Some of the bought & paid for media

[Furniture]

Thanks for the details of how you get info. And you're probably right, but "anyone can make a post online about something that's happened locally" can work, but it can also be like the nut-bar letter to the editor - there may be a kernel of truth there, but maybe a lot of chaff supplementing that wheat. That ain't "journalism" - but who has the time/resources now, right?

And as for librarians, same principle: "I did my own research" can mean veeeeeeeery different things to different people - at the most cynical end of that spectrum ...
View attachment 83039
... so, like the "anyone can write about anything" thing, mileage can vary greatly.

Comes back to what others have said re: gotta read/listen to a lot of widely-divergent stuff to bracket something approximating the truth, or at least agreed-on bits of information.

More thoughts on this: Some say there's enough teeth in the current regulatory framework for government to tell telecoms, "hey, since you have MORE than first dibs on the market, allowing you to continue to make a hockey sock of profit, you're going to have to do more to get local news to local consumers, not necessarily just canned stuff out of Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver".

Some commentators more cynical than me are saying the Bells of the world are cutting and cutting because Ottawa won't make them keep things in place and won't enforce the rules already in place.

Need a coherent approach to helping keep some Canadian news content out there without cutting off noses to spite faces, though, and some political will to back same. I know, dare to dream ...

A lot of the gatekeepers of knowledge lost their positions because people could do their own research, and discovered that the gatekeepers were pushing their own biases.

This didn't happen in a vacuum, people didn't discover the internet and immediately abandon legacy media. People who know a topic see the media cover it poorly, then they as experts in the field point out what was said wrong. We have all seen it with topics we know well, ranging from the CAF, to firearms, to business, to commercial fishing, etc...

That happened for nearly two decades now, and the legacy media didn't learn...

In The Line's latest podcast Matt and Jen fall into the trap of thinking like journalists, when they talk about how reporters question PP. I like both of them, and respect their views, because they back them with reason, but the whole "gotcha" journalism thing is what has lead us to this point. It's not PP's fault he figured out their game, it's their fault for defaulting to a stupid game in the first place. A stupid, and transparent game that everybody sees, and only kinda supports when "their side" is pwning the n00bs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's not PP's fault he figured out their game, it's their fault for defaulting to a stupid game in the first place.

One of the "rule changes" - and it isn't only Poilievre who has figured this out - is that questions with implied/embedded premises are just a target for the interviewee to fire at. Journalists are going to have to start approaching their craft with intellectual rigour, or accept looking foolish.

Journalists and editors are also going to have to stop being sloppy. Reading an article on CBC, I find that Hur exonerated Biden, and also that Hur declined to charge Biden - not because laws hadn't been broken or that the case was unsound, but because a jury might simply tell the prosecutors to take a hike. The situation can be one or the other, but not both.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... As long as software and legal enterprises, to name a couple, seem to make a habit of seeking 20% + profit margins and aren't being pulled apart by governments, I see no reasons telcos and energy companies (or anyone else) can be vilified for margins on the order of 10%. (5% would be a very thin margin to be operating on.) ...

Big difference being that there's a fair bit more government support of all kinds to the telecoms that's supposed to be in exchange, according to rules that let them be the big kahunas (heard many people be happy about how cheap data and similar access is lately?) for providing Canadian content.

... they're against profits to shareholders (including public and private pension funds); they're against compensation increases to employees; they're against the cost of investing in perpetual upgrades (3G, 4G, 5G...) ...

Some, yes, but in this case, we're not seeing a lot of compensation increases to BCE employees, are we?

 

[Cloud Cover]

quite a few of the radio stations were sold to 3rd parties, they aren’t going off the air but they certainly will have fewer local staff and may actually be remote set ups.

