I don't normally comment on our articles here, but I wanted to just note (as I probably won't have time this week to do a full, proper reply) that I generally agree with Clarke, but I think something that isn't clear to outsiders is how much of what has hobbled the traditional media isn't our fiscal status per se, but the trajectory of that status. I remember years ago going over budgets and staff with my then-boss, the editor-in-chief of a major newspaper, and it was really grim. We didn't have enough money or people to do all the things that we were SUPPOSED to be able to do. As I like to say, expectations were a problem. And for centuries, newspapers did A, B, C, D and E, right? And it wasn't possible to do that anymore with any degree of quality. So the choice, broadly and simply, was to do A, B and C, but no longer do D and E, or to do all five things badly.
And you there was no "right" choice or "good" choice. We were going to disappoint the customer either way. As frustrating, there really wasn't even any certainty that whatever plan we came up with would ever be implemented, as there was the issue of "upselling" the proposal to the bosses upstairs, who might react with horror to the notion that we should just stop doing D and E.
But I also remember looking at the numbers — personnel and budgets — and thinking that, my God, if we were starting from scratch, unencumbered by debts and expectations, we could do incredible work with this. This many people and this much money could REALLY kick ass. But it's not possible, realistically, to pivot organizations that much. I wish it was. I know better. I've tried!
I was in daily newspaper management in the 1980s when the pain of fiscal underperformance was beginning to be felt. The solution of some of my management colleagues was to cater to advertisers in the false hope they would by more space.
This relegated readers to second-class status. A huge mistake, in my view, and one that drove away both advertisers and readers.
"God, if we were starting from scratch, unencumbered by debts and expectations, we could do incredible work with this. This many people and this much money could REALLY kick ass."
I wonder how many government departments, if started from scratch, would have the same reality.
One other approach has been to avoid cutting back by getting big: The New York Times went through a struggle, but seems to have retained its scale and find a sound fiscal footing by pulling in more paid subscribers. Of course, the trick is most papers aren’t The New York Times, but there’s at least a few organizations like that who can still put out the kind of paper I remember even the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix being back in the ‘80s.
Matt, first off, thank you for your perspective. Certainly valuable.
I think that the best way to look at that former way of trying to cope is simply that the attempt was to keep the old business model alive when it was clear that it simply couldn't survive. Einstein's definition of insanity, you know?
I do recall in the early 2000s where struggling papers in the US simply stopped their hard copy editions and went totally on line I don't know how many, if any, of those papers survive today but that was a recognition that the old model was broken and couldn't be repaired in the case of those publications.
My point is that I understand what you say. I do, I do. But I must quote Clarke Ries, "Nobody cares." And I will add a further point, "Get over it."
I think you’re wrong in a key way. It wasn’t insane at first. There really were multiple phases of effort to adapt to the digital reality. They mostly failed. But you’re mistaking your benefit of hindsight with brilliant intuition. In my industry there is a joke about “a pivot to video” (Line readers may be curious to learn this bit of trivia: the very first incarnation of what became The Line’s concept existed as a Google doc of ideas I sardonically named “The Pivot”). The pivot to video failed. So did most of the other attempts. But they were all real efforts to adapt. All to easy to look back 20 years later and write the entire enterprise off as doomed.
And frankly, if you didn’t care and were over it, you wouldn’t be commenting here. Heal thyself, Ken.
Matt, thank you for your valuable contribution. [Please, that is not, not, not sarcasm.] It is valuable and I accept what you say, after all, as some truly bright individual recently wrote, "The wise man accepts, the idiot insists."
Now, having prostrated myself at your feet, a couple of quibbles, perhaps?
It truly does seem to me that the old model which was based entirely on advertising paying the freight (subscribers contributing really very little), and which saw advertising absolutely shredded should have told the business people at the paper that their model was irretrievably damaged. When your principal source of revenue gets a better offer then you have to find a different way.
