Marc Edge - author, academic, erstwhile journalist - wants the National Post to die. Or to be "allowed to die." He has his reasons. I'm letting him have his say.
Terry, first off, plaudits to you for allowing your frenemy to get his point of view out there. One of the features of our current news environment is that we get a (somewhat) consistent perspective from various "news" websites, be it one wing or the other, when we subscribe (and, yes, I do pay you!) to a newspaper, Substack or what have you. There is nothing wrong, per se, with that (somewhat) consistency but there is a danger if we do not have some basis for asking ourselves where our blind spots or outright errors exist; therefore we as news consumers must work to get variety. Again, plaudits to you for allowing your frenemy to use your platform.
Now, as they say, for something (kind of) completely different.
I am "of an age" as they say, so I lived through what we now might call the golden age of journalism where the publishers got incredibly fat (hello, Connie!) and very sassy (again, hello, Connie) but we, the unwashed, got some great, if uneven, journalism. At one time, back in my university days I even thought of joining your profession (glad that I didn't!).
I have previously said and I will say again (groan!) that, while I am distressed at the human cost of this transition in the journalism industry (please note that I deliberately did not use the word "profession" for reasons that will become clear), I am optimistic about the long term economic future of that industry, albeit, that future will be bumpy (regrettably, meaning more human cost).
The history of the journalism industry includes pamphleteers, one party papers (hello, Toronto Red Star, Toronto Telegram, etc.) and a vast variety of individuals who published to put forth viewpoints, whether or not related to politics, etc. (see the Calgary - my home town - Eye Opener newspaper for a lesson in anti CPR, etc.) In other words, the history of journalism is fraught with economic uncertainty and bias that ultimately worked itself through.
My point is, that the current state of journalism as exhibited on the internet is nothing new and it will ultimately result in something approaching the nirvana that is clearly desired by Messrs. Glavin and Edge and so many others, including me. So, yes, we will get there but, yes, it will be terrifically bumpy and, yes, quit your whining because this is simply the normal process, albeit with great human cost.
And, one final thing. I above mentioned journalism on the internet but I did not mention the old hard copy newspapers. Again, deliberate. I am certain (I don't know as I haven't tried) that I could still purchase a buggy whip if I wished; it would be hard but not impossible. So, hard copy newspapers are to buggy whips, etc. but news is a different thing altogether.
Here's hoping I find the time to carefully read both Marc's and Terry's reminiscences -- and to comment. Both have made valuable contributions to Canadian journalism. I've never met Terry but back in the "good old days" at Simon Fraser U, Marc followed me by a few years on the Peak, SFU's student newspaper. Marc wandered off to foreign lands and I made my way to the BC Interior where I had a gig or two as a weekly's editor. Marc knows a heck of a lot about Vancouver newspaper history.
Happy to read nasty things about Conrad Black who stole the then-$4B Argus Corp from my great uncle Eric Phillips’ widow and the widow of Bud McDougald. Despised persona non grata in my family ever since. Disgraceful that he got his Cdn citizenship back when he holds us all in such profound disdain!
Terry, you describe "Canadian Dimensions" as the left-wing version of Rebel News. And here I thought the CBC, CTV, and Global were the left-wing version of Rebel News...
they are in the middle . . . I am your worst nightmare . . . in my world, there are no government bailouts of media . . . let that sink in for a moment
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. I said I'm a libertarian. In my world, there are no government bailouts of media - or anything else, for that matter. The government serves the function of the "nightwatchman state" only - protecting people from fraud, theft, and violence. Let that sink in for a moment. I'm your worst nightmare.
Second thing: I'd like to propose an alternative hypothesis. The decline of the news business is largely a function of the decline in the education system. Way back in my day, teachers from grade one onward were only interested in teaching kids HOW to think, not WHAT to think. In the elementary grades, that meant focusing on reading, writing, and arithmetic. In secondary grades, the focus was on skills like calculus, algebra, reading comprehension and expression focused on the classical cannon, on how to perform science experiments, woodworking and machine shop. By contrast, education nowadays is mostly about telling kids what they MUST believe to be virtuous: climate change, SOGI123, the whole covid narrative, etc. And modern teachers brook no dissent. Whereas in my day, teachers encouraged off-beat thoughts, today a student is ridiculed or punished for thinking differently on a host of politically correct topics. The result is that today, people are only looking for the "truths" they are expected to adhere to by their peers; they are looking for the approved narrative, not controversy or complications or debate. To keep an audience, the news business has shattered into camps pumping narratives, with scant regard for the search for truth. That's obviously what is profitable on a grand scale, because that is what the "money men" are pandering to. News articles rarely provide links to original sources, so that readers can double-check the narrative without going to an alternative source. Everybody wants to be "protected" from "misinformation" nowadays. A certain small percentage of news consumers still want to hear both sides of a story, still want to judge for themselves. And some fringe media like Joe Rogan and The Real Story cater to that. But it doesn't scale with today's dumbed-down, uninquisitive, scared-of-their-own-shadows, poorly educated news consumers. That's my theory as to why journalism is in such poor shape.