However, in Canada one doesn’t simply sell a radio station. The station is licensed by the CRTC, and said license is only transferable upon notice to CRTC with a written plan for regulatory compliance with respect to radio broadcast laws, regulations, and rules. Further, this was not a sudden impulsive decision and it’s highly unlikely that BCE, with 1,900 legal staff and hundreds of Government Relations staff, plus all the thousands of consultants, would be able or even think of ambushing the Feds. They need the feds now more than ever. So when I hear this is was a surprise, and that there was skull duggery in play at BCE about this and the Federal Cabinet didn’t know- I’m calling bullshit.
They actually like this because it’s good for CBC. It justifies pumping billions into CBC because the private sector is supposedly exiting. It’s another set of Trudeau and company lies, and BCE is going along with it so they can ultimately get what they want - which is profit. That’s what they must do for shareholders- there are no “stakeholders” in profiteering, only shareholders.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

quite a few of the radio stations were sold to 3rd parties, they aren’t going off the air but they certainly will have fewer local staff and may actually be remote set ups.

However, in Canada one doesn’t simply sell a radio station. The station is licensed by the CRTC, and said license is only transferable upon notice to CRTC with a written plan for regulatory compliance with respect to radio broadcast laws, regulations, and rules. Further, this was not a sudden impulsive decision and it’s highly unlikely that BCE, with 1,900 legal staff and hundreds of Government Relations staff, plus all the thousands of consultants, would be able or even think of ambushing the Feds. They need the feds now more than ever. So when I hear this is was a surprise, and that there was skull duggery in play at BCE about this and the Federal Cabinet didn’t know- I’m calling bullshit.
They actually like this because it’s good for CBC. It justifies pumping billions into CBC because the private sector is supposedly exiting. It’s another set of Trudeau and company lies, and BCE is going along with it so they can ultimately get what they want - which is profit. That’s what they must do for shareholders- there are no “stakeholders” in profiteering, only shareholders.

So, the whole thing is a set up and the Liberals are in on it?

 

[Brad Sallows]

(heard many people be happy about how cheap data and similar access is lately?)

I've heard the complaints. The reasons telecomms in Canada should be cheaper are...what, exactly? Gasoline is cheaper in the US. So is dairy (or at least it used to be). Housing is apparently a lot cheaper (on average) right now. Apples to oranges, someone should say. Yes, absolutely. So is a comparison between nations without accounting for all - absolutely all - of the differences in the revenues, costs, taxes, regulations, population density, etc, etc.

Some, yes, but in this case, we're not seeing a lot of compensation increases to BCE employees, are we?

I don't know. My point, which is that there are several places profits can go, all of which are legitimate and serve some kind of public interest, stands. There isn't a particular portion of profits that has to go to any particular one of the five or six usual places that profits go (dividends, other investments, compensation, re-investment in the business, pay off old debt, contingency funds, etc).

I won't go so far as to claim there's nothing for critics to find. But the burden is on them to find it.

As for journalism, quite a while back it was fashionable for carriers to get involved in content. TELUS, at least, was smart enough to mostly stay out of that.

 

[Cloud Cover]

So, the whole thing is a set up and the Liberals are in on it?

No I’m just saying they shouldn’t act so surprised. There’s a whole CRTC process to be followed.
However because these are business plans it could very well be there are NDA’s in place to protect confidentiality until the last minute.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Thanks for the details of how you get info. And you're probably right, but "anyone can make a post online about something that's happened locally" can work, but it can also be like the nut-bar letter to the editor - there may be a kernel of truth there, but maybe a lot of chaff supplementing that wheat. That ain't "journalism" - but who has the time/resources now, right?

And as for librarians, same principle: "I did my own research" can mean veeeeeeeery different things to different people - at the most cynical end of that spectrum ...
View attachment 83039
... so, like the "anyone can write about anything" thing, mileage can vary greatly.

Comes back to what others have said re: gotta read/listen to a lot of widely-divergent stuff to bracket something approximating the truth, or at least agreed-on bits of information.

Its a revolution its going to be messy. The legacy media has been shown time and time again to be peddlers for big money and government. They lost touch with the people, so the people are ditching them. This is why our system works so well, the free market. Sure there is corruption and greed, but eventually when the people have had enough the stop buying and that kills the problem, or forces whole sale changes.

Established media has its own score of stupid windbags too, be they whole organizations or wingnuts with a column, and neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on that.

