I had to clarify because if I create a task saying how to best do this operation and the response is lets just fail, I don't think the original task was clear enough.
But of course that's unproven, and difficult to assert unless you again move the goalposts to "all Canadian news media of such-and-such a size and such-and-such a reputation extant at such-and-such a date". A brutal round of creative destruction usually leaves some participants standing.
I really wonder what happens when the journalists, the good ones who do all the investigative reporting, finding sources, leaks, the like, all move on once news media dies.
Or you have come to the realization that there is no better solution that ensures the Canadian news media continues to exist and are stubbornly refusing to admit that.
How often did people bitch about Poilievre bringing up scandal after scandal in Parliament?
Everything was a scandal. Everything was a call for resignation. It became white noise.
Possibly. But the majority of voters didn’t care much about what the political class derided as scandals.
The fake outrage here by some over some of them was certainly entertaining
Newsrooms were closing down across the country. Papers going out of business. Journalists sacked. And it's not even like the subsidies have stopped this all together, it's still happening, just more slowly.
Constant calls for resignation was obnoxious. Constant scandals were obnoxious too.
Right. So the "but what about reporting scandals" doesn't hold much water.
Which do you think was the most entertaining?
Actually everyone that has replied has given you the way to save it. Let it burn. People quit subscribing to traditional papers because they have become devoid of anything worth reading. For the same reason they stopped watching traditional TV. Instead of well-scripted plots and entertaining variety shows we have been reduced to watching reality shows that are anything but reality. Blue Bloods survived 20 years because it was worth tuning in to every week. But there are very few shows of that caliber left. If the press wants to survive it needs to revert to being worth subscribing to. I would bet that most people on this site subscribe to one or more likely a half a dozen web sources for news that more than equals the cost of a paper and would possibly revert to receiving printed news if it wasn't 50% advertising and contained news that was worth receiving at your door. A paper is much easier to read than this thing and can be recycled for the dog or to start a bonfire when you are done. It also works well to absorb paint spills too. So let the current set up burn and trust that someone will catch on and start printing news once again. Didn't you say it yourself. Trust the market and get the government out of it.
Was everything a scandal? Trudeau went on a vacation, oh my goodness, he took a government plane and needed security. Please, ethics commissioner, please check into this.
Seeing as Trudeau only won one majority government in 3 attempts, I like to think people cared.
In fairness, was I that incensed over PP and his scandals?
Since you as well have not come up with a viable alternative that ensures Canadian media exists, I will take that to mean that there are none and I thank you for participating in this little experiment.
Ah but I have ensured that it will exist. Just not in its current format which isn't worth saving. There is money to be made in news. As a side, I think you would agree that Amazon is successful and has put the big box stores out of business pretty well all by itself. Yet all it is is the Simpsons catalogue and home delivery service updated through the addition of computer controlled inventory. Simpsons, Sears, and Eaton's all had the idea a century ago but instead of modernizing and making it more convenient for the shopper they started nickel and diming delivery until it reached the point where it was no longer beneficial doing business with them. Amazon is starting to go the same way with their central pickup concept and they will lose if they pursue it. The news can do the same thing. Go back to where they were doing it right and modernize from there but to be successful they have to offer a product that people want to read and become the agency that people used to trust. And that will happen as soon as they get off the government teat and fend for themselves.
Bitcoin, firing bank of Canada governor,refusing to get his security clearance.
Since you as well have not come up with a viable alternative that ensures Canadian media exists, I will take that to mean that there are none and I thank you for participating in this little experiment.
I didn't think you were posting on the forum when his security clearence stuff hit the news.
The old news delivery models are mostly obsolete, and have been for a couple of decades. You may want to preserve the antiquated forms and practices; I don't. Just as traditional Canadian O&G-focused energy companies will eventually have to adapt to new "energy business" practices, so does the media have to adapt to new "news business" practices right now. Subsidization is a stop-gap desperate effort to protect companies unable or unwilling to shed obsolete practices and try new ones. Those who can successfully adopt profitable new business models deserve to survive; the rest are collections of resources to be dismembered and reapportioned to productive profitable enterprises of any kind.
I stated "creative destruction". It has the advantage of producing stronger entities. Whether enough of the news organizations you think particularly deserve to survive do in fact survive is not a criterion worth serious consideration.
For a guy who spent time complaining about tone on this site and then quit for a while in whatever kind of huff it was, you're sure capable of collapsing yourself into a bundle of insubstantial unctuous condescension on your way out of a debate you can't satisfactorily set limits upon.
