Great podcast tonight guys..... and a really scary forcast. I agree that the CBC is a possible salvation but I would keep the radio and cut the tv side loose..... fund the news and discard the rest
Yes, I love the YouTube version too, so keep that going. I haven’t listened yet (rubs hands together) but before I do let me say this about televised msm - if they had reported the news as opposed to supportive opinions in the ‘sympathetic Liberal Party format’ I might’ve held onto cable longer. Power Play & Power and Politics + a few others were (maybe not so much these days lol) extensions of the PMO’s PolitBureau. (Exceptions being Evan Solomon & Mercedes’ Stevenson - who would interview hard & wouldn’t let ministers off easily.) Their conservative leaning panelists seemed politely muted, even neutered - I mean literally NO ONE would call out the bs we saw play out in Ottawa. Real observational criticism is finally being verbalized - 8 yrs in - it took THAT long. Any trouble in Ottawa & the msm focused on how bad it is in Trump’s USA.
We hear liberal panelists say that Cdns aren’t really paying attention to what’s going on in the Ottawa Bubble because pocket book issues, etc. Cdns will move on & forget about this or that scandal ... but, we ARE paying attn & what we’re seeing doesn’t line up with the news gently minimizing the Ottawa antics.
Really depressing guys.....but you made me take a second look at the local “rag” in my town who I seldom agree with but who I rely on to cover my local council.... I will be sending him a donation ... small but significant in its ability to keep him alive for another week..
Odd. I'm sad for the likes of Workman, Napier and the others. I feel I grew up with them. But I also stopped watching all terrestrial news in Canada. I read the papers and substack. I could not stand the narrative nonsense and half baked questions from what was on TV news. So sad for the old school journos but happy the TV media in Canada is failing. The young activist types that will replace them will only usher in the legacy media's funeral.
I think it has been shown that both the state can't be trusted to be impartial with journalism, and that Canadians in aggregate are too cheap to voluntarily pay to keep the industry alive.
So what to do? You guys are doing it, become "free agents" for other privately funded news agencies while also cultivating and building your specific brand. Specialize, deliver value and just enough people will pay. Look at National Review, Economist or Wall Street Journal, all niche, all deliver value and all successful. The CBC could even do that if they just copied the PBS model verbatim. Dump the opinion, dump the biased chat shows, it hurts the brand, and just deliver world class news and entertainment. Folks will pay $5 for that.
Thanks you two. I appreciated this and have a few things to offer:
1. I'm a consumer of legacy news because I want it intelligently curated, much the same thing as having schools in addition to libraries. That being said, perhaps if schools were doing a better job journalism wouldn't be imperiled.
2. Jen, I loved your vision of what the CBC could be and truly hope someone with some punch is aware of it. In your copious free time you may wish to explore the ABC's model in Australia where they do excellent radio and television, including investigative journalism that influences decision makers.
3. Being a consumer rather than a producer I have no idea what journalism costs. Never apologize for talking about it. Perhaps you could consider asking readers to fund a reporter? I'd support that.
Loved the podcast interchange, some really insightful suggestions on recasting the CBC as the way ahead. Hopefully that can survive the otherwise necessary regime change. Also spot-on regards “brand loyalty” to journalists -- that’s how I got on to you folks, having enjoyed both Matt & Jen at NP and occasional cameos elsewhere. Finally, don’t sell yourselves short as under-performing in “reporting” -- the legacy media misses so much that too-often the first I hear of an issue is through you, and then I appreciate the context you provide to it. Waiting for Phase 3, but happy with the present.
I subscribed a while ago but I honestly can’t tell if I’m “paid” or not ? I have 4-5 I pay for.
Blacklocks. Paul wells. Terry glavin and the line. I am willing to pay for all but sometimes I can’t tell. (Paul wells sends me emails saying my paid subscription is renewing ). I will pay ( if I’m currently not ?)
For what it's worth, I'd be comfortable with you guys tripling your subscription fee and hiring a reporter. Quadruple if you could include a sports columnist. Basically, there are a bunch of cobwebs down the street at the Calgary Herald, would be nice if you could clear that out.
Great podcast guys. Hard to listen to but extremely bang on and relevant. I can say from my own experience starting a substack dedicated to covering municipal issues in my own city that there is a desire to have this sort of news. The problem is the money. People do not seem as willing to pay or want those big stories but don’t understand the costs. It’s hard to move forward in this sort of environment for sure.
