to a digital age of instant news and reporting in the field with little editorial oversight, why is this Liberal government creating regulatory obstacles that stifle innovation and fails to reward those who are agile and adapting to the circumstances? Recent legislation was shaped to shame Meta and Google into becoming benevolent actors, propping up the Canadian media giants to help save the furniture. This legislation did little for small businesses, nor startups who had found a niche through exposure on Facebook and Google. These businesses are worse off now than they were before, all due to the Liberals obsession with the large players at the expense of everyone else.
As always an excellent Paul Wells contribution. Lots to take in. Today’s rant is but another Trudeau high school arts level tirade seemingly now his newest schtick. Almost as bizarre as his dumb and dumber haircut moment. Is this what the junior Trudeau’s ‘walk in the snow’ looks like? Watching Biden is sad, watching Trudeau is embarrassing.
So if expensive government interventions (repeated annually for impact) tend to gum up the works and make things worse, might it not be better if governments committed to intervene less? Full disclosure: I'm a bit of a small government libertarian by conviction. :)
There are some measures that might be worth contemplating — serious tax benefits for charitable donations to journalism foundations, or for subscriptions with a higher ceiling than now. And I think it's always possible to make a solid argument in favour of a government-funded public broadcaster, although to say the least I'm not surprised when people disagree. As a general rule, though, I think there are some problems that get worse when governments try to fix them and it should have been incredibly obvious that this was one.
I think there's an excellent case for a well funded public broadcaster with a complete mandate overhaul as well as a full enema of current senior executives and managers.
The problem is, CBC in its current iteration keeps making Pierre's case for defunding the CBC for him, continually shooting itself in the foot with both barrels on a daily basis in their programming and topic/issue choices (and omissions) as well as their CAO's condescending officiousness, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they have lost the plot regarding the concerns of most Canadians.
Full. Enema. Required.
I suggest a radically decentralized and (partially) publicly funded network of content providers with offices in every called Canadian Local Information Cooperative (CLIC). There could be branch offices in each of the 100 largest population centres in Canada not currently served by a CTV or Global presence already, with mission orders to ensure coverage in surrounding rural areas as well. A portion of their revenue could be derived from the areas they serve through fundraising drives.
On cable/telecom, divest and retain ownership restrictions over infrastructure thru a series of regulated utilities (‘pipe’ companies mandated to build connectivity, prohibited cross ownership in content). Then loosen ownership controls on content but enhance seed support for content creators.
We’ve lost track of decades-old public interest in ‘protected’ sectors. So too have those receiving protection. News organizations without news. Airlines that don’t fly. Banks that don’t serve.
Journalism and #cdnmedia is broken, to borrow a word from that guy two sword lengths across the Commons floor who covets Justin's job, and a billion or more dollars of subsidies (think CBC budget numbers) ain't -- yeah, American contraction eh? -- gonna save it. Newsrooms that follow fads not facts, journalists that stop at talking points as opposed to a litany of government/parliamentary documents, and respectfully, a parliamentary press gallery (and present Canadian Ministry) that I dare to posit, the majority of them have not read Canada's founding debates. Sorry for the rant Paul, and allowing me to plug this collection from the now, late, William Gairdner. https://williamgairdner.ca/product/canadas-founding-debates/
Long live Paul Wells. I love each column more and thank you for your ability to make me laugh at the state of federal politics and media and yet somehow make me feel hopeful (like your old colleague Kenneth Whyte did earlier today) even in a train wreck.
Perhaps there is now a zone of potential common ground around a new grand bargain for journalism - a CBC that doesn’t sell any advertising slots and is entirely funded by Parliament - preferably a fairly simple statutory formula. And a private sector that doesn’t get subsidies and tax breaks for journalism and is entirely funded by the market. An amicable separation.
That just leaves an in-basket of resetting the CBC mandate, reconsidering foreign ownership limits, and a lively and probably vicious zero sum debate to be had about future subsidies to production of drama, comedy and children’s shows via tax credits and the rather hefty Canada Media Fund. Which will come up in the next big spending review anyway.
Brilliant , brilliant , brilliant Mr. Wells. You have hit the nail on the head.
If I operate a simple business in our capitalist economic system, say a small fruit stand, can the government force me to sell apples at a loss when I can sell oranges for profit ? If the sale of apples is so important to society that the government will subsidise their sale, why is the market demand for apples so low that they need to be sold at a loss in the first place?
