Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[ArmyRick]

So didn't care if he did was the answer. I didn't ask anything about the by-election. Simple question with a direct answer. Former sigs guy should be good at that.

 

[Altair]

So didn't care if he did was the answer. I didn't ask anything about the by-election. Simple question with a direct answer. Former sigs guy should be good at that.

Simple answer, it was up to him and his family. I respect the process

 

[Altair]

Let Canadian media burn. If they can't make a product people want we shouldn't be propping them up with tax dollars.

I think the falicy is that people don't want it.

I see Reddit posts with hundreds of thousands of responses, tens of thousands of views of tradition media news Links.

All viewed for free.

The demand is there. The supply, via government subsidy is there. The way to monetize it is not there.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What ways, other than subsidies, could traditional news media and journalists continue to exist in a fashion not dissimilar to the news we have now, where there are accredited journalists who follow ethical guidelines, fact checking, and accountability who are able to earn a predictable living wage while going about doing investigative journalism, local news, political commentary, news articles, debate hosting, leaks and source protection, investigating scandals and insider information in a credible manner and all the other ins and outs that traditional newspapers, news shows, news cycles, currently deliver to Canadians without letting the industry collapse due to lack to ad revenue, subscriptions and other ways to ensure steady revenue in lieu of subsidy money?

"not dissimilar" is a gaping hole. What does it imply? They have to remain the same size? None can fail? They can't change organization or staffing to improve efficiency? They can't change programming to become more focused on delivering concise summaries of facts and figures? They are allowed to carry on with whatever institutional biases they hold irrespective of whether by definition that prevents them from accessing a sufficiently large customer base?

If the problem you pose really allows no acceptable adaptations to the competitive situation as it currently exists, then you're pretty close to ruling out any duty to change in any meaningful way. In that case, propping them up with subsidies probably is the only solution, but all that does is preserve something people are ignoring and will continue to ignore (if it isn't under fiscal pressure to change). And if they're ignored, all the high-minded rhetoric about "importance to democracy" is vacuous. They're only important to democracy if people are paying attention, and if the information provided isn't tainted by partisanship - and the latter is a big "if".

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think the falicy is that people don't want it.

I see Reddit posts with hundreds of thousands of responses, tens of thousands of views of tradition media news Links.

All viewed for free.

The demand is there. The supply, via government subsidy is there. The way to monetize it is not there.

Sure there is. Media websites host ads just like everyone else. The more people that follow links to their websites, the more ad views they get.

Now, if you mean "the way to monetize it sufficiently to sustain them in the way they are accustomed to structuring and conducting themselves is not there", you might be correct.

Subscription numbers is a content issue. I never subscribed to a print paper because the amount of useful content of interest to me was always just too small. Ditto online newspapers. Their content is uniformly so superficial and tendentious that three or four free articles a month is enough for me.

Overall, their plight is content, for which they are responsible. They no longer occupy a privileged gatekeeper position.

 

[Altair]

"not dissimilar" is a gaping hole. What does it imply? They have to remain the same size? None can fail? They can't change organization or staffing to improve efficiency?

That's a fair point. Sure, downsizing is allowed, so long as the key goals I stated below can be accomplished in some fashion that isn't too watered down. Sure some can fail. Sure, organization can be changed.

What I meant was more like CTV News cannot be replaced with rebel news and be said to be offering the same service. Rebel news, for example, cannot qualify for the subsidies due to less than one percent of their content being original content. They piggyback off of traditional media, so naturally they cannot replace traditional media.

They can't change programming to become more focused on delivering concise summaries of facts and figures? They are allowed to carry on with whatever institutional biases they hold irrespective of whether by definition that prevents them from accessing a sufficiently large customer base?

Sure, within the confines of this, it's allowed.

If the problem you pose really allows no acceptable adaptations to the competitive situation as it currently exists, then you're pretty close to ruling out any duty to change in any meaningful way. In that case, propping them up with subsidies probably is the only solution, but all that does is preserve something people are ignoring and will continue to ignore (if it isn't under fiscal pressure to change).