My only contacts with the media were as a paper boy from 1957 to 1962, delivering the Montreal Star, and as a reader ever since. Starting in the 1980s, I got into the habit of reading the New York Times for everything except specifically Canadian news. Since the advent of news availability online, I complement that by a variety of U.S., U.K. and other sources (newspapers in many countries have English-language versions online). I find Canadian news media to generally be inferior, except of course for local news. The increasing involvement of the Canadian government doesn't help, in my view.
I do find Canadian commentators to be helpful, especially those putting out newsletters on substack, of which Terry is one. As Jen Gerson recently observed, commentary is much cheaper to produce than actual news, so my hope is that the Canadian public will be able to provide continued support, without any government subsidies.
Grant, my earliest contact with the print media was as an 11-year old delivering both the Toronto Star and the Toronto Telegram at the same time. When the Star heard about little me, I was given an ultimatum: them or us. I will leave it to you to determine what kind of message that sent to an ambitious boy trying to earn a buck. By the way, I stuck with the Star and the Telly was gone before I turned 15. Smart me.
Terry, an interesting dive in providing the "opposition" an opportunity to state views on what hopefully will turn out to include, what ails the ability of the MSM and broadcasting outlets throughout the western world to produce balanced, non biased, factual journalism, - get the facts, some insightful analysis followed by minimal opinion of the writer, for all in the newspaper business face the same problems.
Now in the foothills of old age, I have been a newspaper reader all my life and maturity has brought on more conservative views on current NEWS that fills the depleted pages of MSM without even wanting to mention the broadcasting outlets, whose problems are somewhat more complicated mainly on account of the more tortuous route that these "networks" have traveled to arrive at the varacity of what they call "news" and what the public needs to know.
No doubt there will be of course be finger pointing, denial, blamestorming and political posturing, but the fact that these opposing positions can actually bee discussed in this day and age is indeed a breath of fresh air in the present fetid atmosphere of spreading FEAR, censoring NEWS by MSM through ommision or silence, outright shaming and authoritarian cancelling, so prevalent today in our western world.
Conrad Black didn't "ruin" journalism in Canada. That's absurd on its face. I am not the one to defend everything Black has done in his business career, but the National Post when he started / owned it was a very badly needed balance to the craziness in the Star that was polluting so many minds (and still is). Black found a stable of terrific writers and editors for that vehicle. Too many to name. I'm not spending good money chasing your silly left-wing theory down. Sorry. All too predictable, coming from someone who calls him names like "Tubby" and gloats about the time he spent in jail (mostly on trumped-up charges, I should say). You just keep proving your abject biases with every sentence you write. I think I'll give the rest of your series a pass, too. Just not up to the caliber I have come to expect from this website.
It's not absurd at all. What you mean to say is that you don't agree with me, so you're not going to even consider my explanation. This is known in information processing theory as selective exposure and is the basis of the unfortunate phenomenon we call news silos. Technology literally enables people to be more closed-minded than ever. The National Post was a brilliant addition to the panoply of newspapers in Canada because, like Fox News, it spoke to an under-served market, ie. conservatives. That's not one of the ways that I say Lord Black ruined journalism in Canada, however, as I am all in favour of a diverse marketplace of ideas. In fact, he improved journalism, if only briefly, by raising standards (and salaries) until the Aspers got ahold of it, then the hedge funds. I could go on, but you have no doubt tuned me out by now simply because you don't agree with me. Like most people, you only want to read what you agree with in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. Sad.
Worse than the Government controlling and colluding with the Corporate Media we now have them controlling and colluding with the platforms on the internet as they did through out COVID and beyond. Its only escalating now as they know control through legislation or laws will allow them to control it all. So regardless of what is free speech today, with the direction this Government, their Corporate Partners in this country, as well as other globalist companies, Banks, and Governments, there will only end up being State Sponsored News in the end which needs no advertising. If they indeed can control all the information on the internet, Substack will also become obsolete as Governments will put in more legislation in order to remove it from here as well. In August Twitter will be unable to have a free speech platform in other countries in the West as well. If they refuse to comply with the legislation by the European Government's, they will cancel Twitter in their countries. Its about control and that is all its ever been about. So in the end the media will be dead anyway, and all you will have is Government controlled or Post National State Media reporting to all Canadian's and those in Western Nations. The fact is the Corporate Media has aided us to this point, only to have themselves still become obsolete while colluding with the Government to save themselves. There will be no journalists allowed to speak truth to power after they gain control over all platforms. Those journalists that are new and trained in the Universities of today are already working for the Government and pushing State Sponsored Messaging and reporting anyway. The journalists leaving, are the real journalists who can not abide by Government sponsored and dictated news. It will all be controlled by Government. You see, what we have allowed only escalates and it will continue to do so until either we remove the governments of the day, or they silence us all.
Marylou, first off, I have to say that you certainly see a dim future: not nearly a glass half full but a glass (mostly) empty. For myself I look at things as being that proverbial glass with water but I neither find it half full nor half empty but, instead, I find it to be a glass that is continually being refreshed, sometimes nearing empty and sometimes being nearly full. The responsibility for refreshing the water level is mine: I have to work at being hydrated. [To overwork my metaphor.]