The entire Arab world went up in flames because of a single poor orange seller in Tunisia who couldn't make a decent living. Now our PM is pissed off because a company (admitedly with many faults of its own) doesn't want to sell something at a loss.
C'est le monde à l'envers ! As an individual I cannot be forced to sell my apples at a loss , yet the governement can use my tax money for that very same purpose !
Thanks Paul, as always a timely take on the news of the day.
Actually more news of yesterday. It was yesterday when BC Premier David Eby condemned Bell Media's closures and layoffs. Perhaps after hearing Premier Eby's comments our Prime Minister considered it would be beneficial to join the chorus taking Bell Media to task. Jobs are being lost, sources of community news are being shuttered. It is another example of large corporations gobbling up local business concerns. Once the transfer takes place, the connection between the business and the community it serves starts to disintegrate.
Alas, Bell is a conglomerate corporation, doing what public corporations do, and that is, generate revenues for their shareholders. Shareholders like those of us who hold investments or have pension plans. We are the ones telling corporations to focus on the bottom line and not a community's needs. We need to assume some responsibility for what is described as corporate greed. Time for us to reflect on what is important for our community's well-being, and voice our concern. Similarly, isn't it time our government looked at what it can do give power back to the people in the community.
Fantastic. Just debating with a colleague at work - Paul, do you think Trudeau's comments on Bell's 'garbage decision' at the news conference were off the cuff from his brain, or scripted from the PMO?
The Liberals keep talking about boosting competition in Canada, and they have made some small moves to improve the Competition Act. But when the rubber hits the road, their instinct is to not disturb the dominant firms.
Beyond Bell, we’ve seen Rogers, Postmedia, and Torstar gut local media for years without a whimper from the government. They just allowed Rogers to buy Shaw, which gives them the Global network.
Beyond media, they’ve made no moves against grocery consolidation despite all the finger wagging, they let RBC buy HSBC, they’ve tasked Enbridge with running their Green Homes Grant. Even the WE scandal was a result of a government who can’t imagine how to do things without running to the largest private firm for help.
I liked the sarcastic "holiday" on the anniversary of a failed government promise, rather than on any anniversaries of oligopolistic takeovers or massive layoffs.
Journalists across the spectrum do seem to agree on one thing: only government can fail the people, the society. A corporation can only fail to make money for investors. Only government has moral agency; only a fool would expect a private corporation to forgo 10 cents in profits to save 10 lives (if nobody were looking).
Canadaland has pointed out that Bell gets 95% of its money from phone bills; the entirety of CTV is beneath their notice, much less the news division. So here's the proposal for that moral government: you can only run a phone oligopoly if you commit to losing 5% of the profits back to losses in a public news division. That should let CTV hire again, open all those radio stations.
As it is, they're allowed to predate upon the near-captive market without paying the public back for the privilege. With the American "fairness doctrine" it was about paying back the public for use of the public airwaves; now that phones use airwaves, we can apply the same logic.
Would you compel Telus to get into the media business, Roy? If not, why not? If so, why should telcos, in particular, be compelled to be in the media business - why not (say) electrical utilities or gas companies? In both cases those companies (and telcos) repay the public for the privilege of monopoly by accepting regulated returns and constraints on business investment.
I would rather see most corporations broken up into the smallest pieces that can do a needed job effectively, allowing the free market and that 'invisible hand' to actually govern their decisions. Large ones, particularly multi-industry behemoths similar to the Japanese "keiretsu", mostly use that size to dodge free-market discipline.
So, Telus would be hugely welcome to stay the @Q#$% out of all other industries; but if a company DOES want to use its steady, high income, from tolerated oligopoly, to also take over other industries, then maybe it should have to pay a toll.
What good societal deed should they subsidize? Youth sports, like lotteries do? Journalism is just one suggestion.
Sorry - but that seems incredibly incoherent, Roy. Telus is welcome to stay out of other industries, but you would *compel" Bell to stay in an otherwise unrelated business and incur a loss. Why not let them shut down the whole media organization (or sell it for a buck), and be a pure telecom company like Telus?
I don't see that they are obliged to subsidize any social activities; they provide a service at cost + reasonable profit margin - that's the 'regulatory compact.'
OK, we're about done here. We have the highest telecom rates on the planet. Because they are a government-protected oligopoly. If you don't see the hand of government in their profit margin, then your position is entirely reasonable! Have a nice day!