I do accept that the idea of video was kicked around but why didn't they (always that evil "they") follow through with video. Well, good reasons really, but what they did was simply to keep doing the same thing. As I said, Einstein, insanity, etc.
So, I'm not saying that "if only" the barons had listened to me or anything like that. Instead, I am saying that the evidence of the foundation being made of sand was clear but the only thing that happened was to add to the building, close off rooms, repaint the halls, etc., but not to build a different foundation. [Please pardon the construction metaphor.]
Further, I am not saying that all this pain could have been avoided, not at all. After all, as Clarke points out technology made a lot of weavers unemployed. Buggy whips, etc. But, but, but, I submit that while a lot of jobs would still have been lost and many media outlets would still have closed, recognition of the absence of a foundation on a more "foundational" level (sorry) would have assisted in minimizing the pain.
At least that is my thought. Certainly, the effective denial by the industry even still doesn't look good on them.
Getting smarter? Geez, hope so. Glad Rogan is helping out. I wouldn't want to argue how much of an attention span to you need to digest one of his podcasts. Three things the writer didn't mention - Hockey Canada, political interference by China, ArriveCan. Three major stories broken by the Globe and Mail. Three stories that didn't die after the first day - the paper developed them day after day and forced politicians to confront these issues. Society and democracy loses when the media isn't around to publicize important stories like this. I'm sorry the writer doesn't appreciate this.
In a way, you have proven the writer's point. If newspapers and overall media did the kind of work G&M has done these past 2 or 3 years, I would wager that there would be a lot more public trust remaining or developing with the media. For instance, I have kept my subscription with G&M because of these investigations. And I am one of the biggest critics of mainstream media.
But that's the thing. The Toronto Star, CTV, CBC, The Canadian Press (my employer for over four decades) and many other outlets have broken important stories over the years. The writer makes an important point, about paywalls. Large segments of the media (including the Star) posted their content for free for far too long, leading people to think, 'why pay for journalism when I can get it for free?' Good question. But that hasn't been the case for many years. As to trust - this I don't get. Respected media outlets admit their mistakes and publish corrections. And then there is this boneheaded idea that journalists are robots obeying orders of the day from corporate higher ups. No one will convince me the world is better off without legacy media.
Malcolm, I note the phrase, "... over the years." at the end of your first sentence. As the saying goes, "That was then, this is now."
Does anyone really think that most of the media have the capacity (we won't talk about the interest, unless the story leaned in a certain direction) to do so today? In other words, why would I trust them?
"Respected media outlets admit their mistakes and publish corrections." Sure, on page 197 (kidding, there are only 17 pages in the fishwrap now) and in small type and weeks after the damage was done. When their bias doesn't compel them to deny the mistakes in the first place. Example: when (I mean PRECISELY WHEN) did the CBC apologize for their egregious lawsuit against the CPC for using clips from CBC broadcasts in a totally normal way. Oh, and which suit the court tossed out as being ridiculous. When PRECISELY did that occur? And, if you want I can find other examples of non-apologies.
Finally, you talk about "respected media outlets." Oxy meet moron. There are so few of those as to need only one hand for counting.
I take gentle exception to your closing suggestion that I don't value the news media. I think quality journalism is essential to Canadian civic function.
I would also respectfully challenge you on your dismissal of Rogan and his audience, and suggest that the kids aren't just alright, they're putting their elders to shame along certain axes of sophistication.
The olds believe a 45-minute interview or history lesson is long-form journalism at its highest, while the youth think a podcast at the 45-minute mark is just getting good.
I cannot recall the last time a Canadian journalist interviewed a professor of particle physics for two and a half hours straight, and I cannot concede the premise that Canadian journalists are entitled to dismiss with an eye roll the man who does or the millions who listen.
I am legit curious what the metrics would be like if we did a two-hour interview. We track this stuff. The tools make it easy. I’m wondering what Rogan’s time-spent-listening must be. (Obviously good enough, hence the deal.)