My metaphor is based on the ultimate idea that there will always be folks who value "the news," whether you call that journalism or something else. Further, the concepts that we have for journalism, i.e. independence, critical thought, etc., etc. are not universally accepted. Currently, many in the journalism community assert that being even-handed is wrong, presenting two (or many) sides of a story is wrong, etc. In other words, those folk have taken sides in their "journalism."
By and large, that side is on the left end of the spectrum, even though they are in mainstream media. No, I don't mean that they are the NDP, etc. but, instead that they have perspectives that "everyone who thinks" absolutely "SHOULD" have. I don't agree with those folks (perhaps I don't think?) but I do have to know that they are out there and that they currently have much, much influence in many media organizations. I can also find right wing versions of that approach but those folks are frequently on the various fringe websites not mainstream media. Ooops! I'm sounding like a conspiracy nut!
Yes, I agree that governments and big business wants to control us and tell us what to think. Please understand a terrifically basic truth: 'twas ever thus. In "the old days" newspapers were controlled by their individual owners and then by the publishers of each paper appointed by head office far away. Those owners and publishers (originally one and the same) were potentates who published for their own reasons, including profit, influence, political power, etc., etc. They gave "us" the news that they thought that we "deserved." The concepts of fairness, presentation of various viewpoints, etc. is quite a recent phenomenon.
On the other hand, during those days there sprung up various pamphleteers, independent news outlets of various and sundry dubiosity [a word that I just coined], but they were alternative sources. So many of them failed but a notable number did succeed.
If you want the nirvana of the 1960s to 1990s newspaper industry, get over it: it's not coming back. Having said that, there will still be web sites out there. You already read M. Glavin; you will note that his guest columnist, frenemy Marc Edge, writes for Canadian Dimension magazine which Terry calls a "left-wing answer to Ezra Levant's Rebel News." Sam Cooper just started his own Substack (very worthwhile in my view). So, it is out there.
In truth, I have not previously found Canadian Dimension and I will have to go and discover it; I have discovered Rebel News - whew! Yes, Rebel News "has a point of view" but, strangely enough it does actually cover some things that the MSM does not cover - who knew?
My point is, those glorious, easy days of journalism that ended in about the 1990s will not be coming back but there are and will be alternatives if you are willing to look and work at it. Will "most" people bother? Quite frankly, I suspect not but I cannot control most people; I have enough trouble controlling myself.
So, to conclude, yes, it is distressing that the "easy" way is not available to us but we can still get appropriate information; just work for it and quit whining. That last is something that I want to tell every politician in this country but I know that none of them would listen.
I appreciate your view point. I am a little tainted I must admit but I have been paying attention for a long while. Too long. I am beginning to understand the motivations of those politicians who are attempting to hoodwink and censor alternative voices and I am aware of every piece of legislation they pass. I think just in that knowledge alone it should make every Canadian extremely concerned. The actions of our Justice system as well should be a shining example of how far we have fallen. The fact the media propogated through out the pandemic and still does the same today, be it by producing only one view, or becoming activists for government policies. This should have Canadians looking twice or turning off the tube, so to speak. Yet I find it is not so, as many have been hoodwinked and remain that way due to the media. I don’t truly believe Canada or Canadian’s have the fortitude or the ambition to self correct as the East is in deep. The East rules the West as we see, regardless of what is written in our Constitution. Just as the government rules over the media. The fraud, the corruption, and the misuse of power over the last while has been enough to make even the most optimistic person lose hope. It’s only because I am greatly aware of the actions of government and our institutions that I bare little hope for our country. The Governments obsession for complete control and the willingness for so many Canadians and our Institutions who continue to prop it up, should set off alarm bells. The fact remains that people think everything will take care of itself, sort of like how Trudeau thinks the budget should. It’s the lack of engagement and the ability to sort truth from fiction by the majority that is the worst part of all and will be what ends Canada, as we have known it. I truly don’t hold out much hope but I would be happy for any or all to prove me wrong. I listen and read far to many different sources on and off line to mention. I like Black-locks, True North, and the Rebel did a magnificent job through out the truckers convoy and the inquiry. I am against government control as the incompetency is over whelming and catastrophic for everyone in Canada. If they succeed, the entire country fails.
Marylou, I will attempt to respond to your points (I may miss some; if so, please forgive me).
I would say that my view is very jaundiced toward so many politicians who tell us a) that they are virtuous; b) they know better than we; c) they have the MAGIC platform - just trust them; when any reasonable review of their actions (dishonest, self-serving and just plain lies) shows otherwise.
Please be very careful and understand that we do not have a "justice" system but we have a "legal" system. Any resemblance of the legal system to justice is absolutely to be hoped for but is purely coincidental.