I'm not defending telcos, Roy - I'm wondering, first, why telcos in particular should be mandated to ensure journalism survives, and second, why one particular telco should bear that responsibility, and their competitor should not? Why not electric utilities? Why not Life Insurance companies, or banks?
I've distinguished my targets twice now with the "government regulated olig/mon/opoly", and clarified that they can be tasked with any social good deed. Journalism simply happens to be the issue, today. I also clarified that the "one company" is chosen because it's the one buying other industries. I won't repeat again.
They have the delightful state of having all the goodies that come from basically being part of the government, AND being a free-market actor. They are not free-market actors, and deserve none of your admiration for providing a service at a "reasonable profit margin"; that's a lie you should not believe.
I remember, a long time ago in a land far, far away (Winnipeg), delivering papers after school in -30 temperatures. AFTER SCHOOL. Maybe, just maybe, newspapers lost their relevance by going to morning delivery, when their news is old and the other sources of news have moved on to "breaking" topics.
The unbundling of newspapers, the explosion of broadcast platforms, and the cynical realization by governments that if they starve reporters of news there'll be fewer reporters, all contributed to the collapse of the news business. None of these situations is going back to what it used to be. So we need to come up with a new social model to support news and journalism, one that accounts for (or at least mitigates) these and other obstacles.
I'm not worried about whether such a model can be conceived and implemented -- I'm confident we can develop one. What worries me is whether we'll try. I'm concerned by what feels like our nationwide loss of confidence in "the public interest" -- not just as a civic concept, but also as the foundation of citizens' right to demand better, and expect better, of the people and institutions that are supposed to serve us.
Most everyone would agree that we're better off with good journalism, from the local community to the national capital, than without it. But will we demand it? That feels to me more and more like an existential question for Canadians right now. We can still dimly sense that we deserve better from governments and corporations and every other institution in the (quasi-)public square. But will we get up and go out and demand it? I'll sign up to canvass for anyone who'll lead that effort.
Whether Canadians are up to demanding good journalism is unknown, as is the answer to a supplementary question: will Canadians open their wallets and pay for good journalism?
Many of us already are by paying to subscribe to Paul, The Line, The Hub, Ground News, various Substack accounts, etc. I cancelled my subscription to The National Post as I found myself leaving it unopened while I scrolled Twitter for up to date news. The times they are achanging.
Have you looked at the price of a newspaper subscription these days? I think the problem is that news used to be relatively cheap because of advertising. Remember how thick the papers were with ads and flyers? Now that’s dried up and subscribers need to pay more and lots of traditional newspaper content is just “ok”. It seems more targeted journalistic endeavours can survive but the days of news for the masses seem limited. Very much like network television.
In 2016, the Trudeau Government took the bait and launched a subsidy scheme to help the struggling media industry. We can surmise that this scheme was filled with good intentions, just another example of the Liberals fondness for moving money around under the delusion that doing so is an economic, job saving miracle.
The Prime Minister made some valid points about how media consolidation has gutted the base product, leaving content consumers with homogenized, watered down infotainment. I see this in my own backyard. A once proud broadsheet newspaper was bought out by a regional competitor who stuffs the pages with stories from the flagship operation, reducing the local news and sports. This is shrewd business to maximize profits except that subscribers are shrewd too, and refusing to pay for a crappy product.
If Trudeau feels like he has had his pockets picked by these media companies, what did he expect? And did he ever countenance the notion that tossing millions of dollars into a media black hole has delayed a reckoning that has to happen? Lost in much of the reporting about the Bell downsizing yesterday is the proposed SALE of some assets across Canada. That’s a positive sign, that these assets will reinvent themselves with local content that should have never been cut in the first place.
Lastly, is the Prime Minister equally “pissed” with the CBC as it sheds 800 jobs? Ah, all those billions spent on our “most trusted news source” only to see local content reduced and jobs disappear. Ms. Tait isn’t ruling out “performance pay” for Senior Management as things swirl the drain, proving that executive greed isn’t confined to private broadcasters and newspapers.
That is a good point about there being a sale of some of these assets, and that it may actually result in local folks coming forward to give the people the reconnection they need with their community.