I have to wonder how much better that interview would be if 2 1/2 hours of content got edited to 15-30 minutes? I’m sure some people like the long, rambling conversation, but it brings to mind Johnny Carson’s quip about the Oscars: “2 hours of sparkling entertainment spread out over 4 hours.”
I have listened to full length Rogan podcasts and i don’t think it would be the same if they were clipped. Part of what makes Rogan so interesting is that he asks really probing questions and it’s not just people he agrees with. He’s really fair and gives guests opportunity to express themselves in a free form/long form that tends to not happen elsewhere, and without spin to please his viewers. That nuance and detail would be lost if it was shortened and then Rogan wouldn’t have as much value.
There is so much the main stream media is NOT reporting on, like the farmers' protests in Europe, the border crisis in the US, etc. Almost nothing on these very important issues. You set the bar very low indeed for the media!
Of course the mainstream media reports on these stories. The Globe, Washington Post, New York Times, London Times, CBC online all report on these issues. I really don't know what you're reading, watching or listening to.
I have subscribed to both the Globe and Mail and National Post for years. One gets differing viewpoints on some issues and because I also read a wider selection of news ( and op-eds because I like reading them too).
Don't forget Pierre's strategy of 1) going over the media to talk directly with the people, and 2) confronting the media directly because he knows, in some respects, that we are smart indeed.
In my own life, the most ardent haters of Joe Rogan have usually never listened to even a single episode and have formed their opinion based on out of context clips. There seems to be this idea that he is best thought of as a Shock Jock of yesteryear. Not to say that everyone must like Rogan of course.
True. When creators/publishers don't think their product is worth paying for, why should I value it? Currently my policy regarding subs is to pay for only those that don't qualify for the gov tax exemption. Sorry, Maclean's, your constant "please come back" emails aren't doing it for me.
This one deserves one of the top spots in the Line's pantheon of biting and hard-hitting articles.
I think it hits on all the correct notes regarding why us plebes don't trust corporate media, as they have ceased long ago to be mainstream, if their audience figures are to be trusted.
Funny. I went to comment but a sign popped up saying only paying ... The Line got the message obviously. Canada has a problem with protected industries and oligopolies. Dairy everywhere, telcos and airline oligopolies. I was somewhat appalled for two reasons at MG's suggestion that the telcos be taxed to support traditional media. First, that tax would inevitably be passed to the same consumer already being screwed by the oligopoly. Secondly, the right, moral thing to do would be to end the oligopolies and stop screwing consumers. I feel the same way about government subsidies. If taxpayers won't buy the papers or watch the TV shows, how on earth can screwing them by paying for those unwanted things with their tax dollars be justified? I don't mind paying for news, thoughtful commentary and much else. But for the CBC? I will always mind.
Agree with most of the points in the article - especially the 'no one cares' bit about the legacy media, excepting those still in or recently involved in the legacy media - the industry past and present is largely contributing to their own demise, and have been for some time.
Agree that SOME of the public is getting smarter, not dumber - but certainly not ALL the public are getting smarter- evidence to the contrary certainly exists that many are very much getting MUCH dumber, on all sides of the political spectrum.
I suppose we should start by thanking Clarke for respecting our intelligence and general knowledge enough to presume we know who the Luddites were, and the analogical relevance of this reference for the case he goes on to make. Just possibly if Canada's mainstream media had shown similar respect for its readership over the past decade or so, that readership would be more numerous and presumably more loyal than is currently the case. Adapting to new technologies and business models still would have presented challenges, but at least consumers of MSM products would have had some incentive for caring about the fate of the producers. I no longer do. Like most other people who realize our judgment can be no more reliable that what informs it, I've long since moved on to more trustworthy information sources.