Ah.... the media and the pandemic .... Please don't get me started on the one-sided, stupid and dishonest job of the media during the pandemic. I absolutely accept that no one knew what the best course of action was at the outset but I very quickly became truly disgusted at the violent action and reaction against those who simply asked reasonable questions and suggested interesting alternatives. All such people were shouted down as "not following the science" when actual following the science involves questions and challenging orthodoxies. It remains a matter of shame that the governments and, particularly, the medical establishment will not reflect on how things worked well and how they worked abominably.
Yes, the media have a lot to answer for but, no, no one will hold them to account. Well, except we the consumers of those various media. We are fleeing to other sources because we have seen the "emperor" (i.e. the media) and he sure as hell has no clothes - can't afford them now, you know.
You are ever so correct that we in the West are ruled by the Center and the East.
At least you have hope for Canada. I must confess that I have no hope whatsoever that Canada will reform itself. I think that it will spin apart. I am aware of folks who hope for Wexit and see it as a salvation whereas I see it as a fond asperation but something that will include much dislocation although I would expect even greater dislocation in the rest of Canada.
I agree with you about the federal government's obsession for control and hiding truth. You have made comment about JT; I can simply say that I cannot even type his name, I am that enraged with how he and his clique have dealt with the country.
I have seen a bit of Blacklock's Reporter but, because I don't have a subscription, I have not seen a great deal. True North and Rebel are interesting. In some cases they are truly out there but folks should understand that, notwithstanding the out there stuff, there is some very interesting and enlightening commentary: consider the out there stuff as the cost of the interesting and enlightening stuff.
Yes, Rebel did well during the convoy and enquiry.
I must add that there are many other sources that I think have done well. In particular, I think The Line has done terrifically well.
As for government control, I have to say that, yes, the government wants control but, no, they are so incompetent that they ultimately cannot keep secrets. Such secrets do come out. Late, but the do come out. Consider the information about Chinese involvement with the government about which Mr. Glavin, Sam Cooper, Fyfe and Chase et al have written. The fact that these stories have taken this long to get attention is truly serious and, yes, may ultimately result in the breakup of the country, but then, as noted, that might be a good thing.
First thing, you guys both need to get sorted out on the basics of finance before rushing into commentary on the industry. Terry says that BellMedia earned a 42% profit margin last year; while Marc says that the "vulture capitalists" made hundreds of millions at a time by (i) buying and flipping newspapers, and (ii) cutting costs. Profits are a sign of a thriving business; walking zombies are losing money. A 42% profit margin is terrific, as anyone who has ever watched an episode of Dragon Den can tell you. If BellMedia were *really* making 42% profit margins, it would be attracting every Tom, Dick , and Harry into the industry (assuming the market isn't rigged by government). Nor is it hard to believe that the cost-cutting of the "vulture capitalists" was necessary and laudable: the layoffs and cost cutting Elon Musk implemented as soon as he took over twitter make Conrad Black and Roy Tomson look like pikers, softies! And twitter is in an industry still in its ascendancy. BellMedia, like Conrad Black, is answerable to shareholders such as your elderly mother or grandmother living on pensions and mutual funds - nurses and teachers and such. If they don't make money, that's bad news, too. Competition in a free market is the ONLY force that can align everyone's interests in the medium term: the shareholders, the consumers, the employees, the managers, the suppliers, etc. Best by test.
Marc conflates Bell Media with Bell Canada Enterprises. BCE (all figures for 2022) had Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) of $10.2Bn on revenues of $24.2Bn - which is a 42% margin, but it ignores that BCE is a pretty asset-heavy company (all those cell towers and fiber networks don't come for free).
By comparison, Bell Media had EBITDA of $745M on revenues of $3.3Bn, or a 23% margin. Bell doesn't allocate the interest and depreciation costs in their segmented figures, so we don't now how well Bell media did on an all-in basis, but BCE's Net Income was $2.9Bn (a 12% after-tax margin), and their pre-tax Net Income was $3.9Bn (16% pre-tax).
If Marc thinks Bell should spend more in the media business out of an obligation to journalism or the public good, what he is really saying can be recast as "telephone users should subsidize his morning paper, and afternoon news broadcast."
Thanks for that info, Dean. It is as I had suspected, then. It looks like the Trudeau government is determined to screw up the market for information as badly as they have screwed up the market for telecoms. Canada will soon have the most unreliable media to go along with our most expensive telecoms.
Back in 2000 I worked for a large paper manufacturer. My employer conducted a company-wide assessment to understand the implications of the rise of the internet. They wanted to anticipate what that meant for paper-based communications and where new markets would logically open up. And where the company needed to be by the year 2010.
I wonder, what think tanks were conducted in the traditional media? Did anyone analyze the impact of government funding on customer demand? What new markets could potentially open up? It seems to me the private sector media ought to have filed class action lawsuits against CBC for unfair competition to right the ship. Instead, they joined the welfare line.
No media should be government funded. None. Not the CBC, not the NP: none.