Why does this government allow the rollup of small media companies then complain when the oligopolists limit workers rights and salaries, maximize profits and reduce services? Why does this government allow the rollup of smaller grocery companies then complain when the oligopolists limit workers rights and salaries, maximize profits and reduce services? Why does this government allow the rollup of smaller banks then complain when the oligopolists limit workers rights and salaries, maximize profits and reduce services? Why does this government allow the rollup of smaller commercial carrier companies then complain when the oligopolists limit workers rights and salaries, maximize profits and reduce services? Why does this government allow the rollup of smaller pharmacies then complain when the oligopolists limit workers rights and salaries, maximize profits and reduce services? Etc.
Good questions that I am unable to shed much light upon.
I could add another question tho’…
With the media landscape in a period of transition from hard assets (including journalists sitting in a huge newsroom) to a digital age of instant news and reporting in the field with little editorial oversight, why is this Liberal government creating regulatory obstacles that stifle innovation and fails to reward those who are agile and adapting to the circumstances? Recent legislation was shaped to shame Meta and Google into becoming benevolent actors, propping up the Canadian media giants to help save the furniture. This legislation did little for small businesses, nor startups who had found a niche through exposure on Facebook and Google. These businesses are worse off now than they were before, all due to the Liberals obsession with the large players at the expense of everyone else.
As always an excellent Paul Wells contribution. Lots to take in. Today’s rant is but another Trudeau high school arts level tirade seemingly now his newest schtick. Almost as bizarre as his dumb and dumber haircut moment. Is this what the junior Trudeau’s ‘walk in the snow’ looks like? Watching Biden is sad, watching Trudeau is embarrassing.
So if expensive government interventions (repeated annually for impact) tend to gum up the works and make things worse, might it not be better if governments committed to intervene less? Full disclosure: I'm a bit of a small government libertarian by conviction. :)
There are some measures that might be worth contemplating — serious tax benefits for charitable donations to journalism foundations, or for subscriptions with a higher ceiling than now. And I think it's always possible to make a solid argument in favour of a government-funded public broadcaster, although to say the least I'm not surprised when people disagree. As a general rule, though, I think there are some problems that get worse when governments try to fix them and it should have been incredibly obvious that this was one.
I think there's an excellent case for a well funded public broadcaster with a complete mandate overhaul as well as a full enema of current senior executives and managers.
The problem is, CBC in its current iteration keeps making Pierre's case for defunding the CBC for him, continually shooting itself in the foot with both barrels on a daily basis in their programming and topic/issue choices (and omissions) as well as their CAO's condescending officiousness, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they have lost the plot regarding the concerns of most Canadians.
Full. Enema. Required.
I suggest a radically decentralized and (partially) publicly funded network of content providers with offices in every called Canadian Local Information Cooperative (CLIC). There could be branch offices in each of the 100 largest population centres in Canada not currently served by a CTV or Global presence already, with mission orders to ensure coverage in surrounding rural areas as well. A portion of their revenue could be derived from the areas they serve through fundraising drives.
I was surprised (sort of) to learn how low we rank in public broadcaster funding relative especially to the healthiest democracies of Europe https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/01/do-countries-with-better-funded-public-media-also-have-healthier-democracies-of-course-they-do/
From last year.
On cable/telecom, divest and retain ownership restrictions over infrastructure thru a series of regulated utilities (‘pipe’ companies mandated to build connectivity, prohibited cross ownership in content). Then loosen ownership controls on content but enhance seed support for content creators.
We’ve lost track of decades-old public interest in ‘protected’ sectors. So too have those receiving protection. News organizations without news. Airlines that don’t fly. Banks that don’t serve.
https://thehub.ca/2023-04-17/stephen-kelly-lowering-telecom-prices-wont-come-from-policy-tweaks-we-need-a-drastic-rethink/
Well tax benefits are, essentially, one form of government stepping back from their intervention in my financial life. So I'm on board for that one.
Or "intervene" differently, by opening up competition, etc, as the article suggests.
Love the pic JT looks desperate, DF looks confused. Great title and very amusing article on the very sad state of Canadian journalism.
Journalism and #cdnmedia is broken, to borrow a word from that guy two sword lengths across the Commons floor who covets Justin's job, and a billion or more dollars of subsidies (think CBC budget numbers) ain't -- yeah, American contraction eh? -- gonna save it. Newsrooms that follow fads not facts, journalists that stop at talking points as opposed to a litany of government/parliamentary documents, and respectfully, a parliamentary press gallery (and present Canadian Ministry) that I dare to posit, the majority of them have not read Canada's founding debates. Sorry for the rant Paul, and allowing me to plug this collection from the now, late, William Gairdner. https://williamgairdner.ca/product/canadas-founding-debates/
Long live Paul Wells. I love each column more and thank you for your ability to make me laugh at the state of federal politics and media and yet somehow make me feel hopeful (like your old colleague Kenneth Whyte did earlier today) even in a train wreck.