Old enough to remember a superb storyteller who did just that, he told great stories. His name is Paul Rimstead. He is no longer with us, passed away many years ago. Many of us would purchase the Toronto Sun for no other reason than to read his daily column. Hell, if I remember correctly the Sun sold for about 50 cents a copy or maybe even a quarter. For that money you got to read Rimstead, then local news mainly concerning Toronto, then a poke in the eye for who ever was a Liberal and then check out the scoring details of every NHL game played the previous evening. As an added bonus you could flip over the front page and check out who was the Sunshine Girl that day. All this for less than a buck.
“The public trusts you less because it’s getting smarter, not dumber.” Thank you. I totally agree. But it’s nice to have someone say it. I discovered podcasts, I dunno, 15 years ago and I couldn’t believe I could listen to long and varied discussions by smart, super interesting people. I’d given up on radio, but this was a new golden age of radio, like the early days of late night FM. For years I had watched TV, listened to radio, read the paper and generally believed I was getting objective reporting. I now know my faith then was based on everything being framed the same way. I didn’t know any better. Now, thanks to social media and more recently Substack, I get things framed for me from wild crazy angled directions (for examples pick the last couple of Jen Gerson pieces here in The Line - wow! or follow the precise web-like trail of one Terry Glavin’s newsletters, or listen to Paul Wells long form interview of OPP Acting Superintendent Marcel Beaudin on police crowd control techniques). I’m always finding myself in an “I never thought about it that way before” situation. Maybe I’m fooling myself, but I believe I am way smarter than I was even a few years ago. Losing trust is not a bad thing.
I'm down from 4 newspapers/day to two and I swear I only keep them for the sudoku and crosswords (yes I know I can get free ones online) and by getting to the puzzles I occasionally read some articles and op eds. That's how I know who to follow/wait to follow on substack.
This is a great comment, Dan. Honestly. Because this is exactly what I was referring to with my post. The "diversions" content — puzzles, games, trivia, horoscopes, etc — are, speaking from the perspective of a journalist and former senior newspaper editor, fluff. Nonsense. No greater public good is served. So from my view, cut all that stuff, funnel the money into a reporter on a pressing beat.
But! As any seasoned editor will tell you, if you fucked up a caption on a cartoon or had a crossword puzzle error, you'd be hearing about it for weeks. Weeks. The audience had come to expect these diversions and valued them. What the public wanted the newspaper to be and what the newspaper employees thought it was were wildly off. Not always. But a lot.
Like I said. Expectations were a huge problem. So how the hell do you adapt to a changing marketplace when you're torn between chasing down government corruption and telling Pisces what phase of their sun cycle they're in (you can probably tell I don't know much about astrology).
The fluff may require some work in the typeset room but it doesn't require journalists. But we dumped the journalists or maybe just "re-focused" them so that the news is now often the least interesting section. How many people watched the Superbowl for the football, how many for the half-time show and how many for the ads?
I have a confession. The only reason I subscribed to my local small-town paper when they switched from a free to paid model was to keep the kindly old delivery man employed. I am not kidding. I mentioned his name in my subscription email. We often never get around to reading the hard-copy paper (most of the articles I get one way or another online), but we regularly do the crosswords, which is funny because I am not normally a crossword doer.
I live in Calgary so I don't get a "small-town paper." I get the local Postmedia contribution. A large part of the reason is that our carrier really tries to take care of us. Personal contact (defined in odd ways because the paper gets here at 1.00AM delivered by "someone") is a good hook for any business.
Oh, yeah, that word: business. The old robber barons at the papers forgot that and simply thought that we were ATM's. They now know that to be untrue but they haven't figured out the rest.
Your right,Everyone read the papers in different way depending on interest.eg front page headline news , obituaries, crossword, eventually all of it if they have time.but most people don't have, or don't know think they have that kind of time
Hot damn! This is a much better column than what Andrew MacDougall gave us (I am not blaming our wonderful Editors). Andrew basically said "I'm pissed off!" [He was channeling the Prime Face Painter when the PFP said he was pissed off about the Bell layoffs, etc.] And, really, that is all he said.