Terry, first off, plaudits to you for allowing your frenemy to get his point of view out there. One of the features of our current news environment is that we get a (somewhat) consistent perspective from various "news" websites, be it one wing or the other, when we subscribe (and, yes, I do pay you!) to a newspaper, Substack or what have you. There is nothing wrong, per se, with that (somewhat) consistency but there is a danger if we do not have some basis for asking ourselves where our blind spots or outright errors exist; therefore we as news consumers must work to get variety. Again, plaudits to you for allowing your frenemy to use your platform.
Now, as they say, for something (kind of) completely different.
I am "of an age" as they say, so I lived through what we now might call the golden age of journalism where the publishers got incredibly fat (hello, Connie!) and very sassy (again, hello, Connie) but we, the unwashed, got some great, if uneven, journalism. At one time, back in my university days I even thought of joining your profession (glad that I didn't!).
I have previously said and I will say again (groan!) that, while I am distressed at the human cost of this transition in the journalism industry (please note that I deliberately did not use the word "profession" for reasons that will become clear), I am optimistic about the long term economic future of that industry, albeit, that future will be bumpy (regrettably, meaning more human cost).
The history of the journalism industry includes pamphleteers, one party papers (hello, Toronto Red Star, Toronto Telegram, etc.) and a vast variety of individuals who published to put forth viewpoints, whether or not related to politics, etc. (see the Calgary - my home town - Eye Opener newspaper for a lesson in anti CPR, etc.) In other words, the history of journalism is fraught with economic uncertainty and bias that ultimately worked itself through.
My point is, that the current state of journalism as exhibited on the internet is nothing new and it will ultimately result in something approaching the nirvana that is clearly desired by Messrs. Glavin and Edge and so many others, including me. So, yes, we will get there but, yes, it will be terrifically bumpy and, yes, quit your whining because this is simply the normal process, albeit with great human cost.
And, one final thing. I above mentioned journalism on the internet but I did not mention the old hard copy newspapers. Again, deliberate. I am certain (I don't know as I haven't tried) that I could still purchase a buggy whip if I wished; it would be hard but not impossible. So, hard copy newspapers are to buggy whips, etc. but news is a different thing altogether.
Thanks for this, Ken. You've clearly given this a great deal of thought. And we're pretty well on the same page (not page one!)
tg
Here's hoping I find the time to carefully read both Marc's and Terry's reminiscences -- and to comment. Both have made valuable contributions to Canadian journalism. I've never met Terry but back in the "good old days" at Simon Fraser U, Marc followed me by a few years on the Peak, SFU's student newspaper. Marc wandered off to foreign lands and I made my way to the BC Interior where I had a gig or two as a weekly's editor. Marc knows a heck of a lot about Vancouver newspaper history.
Great stuff Terry and Marc. Top notch.
I read his article last week and was reminded that hedge funds while legal are challenged ethically. It is always good to hear both sides.
Both the Post and the Globe are doing some good reporting these days. Your point on the CBC speaks volumes.
I really enjoyed reading about the history and amalgamation of these newspapers and media! Looking forward to Part 2.
In the late 1800's, early 1900's the railway and other magnates got too big in the USA and they were forced to de-merger.
Maybe something like that could be done with Google, Facebook etc.?
Happy to read nasty things about Conrad Black who stole the then-$4B Argus Corp from my great uncle Eric Phillips’ widow and the widow of Bud McDougald. Despised persona non grata in my family ever since. Disgraceful that he got his Cdn citizenship back when he holds us all in such profound disdain!
Wow. Great story Margaret!
6 degrees of separation and a lot less, it seems. I admire your work and also that of C. Black
Terry, you describe "Canadian Dimensions" as the left-wing version of Rebel News. And here I thought the CBC, CTV, and Global were the left-wing version of Rebel News...
they are in the middle . . . I am your worst nightmare . . . in my world, there are no government bailouts of media . . . let that sink in for a moment
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. I said I'm a libertarian. In my world, there are no government bailouts of media - or anything else, for that matter. The government serves the function of the "nightwatchman state" only - protecting people from fraud, theft, and violence. Let that sink in for a moment. I'm your worst nightmare.
Second thing: I'd like to propose an alternative hypothesis. The decline of the news business is largely a function of the decline in the education system. Way back in my day, teachers from grade one onward were only interested in teaching kids HOW to think, not WHAT to think. In the elementary grades, that meant focusing on reading, writing, and arithmetic. In secondary grades, the focus was on skills like calculus, algebra, reading comprehension and expression focused on the classical cannon, on how to perform science experiments, woodworking and machine shop. By contrast, education nowadays is mostly about telling kids what they MUST believe to be virtuous: climate change, SOGI123, the whole covid narrative, etc. And modern teachers brook no dissent. Whereas in my day, teachers encouraged off-beat thoughts, today a student is ridiculed or punished for thinking differently on a host of politically correct topics. The result is that today, people are only looking for the "truths" they are expected to adhere to by their peers; they are looking for the approved narrative, not controversy or complications or debate. To keep an audience, the news business has shattered into camps pumping narratives, with scant regard for the search for truth. That's obviously what is profitable on a grand scale, because that is what the "money men" are pandering to. News articles rarely provide links to original sources, so that readers can double-check the narrative without going to an alternative source. Everybody wants to be "protected" from "misinformation" nowadays. A certain small percentage of news consumers still want to hear both sides of a story, still want to judge for themselves. And some fringe media like Joe Rogan and The Real Story cater to that. But it doesn't scale with today's dumbed-down, uninquisitive, scared-of-their-own-shadows, poorly educated news consumers. That's my theory as to why journalism is in such poor shape.