Lastly we all get a say, wingnuts and deep thinkers. And I don't want the wingnuts muzzled, because everyone is a wingnut to someone.

I’m curious about how someone who seems interested in news might pay for people to explain to people what’s important and why.

Your question is the problem, you don't get to decide what's important as a news organization, as a news outlet. The people do. You can present stories, but if they aren't interested they will tune out.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Established media has its own score of stupid windbags too, be they whole organizations or wingnuts with a column, and neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on that.

Yup!

Lastly we all get a say, wingnuts and deep thinkers. And I don't want the wingnuts muzzled, because everyone is a wingnut to someone.

True, too.

... Your question is the problem, you don't get to decide what's important as a news organization, as a news outlet. The people do. You can present stories, but if they aren't interested they will tune out.

The consumer does get to decide what they take in, but those who produce content are also supposed to be digging to find things that 1) people don't know about, 2) that could affect them significantly. You're right about people tuning out if not interested, but it seems that as more people try to find out about stuff that's important to folks, there's more and more and more stuff out there, and consumers, while having a way bigger buffet to choose from, have a lot bigger job sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

I've heard the complaints. The reasons telecomms in Canada should be cheaper are...what, exactly? Gasoline is cheaper in the US. So is dairy (or at least it used to be). Housing is apparently a lot cheaper (on average) right now. Apples to oranges, someone should say. Yes, absolutely. So is a comparison between nations without accounting for all - absolutely all - of the differences in the revenues, costs, taxes, regulations, population density, etc, etc. ...

Other stuff being equal (and you're right, it RARELY is), I still think Canada's regulatory framework gives telecoms a LOT more protection than the regulatory system in the U.S.

... As for journalism, quite a while back it was fashionable for carriers to get involved in content. TELUS, at least, was smart enough to mostly stay out of that.

And now, the carriers see that news has generally been a cost centre.

... in Canada one doesn’t simply sell a radio station. The station is licensed by the CRTC, and said license is only transferable upon notice to CRTC with a written plan for regulatory compliance with respect to radio broadcast laws, regulations, and rules. Further, this was not a sudden impulsive decision and it’s highly unlikely that BCE, with 1,900 legal staff and hundreds of Government Relations staff, plus all the thousands of consultants, would be able or even think of ambushing the Feds. They need the feds now more than ever. So when I hear this is was a surprise, and that there was skull duggery in play at BCE about this and the Federal Cabinet didn’t know- I’m calling bullshit ....

Goooooooood one - don't know if Cabinet knew, but CRTC's in on this at some level. Thanks for the reminder!

... They actually like this because it’s good for CBC. It justifies pumping billions into CBC because the private sector is supposedly exiting ...

We will see as the regulatory carpet is further rolled out.

quite a few of the radio stations were sold to 3rd parties, they aren’t going off the air but they certainly will have fewer local staff and may actually be remote set ups ...

I'd bet on these outcomes, too - with more centralized content being shipped to the new "colonies". Some people I know still in the biz in affected stations say they've been told "no layoffs before the fall." Mind you, I've also been with stations that "restructured" with zero notice, but still ....

 

[Halifax Tar]

The consumer does get to decide what they take in, but those who produce content are also supposed to be digging to find things that 1) people don't know about, 2) that could affect them significantly. You're right about people tuning out if not interested, but it seems that as more people try to find out about stuff that's important to folks, there's more and more and more stuff out there, and consumers, while having a way bigger buffet to choose from, have a lot bigger job sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

That is what's called market saturation. Its all part of how the system works.

I think its better this way. For too long we've had gatekeepers that controlled the production of news and media. And they were able to put spins on things and work for their own gain. That seems to not so easy anymore.

More people tune into Joe Rogan's podcast's that watch CNN by a massive score, it isn't even close. Apple just let Rogan back on their platform and he almost instantly went to #1 on their podcast charts. People want long form media, adapt or die is my only advice to our legacy media.

Joe Rogan vs. CNN

Will our country heal from the current division? Will Americans ever again be able to debate issues in a civil manner?

utahstories.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

Other stuff being equal (and you're right, it RARELY is), I still think Canada's regulatory framework gives telecoms a LOT more protection than the regulatory system in the U.S.