I responded with a comment that basically said, yeah, I get that you are pissed off but, so what? I challenged Andrew (or his confreres) to actually propose a way to deal with the issue that was a) constructive and had a reasonable chance of success; b) didn't amount to robbing Peter (the public) to pay Paul (legacy media) so they could pour that cash down the toilet; and c) didn't end up harming the rights of Canadians.
So. Here we have a response (? - Perhaps, I delude myself to think that Clarke Ries is actually responding to my challenge). And what is his "prescription?" Charge for your product. Hardly an overwhelming idea - well, unless you are the legacy media. It is a very simple concept but so powerful.
To me, it is a given that there will be more blood to be shed in the media simply because with the electronic distribution available today, we don't need local journalism as we once knew it in every city. Truth is, I can get my international news from the New York Times, The Australian, The Times of London, etc. So, it is clear that for me to expect that the "best" way to get that international news is to continue to subscribe to the Calgary Herald or the Toronto Star or the East Elbow Gazette is foolish. Similarly, I can get national politics from a whole raft of possibilities here in Canada.
What those remaining papers can - and should - do is to intensely cover the more local news. That is the journalism prescription. I know, this is really an old, old prescription but why doesn't the legacy media understand that idea? No way to tell. Now, the remaining legacy media is mostly debt ridden and insolvent.
Really, they are controlled by their debt holders; what they should (but won't) do is to put themselves into voluntary bankruptcy, lay off more people (sorry G & G) and go totally online and, finally, attempt to come out the other side with more reasonable debt. That is the business prescription.
I really, really do like some of Clarke's assertions:
- "Giving your product away for free is a terrible business model. .... Lemonade stands run by six-year-olds have figured this out."
- "If you’re getting rolled up, lit up, and smoked out in the content wars by somebody’s unemployed uncle, work harder or find a new line of work, don’t blame the algorithm."
- "Nobody cares." Except G & G. But, they can be forgiven their sentimentality. Honest!
- "But if you want to live the life of kings, quit bewailing bad fortune and write something they’ll think is worth their hard-earned money."
- "Then charge them to read it." Oh, yeah, the words of wisdom.
A comment to our Editors: Ask Clarke to do more columns.
I’ve found myself following individual journalists over the last decade, rather than the legacy media. The pros are that through apps like Substack and individual podcasts you can interact, if the journalist wants. I’ve watched a few Joe Rogans, but drifted away during the covid wars. Anyway, the cons are that I’m spending hundreds per year to access “subscriber content”, but unfortunately, with the greatest respect to the truly great people I follow, I don’t always want to read or listen to 100% of their content.
I don't normally comment on our articles here, but I wanted to just note (as I probably won't have time this week to do a full, proper reply) that I generally agree with Clarke, but I think something that isn't clear to outsiders is how much of what has hobbled the traditional media isn't our fiscal status per se, but the trajectory of that status. I remember years ago going over budgets and staff with my then-boss, the editor-in-chief of a major newspaper, and it was really grim. We didn't have enough money or people to do all the things that we were SUPPOSED to be able to do. As I like to say, expectations were a problem. And for centuries, newspapers did A, B, C, D and E, right? And it wasn't possible to do that anymore with any degree of quality. So the choice, broadly and simply, was to do A, B and C, but no longer do D and E, or to do all five things badly.
And you there was no "right" choice or "good" choice. We were going to disappoint the customer either way. As frustrating, there really wasn't even any certainty that whatever plan we came up with would ever be implemented, as there was the issue of "upselling" the proposal to the bosses upstairs, who might react with horror to the notion that we should just stop doing D and E.
But I also remember looking at the numbers — personnel and budgets — and thinking that, my God, if we were starting from scratch, unencumbered by debts and expectations, we could do incredible work with this. This many people and this much money could REALLY kick ass. But it's not possible, realistically, to pivot organizations that much. I wish it was. I know better. I've tried!
I was in daily newspaper management in the 1980s when the pain of fiscal underperformance was beginning to be felt. The solution of some of my management colleagues was to cater to advertisers in the false hope they would by more space.