Hear, hear.
Perhaps there is now a zone of potential common ground around a new grand bargain for journalism - a CBC that doesn’t sell any advertising slots and is entirely funded by Parliament - preferably a fairly simple statutory formula. And a private sector that doesn’t get subsidies and tax breaks for journalism and is entirely funded by the market. An amicable separation.
That just leaves an in-basket of resetting the CBC mandate, reconsidering foreign ownership limits, and a lively and probably vicious zero sum debate to be had about future subsidies to production of drama, comedy and children’s shows via tax credits and the rather hefty Canada Media Fund. Which will come up in the next big spending review anyway.
Brilliant , brilliant , brilliant Mr. Wells. You have hit the nail on the head.
If I operate a simple business in our capitalist economic system, say a small fruit stand, can the government force me to sell apples at a loss when I can sell oranges for profit ? If the sale of apples is so important to society that the government will subsidise their sale, why is the market demand for apples so low that they need to be sold at a loss in the first place?
The entire Arab world went up in flames because of a single poor orange seller in Tunisia who couldn't make a decent living. Now our PM is pissed off because a company (admitedly with many faults of its own) doesn't want to sell something at a loss.
C'est le monde à l'envers ! As an individual I cannot be forced to sell my apples at a loss , yet the governement can use my tax money for that very same purpose !
Personally, I think you were a bit tough on goat farms.
Thanks Paul, as always a timely take on the news of the day.
Actually more news of yesterday. It was yesterday when BC Premier David Eby condemned Bell Media's closures and layoffs. Perhaps after hearing Premier Eby's comments our Prime Minister considered it would be beneficial to join the chorus taking Bell Media to task. Jobs are being lost, sources of community news are being shuttered. It is another example of large corporations gobbling up local business concerns. Once the transfer takes place, the connection between the business and the community it serves starts to disintegrate.
Alas, Bell is a conglomerate corporation, doing what public corporations do, and that is, generate revenues for their shareholders. Shareholders like those of us who hold investments or have pension plans. We are the ones telling corporations to focus on the bottom line and not a community's needs. We need to assume some responsibility for what is described as corporate greed. Time for us to reflect on what is important for our community's well-being, and voice our concern. Similarly, isn't it time our government looked at what it can do give power back to the people in the community.
Fantastic. Just debating with a colleague at work - Paul, do you think Trudeau's comments on Bell's 'garbage decision' at the news conference were off the cuff from his brain, or scripted from the PMO?
A bit of both. He typically works with staff to figure out how to say what's on his mind. So I think he meant it but there was some advance pruning.
Interesting - my colleague and I were both correct, if you are.
The Liberals keep talking about boosting competition in Canada, and they have made some small moves to improve the Competition Act. But when the rubber hits the road, their instinct is to not disturb the dominant firms.
Beyond Bell, we’ve seen Rogers, Postmedia, and Torstar gut local media for years without a whimper from the government. They just allowed Rogers to buy Shaw, which gives them the Global network.
Beyond media, they’ve made no moves against grocery consolidation despite all the finger wagging, they let RBC buy HSBC, they’ve tasked Enbridge with running their Green Homes Grant. Even the WE scandal was a result of a government who can’t imagine how to do things without running to the largest private firm for help.
I liked the sarcastic "holiday" on the anniversary of a failed government promise, rather than on any anniversaries of oligopolistic takeovers or massive layoffs.
Journalists across the spectrum do seem to agree on one thing: only government can fail the people, the society. A corporation can only fail to make money for investors. Only government has moral agency; only a fool would expect a private corporation to forgo 10 cents in profits to save 10 lives (if nobody were looking).
Canadaland has pointed out that Bell gets 95% of its money from phone bills; the entirety of CTV is beneath their notice, much less the news division. So here's the proposal for that moral government: you can only run a phone oligopoly if you commit to losing 5% of the profits back to losses in a public news division. That should let CTV hire again, open all those radio stations.