And yet the US has three really big carriers that are way ahead of the next (fourth) one, and in Canada the situation is the same.

 

[The Bread Guy]

That is what's called market saturation. Its all part of how the system works.

I think its better this way. For too long we've had gatekeepers that controlled the production of news and media. And they were able to put spins on things and work for their own gain. That seems to not so easy anymore.

More people tune into Joe Rogan's podcast's that watch CNN by a massive score, it isn't even close ...

Problem is that Joe Rogan doesn't do a ton of coverage of Sudbury city hall or Lethbridge's school board.

And yet the US has three really big carriers that are way ahead of the next (fourth) one, and in Canada the situation is the same.

The U.S. is a market about 10 times bigger than Canada, with a very different geography to cover & deliver services to, so I don't think it's quite the same. I think that's why, in part, Canada's regulators started "helping out" (we'll see how "helpful" they'll be - and to who - going forward).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Problem is that Joe Rogan doesn't do a ton of coverage of Sudbury city hall or Lethbridge's school board.

That's up to Sudbury local media to combat. But they have met their foe. People will consume what interests them.

 

[GR66]

Wait...is Joe Rogan's podcast now considered journalism?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Problem is that Joe Rogan doesn't do a ton of coverage of Sudbury city hall or Lethbridge's school board.

The U.S. is a market about 10 times bigger than Canada, with a very different geography to cover & deliver services to, so I don't think it's quite the same. I think that's why, in part, Canada's regulators started "helping out" (we'll see how "helpful" they'll be - and to who - going forward).

I should think it would be easier to compete in the US market. But there they are, with a Big Three.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I should think it would be easier to compete in the US market.

Which makes the case that in Canada, it's tougher to compete, so regulation's in place - mind you, FAR from ideal regulation, and not helped by attempts to "help" by Team Red, but still different environments.

But there they are, with a Big Three.

That's like saying there's a top 3 in pentathalon and a top 3 in cycling, ergo they're the same - different fields, different rules

 

[OldSolduer]

Are Canadian networks still required to air 30% Canadian content - which is quite nebulous - but that is the reason we end up with brainless shows like The Social and Marilyn Dennis. And really poor comedies.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for the details of how you get info. And you're probably right, but "anyone can make a post online about something that's happened locally" can work, but it can also be like the nut-bar letter to the editor - there may be a kernel of truth there, but maybe a lot of chaff supplementing that wheat. That ain't "journalism" - but who has the time/resources now, right?

And as for librarians, same principle: "I did my own research" can mean veeeeeeeery different things to different people - at the most cynical end of that spectrum ...
View attachment 83039
... so, like the "anyone can write about anything" thing, mileage can vary greatly.

Comes back to what others have said re: gotta read/listen to a lot of widely-divergent stuff to bracket something approximating the truth, or at least agreed-on bits of information.

More thoughts on this: Some say there's enough teeth in the current regulatory framework for government to tell telecoms, "hey, since you have MORE than first dibs on the market, allowing you to continue to make a hockey sock of profit, you're going to have to do more to get local news to local consumers, not necessarily just canned stuff out of Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver".

Some commentators more cynical than me are saying the Bells of the world are cutting and cutting because Ottawa won't make them keep things in place and won't enforce the rules already in place.

Need a coherent approach to helping keep some Canadian news content out there without cutting off noses to spite faces, though, and some political will to back same. I know, dare to dream ...

Buy your own "librarians'? Decide if you trust the individual to give you what you need?

If your "librarian" is constantly peddling stuff that doesn't serve your needs but seems to be serving the needs of groups antithetical to you then the "librarian" might find themselves looking for another job.

Truth is absolute. But not necessarily known in this world. One of those Platonic Ideal things.

 

[OldSolduer]

Buy your own "librarians'? Decide if you trust the individual to give you what you need?

I would post a pic of a librarian but it would violate standards.....

 

[Halifax Tar]

Wait...is Joe Rogan's podcast now considered journalism?

I would call him a social commentator. Something akin to a modern day editorialist. But a journalist, no.