This relegated readers to second-class status. A huge mistake, in my view, and one that drove away both advertisers and readers.
Advertisers are the customers, readers are the product.
"God, if we were starting from scratch, unencumbered by debts and expectations, we could do incredible work with this. This many people and this much money could REALLY kick ass."
I wonder how many government departments, if started from scratch, would have the same reality.
Insightful comment. Thanks, Matt. We appreciate your efforts - past, present, and future!
One other approach has been to avoid cutting back by getting big: The New York Times went through a struggle, but seems to have retained its scale and find a sound fiscal footing by pulling in more paid subscribers. Of course, the trick is most papers aren’t The New York Times, but there’s at least a few organizations like that who can still put out the kind of paper I remember even the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix being back in the ‘80s.
Matt, first off, thank you for your perspective. Certainly valuable.
I think that the best way to look at that former way of trying to cope is simply that the attempt was to keep the old business model alive when it was clear that it simply couldn't survive. Einstein's definition of insanity, you know?
I do recall in the early 2000s where struggling papers in the US simply stopped their hard copy editions and went totally on line I don't know how many, if any, of those papers survive today but that was a recognition that the old model was broken and couldn't be repaired in the case of those publications.
My point is that I understand what you say. I do, I do. But I must quote Clarke Ries, "Nobody cares." And I will add a further point, "Get over it."
I think you’re wrong in a key way. It wasn’t insane at first. There really were multiple phases of effort to adapt to the digital reality. They mostly failed. But you’re mistaking your benefit of hindsight with brilliant intuition. In my industry there is a joke about “a pivot to video” (Line readers may be curious to learn this bit of trivia: the very first incarnation of what became The Line’s concept existed as a Google doc of ideas I sardonically named “The Pivot”). The pivot to video failed. So did most of the other attempts. But they were all real efforts to adapt. All to easy to look back 20 years later and write the entire enterprise off as doomed.
And frankly, if you didn’t care and were over it, you wouldn’t be commenting here. Heal thyself, Ken.
We should do a podcast episode on the "pivot to video." I have so many funny yakity saks stories.
Matt, thank you for your valuable contribution. [Please, that is not, not, not sarcasm.] It is valuable and I accept what you say, after all, as some truly bright individual recently wrote, "The wise man accepts, the idiot insists."
Now, having prostrated myself at your feet, a couple of quibbles, perhaps?
It truly does seem to me that the old model which was based entirely on advertising paying the freight (subscribers contributing really very little), and which saw advertising absolutely shredded should have told the business people at the paper that their model was irretrievably damaged. When your principal source of revenue gets a better offer then you have to find a different way.
I do accept that the idea of video was kicked around but why didn't they (always that evil "they") follow through with video. Well, good reasons really, but what they did was simply to keep doing the same thing. As I said, Einstein, insanity, etc.
So, I'm not saying that "if only" the barons had listened to me or anything like that. Instead, I am saying that the evidence of the foundation being made of sand was clear but the only thing that happened was to add to the building, close off rooms, repaint the halls, etc., but not to build a different foundation. [Please pardon the construction metaphor.]
Further, I am not saying that all this pain could have been avoided, not at all. After all, as Clarke points out technology made a lot of weavers unemployed. Buggy whips, etc. But, but, but, I submit that while a lot of jobs would still have been lost and many media outlets would still have closed, recognition of the absence of a foundation on a more "foundational" level (sorry) would have assisted in minimizing the pain.
At least that is my thought. Certainly, the effective denial by the industry even still doesn't look good on them.
I vote for Clarke as a guest contributor whenever G&G feel the need to talk about the state of "the media".
Getting smarter? Geez, hope so. Glad Rogan is helping out. I wouldn't want to argue how much of an attention span to you need to digest one of his podcasts. Three things the writer didn't mention - Hockey Canada, political interference by China, ArriveCan. Three major stories broken by the Globe and Mail. Three stories that didn't die after the first day - the paper developed them day after day and forced politicians to confront these issues. Society and democracy loses when the media isn't around to publicize important stories like this. I'm sorry the writer doesn't appreciate this.
