- Reaction score
- 2,578
- Points
- 1,260
So far all the stations seem to have been bought by smaller chains, so fingers remain crossed.
Some of the bought & paid for media
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,701
- Points
- 1,140
Independent radio stations? What sacrilege!!!
Have you no sympathy for the corporate executives??
- Reaction score
- 1,004
- Points
- 1,060
They cancelled W5.
I can’t help but think this is going to channel a lot of people towards CBC.
I can’t help but think this is going to channel a lot of people towards CBC.
That is exactly what will happen.
People really should not be cheering this. It’s a hit to local and small news outlets. Big media won’t suffer at all.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,072
- Points
- 1,160
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,701
- Points
- 1,140
Have you heard the PM on this? His response is.....lets say I agree with some of it, but part of it is his government's doing.
His outrage is quite apparent but he is a drama teacher....
His outrage is quite apparent but he is a drama teacher....
- Reaction score
- 7,484
- Points
- 1,160
The problem with buying somebody, like the media, is getting them to stay bought.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,701
- Points
- 1,140
"Hey I would hate to see anything happen to the great press you were receiving Mr PM.....despite your missteps"
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,057
- Points
- 1,140
Paul Wells doesn’t spare anyone.
- Reaction score
- 18,797
- Points
- 1,360
…I happily support him and others like The Line, which is more than Trudeau’s unconvincing stern talk will achieve to help small journalism…Paul Wells doesn’t spare anyone.
Wells is polite in his eloquence describing the organizational skills of the outraged PM and his ilk…
Farm? Must be autocorrect at work!
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,802
- Points
- 1,260
I don't know if anyone can tell here but I am struggling to muster any sympathy for this.
Isn't that how the market works ? If something isn't profitable its supposed cease to exist. What's the problem here ?
I think journalism is going through a reformation. And our traditional media has to find a way to adapt or it will go the way of the steam locomotive. And I refuse to support sending any of my tax dollars to support this.
I'm sure some people have some nostalgic purse clutching emotions over the loss of some long standing and local programs. But that's how it works. If its not profitable it dies. I have no doubt if the juice was worth the squeeze none of this would have happened. Unfortunately from this guys standpoint it looks like the fruit is aged and rotten and the juice is rancid; time to let it go.
I can tell you at our house we never turn on local news. My wife doesn't care for any news, hates my podcasts and talk radio addiction. And I tend to turn to online sources for my news and editorials, and I have a feeling there are more people in a similar habits to me than not now.
Isn't that how the market works ? If something isn't profitable its supposed cease to exist. What's the problem here ?
I think journalism is going through a reformation. And our traditional media has to find a way to adapt or it will go the way of the steam locomotive. And I refuse to support sending any of my tax dollars to support this.
I'm sure some people have some nostalgic purse clutching emotions over the loss of some long standing and local programs. But that's how it works. If its not profitable it dies. I have no doubt if the juice was worth the squeeze none of this would have happened. Unfortunately from this guys standpoint it looks like the fruit is aged and rotten and the juice is rancid; time to let it go.
I can tell you at our house we never turn on local news. My wife doesn't care for any news, hates my podcasts and talk radio addiction. And I tend to turn to online sources for my news and editorials, and I have a feeling there are more people in a similar habits to me than not now.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,117
- Points
- 1,040
Cancon rules have protected Canadian businesses from the full pressure of a more openly competitive market. That means they're likely to be weaker, protected market or not. It's pretty much impossible to have protectionist policies and not have weaker enterprises.
I see among the commentariat suggestions that the Canadian telecom market ought be opened up to more foreign competition and investment. People ought to understand what that is going to mean. Foreign companies, some undoubtedly state-owned and -influenced, will start bidding for Canadian telcos and parts of them. The telcos will welcome the influx of cash - all it takes is one; the rest will be forced to follow suit. Then the federal government is going to tie itself in knots trying to protect "vital Canadian industry" - mostly, rules that will try to walk the line between foreign ownership and "no Chinese" ownership (along with a few other countries). Either telecom is vital enough to be domestically protected, or it's not. It's certainly more vital to national interests than dairy producers.