My only contacts with the media were as a paper boy from 1957 to 1962, delivering the Montreal Star, and as a reader ever since. Starting in the 1980s, I got into the habit of reading the New York Times for everything except specifically Canadian news. Since the advent of news availability online, I complement that by a variety of U.S., U.K. and other sources (newspapers in many countries have English-language versions online). I find Canadian news media to generally be inferior, except of course for local news. The increasing involvement of the Canadian government doesn't help, in my view.
I do find Canadian commentators to be helpful, especially those putting out newsletters on substack, of which Terry is one. As Jen Gerson recently observed, commentary is much cheaper to produce than actual news, so my hope is that the Canadian public will be able to provide continued support, without any government subsidies.
Grant, my earliest contact with the print media was as an 11-year old delivering both the Toronto Star and the Toronto Telegram at the same time. When the Star heard about little me, I was given an ultimatum: them or us. I will leave it to you to determine what kind of message that sent to an ambitious boy trying to earn a buck. By the way, I stuck with the Star and the Telly was gone before I turned 15. Smart me.
Terry, an interesting dive in providing the "opposition" an opportunity to state views on what hopefully will turn out to include, what ails the ability of the MSM and broadcasting outlets throughout the western world to produce balanced, non biased, factual journalism, - get the facts, some insightful analysis followed by minimal opinion of the writer, for all in the newspaper business face the same problems.
Now in the foothills of old age, I have been a newspaper reader all my life and maturity has brought on more conservative views on current NEWS that fills the depleted pages of MSM without even wanting to mention the broadcasting outlets, whose problems are somewhat more complicated mainly on account of the more tortuous route that these "networks" have traveled to arrive at the varacity of what they call "news" and what the public needs to know.
No doubt there will be of course be finger pointing, denial, blamestorming and political posturing, but the fact that these opposing positions can actually bee discussed in this day and age is indeed a breath of fresh air in the present fetid atmosphere of spreading FEAR, censoring NEWS by MSM through ommision or silence, outright shaming and authoritarian cancelling, so prevalent today in our western world.
Conrad Black didn't "ruin" journalism in Canada. That's absurd on its face. I am not the one to defend everything Black has done in his business career, but the National Post when he started / owned it was a very badly needed balance to the craziness in the Star that was polluting so many minds (and still is). Black found a stable of terrific writers and editors for that vehicle. Too many to name. I'm not spending good money chasing your silly left-wing theory down. Sorry. All too predictable, coming from someone who calls him names like "Tubby" and gloats about the time he spent in jail (mostly on trumped-up charges, I should say). You just keep proving your abject biases with every sentence you write. I think I'll give the rest of your series a pass, too. Just not up to the caliber I have come to expect from this website.
It's not absurd at all. What you mean to say is that you don't agree with me, so you're not going to even consider my explanation. This is known in information processing theory as selective exposure and is the basis of the unfortunate phenomenon we call news silos. Technology literally enables people to be more closed-minded than ever. The National Post was a brilliant addition to the panoply of newspapers in Canada because, like Fox News, it spoke to an under-served market, ie. conservatives. That's not one of the ways that I say Lord Black ruined journalism in Canada, however, as I am all in favour of a diverse marketplace of ideas. In fact, he improved journalism, if only briefly, by raising standards (and salaries) until the Aspers got ahold of it, then the hedge funds. I could go on, but you have no doubt tuned me out by now simply because you don't agree with me. Like most people, you only want to read what you agree with in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. Sad.
Worse than the Government controlling and colluding with the Corporate Media we now have them controlling and colluding with the platforms on the internet as they did through out COVID and beyond. Its only escalating now as they know control through legislation or laws will allow them to control it all. So regardless of what is free speech today, with the direction this Government, their Corporate Partners in this country, as well as other globalist companies, Banks, and Governments, there will only end up being State Sponsored News in the end which needs no advertising. If they indeed can control all the information on the internet, Substack will also become obsolete as Governments will put in more legislation in order to remove it from here as well. In August Twitter will be unable to have a free speech platform in other countries in the West as well. If they refuse to comply with the legislation by the European Government's, they will cancel Twitter in their countries. Its about control and that is all its ever been about. So in the end the media will be dead anyway, and all you will have is Government controlled or Post National State Media reporting to all Canadian's and those in Western Nations. The fact is the Corporate Media has aided us to this point, only to have themselves still become obsolete while colluding with the Government to save themselves. There will be no journalists allowed to speak truth to power after they gain control over all platforms. Those journalists that are new and trained in the Universities of today are already working for the Government and pushing State Sponsored Messaging and reporting anyway. The journalists leaving, are the real journalists who can not abide by Government sponsored and dictated news. It will all be controlled by Government. You see, what we have allowed only escalates and it will continue to do so until either we remove the governments of the day, or they silence us all.