In a way, you have proven the writer's point. If newspapers and overall media did the kind of work G&M has done these past 2 or 3 years, I would wager that there would be a lot more public trust remaining or developing with the media. For instance, I have kept my subscription with G&M because of these investigations. And I am one of the biggest critics of mainstream media.
But that's the thing. The Toronto Star, CTV, CBC, The Canadian Press (my employer for over four decades) and many other outlets have broken important stories over the years. The writer makes an important point, about paywalls. Large segments of the media (including the Star) posted their content for free for far too long, leading people to think, 'why pay for journalism when I can get it for free?' Good question. But that hasn't been the case for many years. As to trust - this I don't get. Respected media outlets admit their mistakes and publish corrections. And then there is this boneheaded idea that journalists are robots obeying orders of the day from corporate higher ups. No one will convince me the world is better off without legacy media.
Malcolm, I note the phrase, "... over the years." at the end of your first sentence. As the saying goes, "That was then, this is now."
Does anyone really think that most of the media have the capacity (we won't talk about the interest, unless the story leaned in a certain direction) to do so today? In other words, why would I trust them?
"Respected media outlets admit their mistakes and publish corrections." Sure, on page 197 (kidding, there are only 17 pages in the fishwrap now) and in small type and weeks after the damage was done. When their bias doesn't compel them to deny the mistakes in the first place. Example: when (I mean PRECISELY WHEN) did the CBC apologize for their egregious lawsuit against the CPC for using clips from CBC broadcasts in a totally normal way. Oh, and which suit the court tossed out as being ridiculous. When PRECISELY did that occur? And, if you want I can find other examples of non-apologies.
Finally, you talk about "respected media outlets." Oxy meet moron. There are so few of those as to need only one hand for counting.
I take gentle exception to your closing suggestion that I don't value the news media. I think quality journalism is essential to Canadian civic function.
I would also respectfully challenge you on your dismissal of Rogan and his audience, and suggest that the kids aren't just alright, they're putting their elders to shame along certain axes of sophistication.
The olds believe a 45-minute interview or history lesson is long-form journalism at its highest, while the youth think a podcast at the 45-minute mark is just getting good.
I cannot recall the last time a Canadian journalist interviewed a professor of particle physics for two and a half hours straight, and I cannot concede the premise that Canadian journalists are entitled to dismiss with an eye roll the man who does or the millions who listen.
I am legit curious what the metrics would be like if we did a two-hour interview. We track this stuff. The tools make it easy. I’m wondering what Rogan’s time-spent-listening must be. (Obviously good enough, hence the deal.)
I have to wonder how much better that interview would be if 2 1/2 hours of content got edited to 15-30 minutes? I’m sure some people like the long, rambling conversation, but it brings to mind Johnny Carson’s quip about the Oscars: “2 hours of sparkling entertainment spread out over 4 hours.”
I have listened to full length Rogan podcasts and i don’t think it would be the same if they were clipped. Part of what makes Rogan so interesting is that he asks really probing questions and it’s not just people he agrees with. He’s really fair and gives guests opportunity to express themselves in a free form/long form that tends to not happen elsewhere, and without spin to please his viewers. That nuance and detail would be lost if it was shortened and then Rogan wouldn’t have as much value.
There is so much the main stream media is NOT reporting on, like the farmers' protests in Europe, the border crisis in the US, etc. Almost nothing on these very important issues. You set the bar very low indeed for the media!
Of course the mainstream media reports on these stories. The Globe, Washington Post, New York Times, London Times, CBC online all report on these issues. I really don't know what you're reading, watching or listening to.
I have subscribed to both the Globe and Mail and National Post for years. One gets differing viewpoints on some issues and because I also read a wider selection of news ( and op-eds because I like reading them too).