As it is, they're allowed to predate upon the near-captive market without paying the public back for the privilege. With the American "fairness doctrine" it was about paying back the public for use of the public airwaves; now that phones use airwaves, we can apply the same logic.
Would you compel Telus to get into the media business, Roy? If not, why not? If so, why should telcos, in particular, be compelled to be in the media business - why not (say) electrical utilities or gas companies? In both cases those companies (and telcos) repay the public for the privilege of monopoly by accepting regulated returns and constraints on business investment.
I would rather see most corporations broken up into the smallest pieces that can do a needed job effectively, allowing the free market and that 'invisible hand' to actually govern their decisions. Large ones, particularly multi-industry behemoths similar to the Japanese "keiretsu", mostly use that size to dodge free-market discipline.
So, Telus would be hugely welcome to stay the @Q#$% out of all other industries; but if a company DOES want to use its steady, high income, from tolerated oligopoly, to also take over other industries, then maybe it should have to pay a toll.
What good societal deed should they subsidize? Youth sports, like lotteries do? Journalism is just one suggestion.
Ask not, for whom I would toll Bells.
Sorry - but that seems incredibly incoherent, Roy. Telus is welcome to stay out of other industries, but you would *compel" Bell to stay in an otherwise unrelated business and incur a loss. Why not let them shut down the whole media organization (or sell it for a buck), and be a pure telecom company like Telus?
I don't see that they are obliged to subsidize any social activities; they provide a service at cost + reasonable profit margin - that's the 'regulatory compact.'
OK, we're about done here. We have the highest telecom rates on the planet. Because they are a government-protected oligopoly. If you don't see the hand of government in their profit margin, then your position is entirely reasonable! Have a nice day!
I'm not defending telcos, Roy - I'm wondering, first, why telcos in particular should be mandated to ensure journalism survives, and second, why one particular telco should bear that responsibility, and their competitor should not? Why not electric utilities? Why not Life Insurance companies, or banks?
I've distinguished my targets twice now with the "government regulated olig/mon/opoly", and clarified that they can be tasked with any social good deed. Journalism simply happens to be the issue, today. I also clarified that the "one company" is chosen because it's the one buying other industries. I won't repeat again.
They have the delightful state of having all the goodies that come from basically being part of the government, AND being a free-market actor. They are not free-market actors, and deserve none of your admiration for providing a service at a "reasonable profit margin"; that's a lie you should not believe.
I love your sense of humour and the clarity of your thinking. Bet is on re FOI and next PM.
I remember, a long time ago in a land far, far away (Winnipeg), delivering papers after school in -30 temperatures. AFTER SCHOOL. Maybe, just maybe, newspapers lost their relevance by going to morning delivery, when their news is old and the other sources of news have moved on to "breaking" topics.
The unbundling of newspapers, the explosion of broadcast platforms, and the cynical realization by governments that if they starve reporters of news there'll be fewer reporters, all contributed to the collapse of the news business. None of these situations is going back to what it used to be. So we need to come up with a new social model to support news and journalism, one that accounts for (or at least mitigates) these and other obstacles.
I'm not worried about whether such a model can be conceived and implemented -- I'm confident we can develop one. What worries me is whether we'll try. I'm concerned by what feels like our nationwide loss of confidence in "the public interest" -- not just as a civic concept, but also as the foundation of citizens' right to demand better, and expect better, of the people and institutions that are supposed to serve us.
Most everyone would agree that we're better off with good journalism, from the local community to the national capital, than without it. But will we demand it? That feels to me more and more like an existential question for Canadians right now. We can still dimly sense that we deserve better from governments and corporations and every other institution in the (quasi-)public square. But will we get up and go out and demand it? I'll sign up to canvass for anyone who'll lead that effort.
Whether Canadians are up to demanding good journalism is unknown, as is the answer to a supplementary question: will Canadians open their wallets and pay for good journalism?
Many of us already are by paying to subscribe to Paul, The Line, The Hub, Ground News, various Substack accounts, etc. I cancelled my subscription to The National Post as I found myself leaving it unopened while I scrolled Twitter for up to date news. The times they are achanging.
Have you looked at the price of a newspaper subscription these days? I think the problem is that news used to be relatively cheap because of advertising. Remember how thick the papers were with ads and flyers? Now that’s dried up and subscribers need to pay more and lots of traditional newspaper content is just “ok”. It seems more targeted journalistic endeavours can survive but the days of news for the masses seem limited. Very much like network television.