Even with the changed parameters, I don't think there is a viable alternative but I am open to being wrong.

And if they're ignored, all the high-minded rhetoric about "importance to democracy" is vacuous. They're only important to democracy if people are paying attention, and if the information provided isn't tainted by partisanship - and the latter is a big "if".

Again, if something is consumed but the internet robs them of the ability to monetize it,is it really in low demand?

Big artists these days release songs knowing that they make a lot less via downloads than they did with physical cd sales. They make up for it by doing concert tours, that sell out. They are not in any less demand, their vehicle for monetization has changed. What is news media version of a Taylor Swift world tour?

 

[Altair]

Sure there is. Media websites host ads just like everyone else. The more people that follow links to their websites, the more ad views they get.

Now, if you mean "the way to monetize it sufficiently to sustain them in the way they are accustomed to structuring and conducting themselves is not there", you might be correct.

Subscription numbers is a content issue. I never subscribed to a print paper because the amount of useful content of interest to me was always just too small. Ditto online newspapers. Their content is uniformly so superficial and tendentious that three or four free articles a month is enough for me.

Overall, their plight is content, for which they are responsible. They no longer occupy a privileged gatekeeper position.

I remember years ago that online ad buys were pennies on the dollar compared to physical subscriptions, and even with the decreased expenses that came with dropping physical papers, it was not enough to fill that void.

So ultimately,yes, you are correct, the way to monetize it sufficiently to sustain them in the way they are accustomed to structuring and conducting themselves is not there, despite the demand still being there, although how much is hard to say these days.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sure, if the Liberals coming up with the idea of subsidizing media to encourage media to protect the hand that feeds them fits the subject.

Alright

 

[Brad Sallows]

Again, if something is consumed but the internet robs them of the ability to monetize it,is it really in low demand?

"Free" is an edge case that creates approximately unlimited demand. (See also: health care.) Put a price on it and the demand might change so as to show there isn't really much of one.

Big artists these days release songs knowing that they make a lot less via downloads than they did with physical cd sales. They make up for it by doing concert tours, that sell out. They are not in any less demand, their vehicle for monetization has changed. What is news media version of a Taylor Swift world tour?

Sure, they had to adapt. Few to no subsidies, so they did. It's a bit misleading to identify "artists" as the people making less money; record labels made money and the history of the industry is replete with bad deals for artists. One of Frank Zappa's most important pieces of advice was to retain ownership of publishing. Streaming cut out a lot of middlemen - perhaps a lesson for other media - and gets more money to artists; but, yes, the living wage now is in touring. "Big media" is still trying to protect a lot of middlemen. It's obvious that some of the successful Substack authors are doing useful and marketable investigative journalism and doing well because they aren't supporting backrooms full of support staff.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure, within the confines of this, it's allowed.

Short answer, then, I'm sticking with market discipline (creative destruction). There will be some failures and consolidations, but not necessarily all. They're still going to suffer from ideological capture. Most of the "important-to-democracy" stuff is going to be pushed by insiders/leakers to sympathetic reporters, not pulled by investigation.

 

[Altair]

"Free" is an edge case that creates approximately unlimited demand. (See also: health care.) Put a price on it and the demand might change so as to show there isn't really much of one.

Correct. It's why I say it's harder to quantify how much demand there is these days.

Sure, they had to adapt. Few to no subsidies, so they did. It's a bit misleading to identify "artists" as the people making less money; record labels made money and the history of the industry is replete with bad deals for artists.

Accurate. I will correct that I said less money from cd sales compared to digital streaming and purchases, but I didn't mean to imply less money overall.

One of Frank Zappa's most important pieces of advice was to retain ownership of publishing. Streaming cut out a lot of middlemen - perhaps a lesson for other media - and gets more money to artists; but, yes, the living wage now is in touring. "Big media" is still trying to protect a lot of middlemen. It's obvious that some of the successful Substack authors are doing useful and marketable investigative journalism and doing well because they aren't supporting backrooms full of support staff.