Suggestion in an effort to preserve the knowledge base of journalism. Interview retired/senior journalists/editors and get them to explain how to vet sources on their previous stories and get into behind the scenes instructional video/podcasts. Post it to Youtube, Rumble, etc. You could have 1) additional marketing/content to your outfit 2) you are preserving (so long as electricity flows) journalism's knowledge base 3) it could create citizen journalists. Journalism unlike Engineering does not need an institutional degree program to be done.
Jen and Matt, it's time to stop whining and handwringing about the loss of "journalism" . It results from media rejection of innovation and the complementary failure to recognize that journalism--and journalists--aren't special. At least not in the sense of being aloof from the vagaries of "the market". You can inject all the warm and cuddly socialism you want into its specialness but you cannot escape the need to do something that people value enough to pay enough for it.
Unfortunately, the current media industry is calcified by the of lacked innovative thought. Many of today's unemployed journalists are hamstrung by an inability to see beyond accepted practice. It shows in your ideas--"Journalism needs more money", the CBC needs reworking"--all variations on today's "loser model" of subsidization or philanthropic family funding.
Tomorrow's "winner models" will again recognize the primacy of the consumer. And alongside, exciting innovative opportunities. You have already experienced the nasty potential of ignorant commenters. But the flip side--"live", interactive internet news focused on intelligent conversation--could be truly innovative. And I know of no such attempts. Jen and Matt, "build it and they will buy" ("Shoeless Joe"...on journalism).
Ditch the despair and apply that energy to creating ideas that break old journalistic moulds (spelling intentional). You'll be just in time to scoop up the subscriber base from the Star.
TWO WAY NEWS is an approach that could wrap itself in the internet's capacity to INCLUDE the consumer. Roughly speaking, combine live news and consumer comment on line. And charge for the ability to comment.
The media "fade out" has been decades in the happening. Follow the money--the profitability of most news generators--Concurrently, person-to-person technology
Great podcast tonight guys..... and a really scary forcast. I agree that the CBC is a possible salvation but I would keep the radio and cut the tv side loose..... fund the news and discard the rest
Yes, I love the YouTube version too, so keep that going. I haven’t listened yet (rubs hands together) but before I do let me say this about televised msm - if they had reported the news as opposed to supportive opinions in the ‘sympathetic Liberal Party format’ I might’ve held onto cable longer. Power Play & Power and Politics + a few others were (maybe not so much these days lol) extensions of the PMO’s PolitBureau. (Exceptions being Evan Solomon & Mercedes’ Stevenson - who would interview hard & wouldn’t let ministers off easily.) Their conservative leaning panelists seemed politely muted, even neutered - I mean literally NO ONE would call out the bs we saw play out in Ottawa. Real observational criticism is finally being verbalized - 8 yrs in - it took THAT long. Any trouble in Ottawa & the msm focused on how bad it is in Trump’s USA.
We hear liberal panelists say that Cdns aren’t really paying attention to what’s going on in the Ottawa Bubble because pocket book issues, etc. Cdns will move on & forget about this or that scandal ... but, we ARE paying attn & what we’re seeing doesn’t line up with the news gently minimizing the Ottawa antics.
Really depressing guys.....but you made me take a second look at the local “rag” in my town who I seldom agree with but who I rely on to cover my local council.... I will be sending him a donation ... small but significant in its ability to keep him alive for another week..
Hang in there ......
Ken
Odd. I'm sad for the likes of Workman, Napier and the others. I feel I grew up with them. But I also stopped watching all terrestrial news in Canada. I read the papers and substack. I could not stand the narrative nonsense and half baked questions from what was on TV news. So sad for the old school journos but happy the TV media in Canada is failing. The young activist types that will replace them will only usher in the legacy media's funeral.
Appreciate the podcast, as always. I don't know if it's a Substack thing, but currently your only monthly donation option is $5.
I can't do lump sums, but I (and many others, I bet) would give extra each month if they had the option.
I think it has been shown that both the state can't be trusted to be impartial with journalism, and that Canadians in aggregate are too cheap to voluntarily pay to keep the industry alive.