Marylou, first off, I have to say that you certainly see a dim future: not nearly a glass half full but a glass (mostly) empty. For myself I look at things as being that proverbial glass with water but I neither find it half full nor half empty but, instead, I find it to be a glass that is continually being refreshed, sometimes nearing empty and sometimes being nearly full. The responsibility for refreshing the water level is mine: I have to work at being hydrated. [To overwork my metaphor.]
My metaphor is based on the ultimate idea that there will always be folks who value "the news," whether you call that journalism or something else. Further, the concepts that we have for journalism, i.e. independence, critical thought, etc., etc. are not universally accepted. Currently, many in the journalism community assert that being even-handed is wrong, presenting two (or many) sides of a story is wrong, etc. In other words, those folk have taken sides in their "journalism."
By and large, that side is on the left end of the spectrum, even though they are in mainstream media. No, I don't mean that they are the NDP, etc. but, instead that they have perspectives that "everyone who thinks" absolutely "SHOULD" have. I don't agree with those folks (perhaps I don't think?) but I do have to know that they are out there and that they currently have much, much influence in many media organizations. I can also find right wing versions of that approach but those folks are frequently on the various fringe websites not mainstream media. Ooops! I'm sounding like a conspiracy nut!
Yes, I agree that governments and big business wants to control us and tell us what to think. Please understand a terrifically basic truth: 'twas ever thus. In "the old days" newspapers were controlled by their individual owners and then by the publishers of each paper appointed by head office far away. Those owners and publishers (originally one and the same) were potentates who published for their own reasons, including profit, influence, political power, etc., etc. They gave "us" the news that they thought that we "deserved." The concepts of fairness, presentation of various viewpoints, etc. is quite a recent phenomenon.
On the other hand, during those days there sprung up various pamphleteers, independent news outlets of various and sundry dubiosity [a word that I just coined], but they were alternative sources. So many of them failed but a notable number did succeed.
If you want the nirvana of the 1960s to 1990s newspaper industry, get over it: it's not coming back. Having said that, there will still be web sites out there. You already read M. Glavin; you will note that his guest columnist, frenemy Marc Edge, writes for Canadian Dimension magazine which Terry calls a "left-wing answer to Ezra Levant's Rebel News." Sam Cooper just started his own Substack (very worthwhile in my view). So, it is out there.
In truth, I have not previously found Canadian Dimension and I will have to go and discover it; I have discovered Rebel News - whew! Yes, Rebel News "has a point of view" but, strangely enough it does actually cover some things that the MSM does not cover - who knew?
My point is, those glorious, easy days of journalism that ended in about the 1990s will not be coming back but there are and will be alternatives if you are willing to look and work at it. Will "most" people bother? Quite frankly, I suspect not but I cannot control most people; I have enough trouble controlling myself.
So, to conclude, yes, it is distressing that the "easy" way is not available to us but we can still get appropriate information; just work for it and quit whining. That last is something that I want to tell every politician in this country but I know that none of them would listen.
I appreciate your view point. I am a little tainted I must admit but I have been paying attention for a long while. Too long. I am beginning to understand the motivations of those politicians who are attempting to hoodwink and censor alternative voices and I am aware of every piece of legislation they pass. I think just in that knowledge alone it should make every Canadian extremely concerned. The actions of our Justice system as well should be a shining example of how far we have fallen. The fact the media propogated through out the pandemic and still does the same today, be it by producing only one view, or becoming activists for government policies. This should have Canadians looking twice or turning off the tube, so to speak. Yet I find it is not so, as many have been hoodwinked and remain that way due to the media. I don’t truly believe Canada or Canadian’s have the fortitude or the ambition to self correct as the East is in deep. The East rules the West as we see, regardless of what is written in our Constitution. Just as the government rules over the media. The fraud, the corruption, and the misuse of power over the last while has been enough to make even the most optimistic person lose hope. It’s only because I am greatly aware of the actions of government and our institutions that I bare little hope for our country. The Governments obsession for complete control and the willingness for so many Canadians and our Institutions who continue to prop it up, should set off alarm bells. The fact remains that people think everything will take care of itself, sort of like how Trudeau thinks the budget should. It’s the lack of engagement and the ability to sort truth from fiction by the majority that is the worst part of all and will be what ends Canada, as we have known it. I truly don’t hold out much hope but I would be happy for any or all to prove me wrong. I listen and read far to many different sources on and off line to mention. I like Black-locks, True North, and the Rebel did a magnificent job through out the truckers convoy and the inquiry. I am against government control as the incompetency is over whelming and catastrophic for everyone in Canada. If they succeed, the entire country fails.
Marylou, I will attempt to respond to your points (I may miss some; if so, please forgive me).
I would say that my view is very jaundiced toward so many politicians who tell us a) that they are virtuous; b) they know better than we; c) they have the MAGIC platform - just trust them; when any reasonable review of their actions (dishonest, self-serving and just plain lies) shows otherwise.