A question. Those on substack, are they not doing it as a side hustle? What I guess I'm asking, is the support staff for their day job not assisting in their side hustle?

 

[Altair]

Short answer, then, I'm sticking with market discipline (creative destruction). There will be some failures and consolidations, but not necessarily all. They're still going to suffer from ideological capture. Most of the "important-to-democracy" stuff is going to be pushed by insiders/leakers to sympathetic reporters, not pulled by investigation.

I still don't see the money being there. Unless you're suggesting just propping up the survivor, in which case you get CBC version 2.0

 

[Brad Sallows]

A question. Those on substack, are they not doing it as a side hustle? What I guess I'm asking, is the support staff for their day job not assisting in their side hustle?

In the US some journalists basically got hounded out of newsrooms, or left in disgust/dismay. For them, it's not a side hustle. In Canada, my recollection is that Paul Wells claimed he was faring better as an independent than as an employee. Substack provides access to customers without the platform taking a huge cut or imposing ideology/moderation. SMEs (academics, for example) use Substack to augment and promote their other publishing. Pundits use it to replace unsatisfactory or discontinued blogging platforms. For the full-time journalists, they live or die by their content.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I still don't see the money being there. Unless you're suggesting just propping up the survivor, in which case you get CBC version 2.0

Either it will be a CBC that offers a genuine balance satisfactory to left and right, or there will be it and a right-leaning privately funded competitor.

 

[Altair]

In the US some journalists basically got hounded out of newsrooms, or left in disgust/dismay. For them, it's not a side hustle. In Canada, my recollection is that Paul Wells claimed he was faring better as an independent than as an employee. Substack provides access to customers without the platform taking a huge cut or imposing ideology/moderation. SMEs (academics, for example) use Substack to augment and promote their other publishing. Pundits use it to replace unsatisfactory or discontinued blogging platforms. For the full-time journalists, they live or die by their content.

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.

Either it will be a CBC that offers a genuine balance satisfactory to left and right, or there will be it and a right-leaning privately funded competitor.

So even this, within the parameters,while different, does always circle back to the main issue.

We don't know how to monetize the news industry in the internet age in a way that can provide the service we are getting and have been getting for generations.

Until that's figured out, it's a pick your poison scenario.

That said, I am satisfied that this is at least an attempt to answer the question without simply tossing ones hands up and letting everything burn to the ground.

Bravo.

 

[RangerRay]

Interesting. I wonder if that's based on the American market or if Canadian journalists could find similiar success making a living wage

If Paul Wells, Jen Gerson and Matt Gurney are being truthful, it sounds like they are doing alright, maybe even better than working for larger companies.

Neither are straight up reporters though. They’re very good writers who will sometimes independently pursue stories, but they are predominantly columnists giving us their opinions and analysis.

 

[Altair]

If Paul Wells, Jen Gerson and Matt Gurney are being truthful, it sounds like they are doing alright, maybe even better than working for larger companies.

Neither are straight up reporters though. They’re very good writers who will sometimes independently pursue stories, but they are predominantly columnists giving us their opinions and analysis.

I guess my main concern is they came up the ranks and got their credibility and clout via traditional media. Would a future vassy kapelos be able to carve out her own space on substack without the support of traditional media? Hard to say.

That said, it's not like I'm against alternative forms of media, if substack can provide that platform to supplement or in some cases surpass traditional media, I'm all for it.

 

[ArmyRick]

Mods, last several post on focused on subsidizing media. Should we separate it from this thread?

 

[RangerRay]

I guess my main concern is they came up the ranks and got their credibility and clout via traditional media. Would a future vassy kapelos be able to carve out her own space on substack without the support of traditional media? Hard to say.

That said, it's not like I'm against alternative forms of media, if substack can provide that platform to supplement or in some cases surpass traditional media, I'm all for it.

That’s fair.

 

[ArmyRick]

If this was the military, and I have given you, or anyone else a task, and you come back saying I reject the premise of the task, I wouldn't be impressed.

Did you ever finish any leadership training? PLQ or officer?

I am assuming you do not understand the mission analysis.