So what to do? You guys are doing it, become "free agents" for other privately funded news agencies while also cultivating and building your specific brand. Specialize, deliver value and just enough people will pay. Look at National Review, Economist or Wall Street Journal, all niche, all deliver value and all successful. The CBC could even do that if they just copied the PBS model verbatim. Dump the opinion, dump the biased chat shows, it hurts the brand, and just deliver world class news and entertainment. Folks will pay $5 for that.
Thanks you two. I appreciated this and have a few things to offer:
1. I'm a consumer of legacy news because I want it intelligently curated, much the same thing as having schools in addition to libraries. That being said, perhaps if schools were doing a better job journalism wouldn't be imperiled.
2. Jen, I loved your vision of what the CBC could be and truly hope someone with some punch is aware of it. In your copious free time you may wish to explore the ABC's model in Australia where they do excellent radio and television, including investigative journalism that influences decision makers.
3. Being a consumer rather than a producer I have no idea what journalism costs. Never apologize for talking about it. Perhaps you could consider asking readers to fund a reporter? I'd support that.
Loved the podcast interchange, some really insightful suggestions on recasting the CBC as the way ahead. Hopefully that can survive the otherwise necessary regime change. Also spot-on regards “brand loyalty” to journalists -- that’s how I got on to you folks, having enjoyed both Matt & Jen at NP and occasional cameos elsewhere. Finally, don’t sell yourselves short as under-performing in “reporting” -- the legacy media misses so much that too-often the first I hear of an issue is through you, and then I appreciate the context you provide to it. Waiting for Phase 3, but happy with the present.
I subscribed a while ago but I honestly can’t tell if I’m “paid” or not ? I have 4-5 I pay for.
Blacklocks. Paul wells. Terry glavin and the line. I am willing to pay for all but sometimes I can’t tell. (Paul wells sends me emails saying my paid subscription is renewing ). I will pay ( if I’m currently not ?)
Signed a central Alberta redneck!!!!!!😃
Hi, just wanted to let you know the audio is fine. I didn't hear the background noise you discussed.
For what it's worth, I'd be comfortable with you guys tripling your subscription fee and hiring a reporter. Quadruple if you could include a sports columnist. Basically, there are a bunch of cobwebs down the street at the Calgary Herald, would be nice if you could clear that out.
Great podcast guys. Hard to listen to but extremely bang on and relevant. I can say from my own experience starting a substack dedicated to covering municipal issues in my own city that there is a desire to have this sort of news. The problem is the money. People do not seem as willing to pay or want those big stories but don’t understand the costs. It’s hard to move forward in this sort of environment for sure.
Suggestion in an effort to preserve the knowledge base of journalism. Interview retired/senior journalists/editors and get them to explain how to vet sources on their previous stories and get into behind the scenes instructional video/podcasts. Post it to Youtube, Rumble, etc. You could have 1) additional marketing/content to your outfit 2) you are preserving (so long as electricity flows) journalism's knowledge base 3) it could create citizen journalists. Journalism unlike Engineering does not need an institutional degree program to be done.
Jen and Matt, it's time to stop whining and handwringing about the loss of "journalism" . It results from media rejection of innovation and the complementary failure to recognize that journalism--and journalists--aren't special. At least not in the sense of being aloof from the vagaries of "the market". You can inject all the warm and cuddly socialism you want into its specialness but you cannot escape the need to do something that people value enough to pay enough for it.
Unfortunately, the current media industry is calcified by the of lacked innovative thought. Many of today's unemployed journalists are hamstrung by an inability to see beyond accepted practice. It shows in your ideas--"Journalism needs more money", the CBC needs reworking"--all variations on today's "loser model" of subsidization or philanthropic family funding.
Tomorrow's "winner models" will again recognize the primacy of the consumer. And alongside, exciting innovative opportunities. You have already experienced the nasty potential of ignorant commenters. But the flip side--"live", interactive internet news focused on intelligent conversation--could be truly innovative. And I know of no such attempts. Jen and Matt, "build it and they will buy" ("Shoeless Joe"...on journalism).
Ditch the despair and apply that energy to creating ideas that break old journalistic moulds (spelling intentional). You'll be just in time to scoop up the subscriber base from the Star.
TWO WAY NEWS is an approach that could wrap itself in the internet's capacity to INCLUDE the consumer. Roughly speaking, combine live news and consumer comment on line. And charge for the ability to comment.
The media "fade out" has been decades in the happening. Follow the money--the profitability of most news generators--Concurrently, person-to-person technology
Will you be doing a video this week? There was none last week.....