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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.