I see among the commentariat suggestions that the Canadian telecom market ought be opened up to more foreign competition and investment. People ought to understand what that is going to mean. Foreign companies, some undoubtedly state-owned and -influenced, will start bidding for Canadian telcos and parts of them. The telcos will welcome the influx of cash - all it takes is one; the rest will be forced to follow suit. Then the federal government is going to tie itself in knots trying to protect "vital Canadian industry" - mostly, rules that will try to walk the line between foreign ownership and "no Chinese" ownership (along with a few other countries). Either telecom is vital enough to be domestically protected, or it's not. It's certainly more vital to national interests than dairy producers.
- Reaction score
- 18,797
- Points
- 1,360
So as someone who finds himself in a constant state of violent disagreement with the PM (and no, I'm not in agreement with him here) - I do have to give credit where credit is duePaul Wells doesn’t spare anyone.
He heard Bell was eliminating 4800 jobs, and seemed genuinely missed off about it - I give him props for that, because at least his heart seemed like it was finally in the right place
Obviously the media landscape is changing all over the world for a variety of reasons - some common, some unique to specific countries. And many of these forces are just the natural evolution of technology, human psychology, and the online marketplace.
But I can empathize with him in - assuming he doesn't understand the market forces at play behind the scenes of the media industry - the optics are they are happy to accept government money to prop themselves up, take advantage of government tax initiatives, then lay off the average person just trying to make ends meet.
And given his limited understanding of the bigger picture in this, the fact that he got pissed off on behalf of 4800 people being laid off was a nice change from the slow speaking spin talk we've come to know oh so well...
(Don't let the above confuse anybody, I still couldn't think less of him. But his reaction to the news - while most likely ingenuine - was a nice change from the usual...)
- Reaction score
- 2,578
- Points
- 1,260
Well summed up! Put a slightly different way, if you don’t like editorial & business decisions about Canadian news made in Toronto, you may like ones made in other countries even less.
- Reaction score
- 2,578
- Points
- 1,260
My limited, some-time-ago experience is in small-medium market broadcasting so my examples are based on that.
If a newsroom in a medium-to-smaller market can’t make money and, according to raw market rules, shouldn’t exist, how well will a media outlet hundreds or thousands of miles away broadcasting into town do covering city hall or school boards?
100%
Since paying someone to sit at meetings, call people to ask questions and prepare content costs money, how are you willing to pay for local news then? I’m not poking, honestly, but since so many people want news for free, I’m curious about how someone who seems interested in news might pay for people to explain to people what’s important and why.
100% Wondering how you keep track of local things that affect you? I know you said you don’t do local news in general, but how do you know if your elected city council’s doing what you want? Unless you live in a bigger city with more resources available, I’ve found newsrooms based in bigger cities don’t cover much of smaller centres unless it’s an “if it bleeds, it leads” situation.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,802
- Points
- 1,260
They provide the broadcasting that people want and tune in to, that drives add revenue for the station.
I like a local talk radio station News 95.7, this would be my main source. I also follow various social media news types like Halifax News Chaser, this is if I want to see peoples opinions on local happenings. None of these do I pay for.
For national stuff I like podcasts like the Line or the Hub for example, I happily subscribe to Spotify. Every so often I will tune into Power in Politics if I want to see what the left has to say on the subject.
Welcome to the revolution of journalism my friend. Do we need journalists like we did before when anyone can make a post online about something that's happened locally ? I don't think so. I think they will end up like Librarians. They exist, but not like they used to.
- Reaction score
- 2,578
- Points
- 1,260
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 ...
... 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 ...
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,117
- Points
- 1,040
No lies; not even any mere half-truths. No shading political stories for political advantage. No kindergarten/Sunday school versions of basic economic and fiscal matters. Etc. I won't pay to read opinions of people who don't know much about their subjects.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,117
- Points
- 1,040
All of that "hockey sock of profit" stuff is just vacuous speculation. Anyone can do that.
Proof is on the accusers to show where it is they think the "profits" are going, and why they think the "profits" are too much. 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.)
As for where, let the accusers stake out their position publicly: 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...). Whatever they're against, they need to be specific. None of this "fat profits blah blah blah" bullsh!t that the politicians extrude on a regular basis. That means nothing.
Similar threads