Please be very careful and understand that we do not have a "justice" system but we have a "legal" system. Any resemblance of the legal system to justice is absolutely to be hoped for but is purely coincidental.
Ah.... the media and the pandemic .... Please don't get me started on the one-sided, stupid and dishonest job of the media during the pandemic. I absolutely accept that no one knew what the best course of action was at the outset but I very quickly became truly disgusted at the violent action and reaction against those who simply asked reasonable questions and suggested interesting alternatives. All such people were shouted down as "not following the science" when actual following the science involves questions and challenging orthodoxies. It remains a matter of shame that the governments and, particularly, the medical establishment will not reflect on how things worked well and how they worked abominably.
Yes, the media have a lot to answer for but, no, no one will hold them to account. Well, except we the consumers of those various media. We are fleeing to other sources because we have seen the "emperor" (i.e. the media) and he sure as hell has no clothes - can't afford them now, you know.
You are ever so correct that we in the West are ruled by the Center and the East.
At least you have hope for Canada. I must confess that I have no hope whatsoever that Canada will reform itself. I think that it will spin apart. I am aware of folks who hope for Wexit and see it as a salvation whereas I see it as a fond asperation but something that will include much dislocation although I would expect even greater dislocation in the rest of Canada.
I agree with you about the federal government's obsession for control and hiding truth. You have made comment about JT; I can simply say that I cannot even type his name, I am that enraged with how he and his clique have dealt with the country.
I have seen a bit of Blacklock's Reporter but, because I don't have a subscription, I have not seen a great deal. True North and Rebel are interesting. In some cases they are truly out there but folks should understand that, notwithstanding the out there stuff, there is some very interesting and enlightening commentary: consider the out there stuff as the cost of the interesting and enlightening stuff.
Yes, Rebel did well during the convoy and enquiry.
I must add that there are many other sources that I think have done well. In particular, I think The Line has done terrifically well.
As for government control, I have to say that, yes, the government wants control but, no, they are so incompetent that they ultimately cannot keep secrets. Such secrets do come out. Late, but the do come out. Consider the information about Chinese involvement with the government about which Mr. Glavin, Sam Cooper, Fyfe and Chase et al have written. The fact that these stories have taken this long to get attention is truly serious and, yes, may ultimately result in the breakup of the country, but then, as noted, that might be a good thing.
First thing, you guys both need to get sorted out on the basics of finance before rushing into commentary on the industry. Terry says that BellMedia earned a 42% profit margin last year; while Marc says that the "vulture capitalists" made hundreds of millions at a time by (i) buying and flipping newspapers, and (ii) cutting costs. Profits are a sign of a thriving business; walking zombies are losing money. A 42% profit margin is terrific, as anyone who has ever watched an episode of Dragon Den can tell you. If BellMedia were *really* making 42% profit margins, it would be attracting every Tom, Dick , and Harry into the industry (assuming the market isn't rigged by government). Nor is it hard to believe that the cost-cutting of the "vulture capitalists" was necessary and laudable: the layoffs and cost cutting Elon Musk implemented as soon as he took over twitter make Conrad Black and Roy Tomson look like pikers, softies! And twitter is in an industry still in its ascendancy. BellMedia, like Conrad Black, is answerable to shareholders such as your elderly mother or grandmother living on pensions and mutual funds - nurses and teachers and such. If they don't make money, that's bad news, too. Competition in a free market is the ONLY force that can align everyone's interests in the medium term: the shareholders, the consumers, the employees, the managers, the suppliers, etc. Best by test.
Marc conflates Bell Media with Bell Canada Enterprises. BCE (all figures for 2022) had Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) of $10.2Bn on revenues of $24.2Bn - which is a 42% margin, but it ignores that BCE is a pretty asset-heavy company (all those cell towers and fiber networks don't come for free).
By comparison, Bell Media had EBITDA of $745M on revenues of $3.3Bn, or a 23% margin. Bell doesn't allocate the interest and depreciation costs in their segmented figures, so we don't now how well Bell media did on an all-in basis, but BCE's Net Income was $2.9Bn (a 12% after-tax margin), and their pre-tax Net Income was $3.9Bn (16% pre-tax).
If Marc thinks Bell should spend more in the media business out of an obligation to journalism or the public good, what he is really saying can be recast as "telephone users should subsidize his morning paper, and afternoon news broadcast."
Thanks for that info, Dean. It is as I had suspected, then. It looks like the Trudeau government is determined to screw up the market for information as badly as they have screwed up the market for telecoms. Canada will soon have the most unreliable media to go along with our most expensive telecoms.
Back in 2000 I worked for a large paper manufacturer. My employer conducted a company-wide assessment to understand the implications of the rise of the internet. They wanted to anticipate what that meant for paper-based communications and where new markets would logically open up. And where the company needed to be by the year 2010.
I wonder, what think tanks were conducted in the traditional media? Did anyone analyze the impact of government funding on customer demand? What new markets could potentially open up? It seems to me the private sector media ought to have filed class action lawsuits against CBC for unfair competition to right the ship. Instead, they joined the welfare line.