Don’t forget SNC Lavscam!
Don't forget Pierre's strategy of 1) going over the media to talk directly with the people, and 2) confronting the media directly because he knows, in some respects, that we are smart indeed.
And the fact that the mainstream media is freaking out over how he is able to do it successfully.
In my own life, the most ardent haters of Joe Rogan have usually never listened to even a single episode and have formed their opinion based on out of context clips. There seems to be this idea that he is best thought of as a Shock Jock of yesteryear. Not to say that everyone must like Rogan of course.
True. When creators/publishers don't think their product is worth paying for, why should I value it? Currently my policy regarding subs is to pay for only those that don't qualify for the gov tax exemption. Sorry, Maclean's, your constant "please come back" emails aren't doing it for me.
Agreed. Cancelled Maclean's a while ago. And G&M.
This one deserves one of the top spots in the Line's pantheon of biting and hard-hitting articles.
I think it hits on all the correct notes regarding why us plebes don't trust corporate media, as they have ceased long ago to be mainstream, if their audience figures are to be trusted.
Plus Rogan is proof that good content is valued.
Funny. I went to comment but a sign popped up saying only paying ... The Line got the message obviously. Canada has a problem with protected industries and oligopolies. Dairy everywhere, telcos and airline oligopolies. I was somewhat appalled for two reasons at MG's suggestion that the telcos be taxed to support traditional media. First, that tax would inevitably be passed to the same consumer already being screwed by the oligopoly. Secondly, the right, moral thing to do would be to end the oligopolies and stop screwing consumers. I feel the same way about government subsidies. If taxpayers won't buy the papers or watch the TV shows, how on earth can screwing them by paying for those unwanted things with their tax dollars be justified? I don't mind paying for news, thoughtful commentary and much else. But for the CBC? I will always mind.
Agree with most of the points in the article - especially the 'no one cares' bit about the legacy media, excepting those still in or recently involved in the legacy media - the industry past and present is largely contributing to their own demise, and have been for some time.
Agree that SOME of the public is getting smarter, not dumber - but certainly not ALL the public are getting smarter- evidence to the contrary certainly exists that many are very much getting MUCH dumber, on all sides of the political spectrum.
I suppose we should start by thanking Clarke for respecting our intelligence and general knowledge enough to presume we know who the Luddites were, and the analogical relevance of this reference for the case he goes on to make. Just possibly if Canada's mainstream media had shown similar respect for its readership over the past decade or so, that readership would be more numerous and presumably more loyal than is currently the case. Adapting to new technologies and business models still would have presented challenges, but at least consumers of MSM products would have had some incentive for caring about the fate of the producers. I no longer do. Like most other people who realize our judgment can be no more reliable that what informs it, I've long since moved on to more trustworthy information sources.
Old enough to remember a superb storyteller who did just that, he told great stories. His name is Paul Rimstead. He is no longer with us, passed away many years ago. Many of us would purchase the Toronto Sun for no other reason than to read his daily column. Hell, if I remember correctly the Sun sold for about 50 cents a copy or maybe even a quarter. For that money you got to read Rimstead, then local news mainly concerning Toronto, then a poke in the eye for who ever was a Liberal and then check out the scoring details of every NHL game played the previous evening. As an added bonus you could flip over the front page and check out who was the Sunshine Girl that day. All this for less than a buck.
Sweaty tuchus was just a description too far...
That's gonna stick with me all frigging day!
* Making notes *
"Sweaty tuchus gonna stick"
.... got it.
😂
“The public trusts you less because it’s getting smarter, not dumber.” Thank you. I totally agree. But it’s nice to have someone say it. I discovered podcasts, I dunno, 15 years ago and I couldn’t believe I could listen to long and varied discussions by smart, super interesting people. I’d given up on radio, but this was a new golden age of radio, like the early days of late night FM. For years I had watched TV, listened to radio, read the paper and generally believed I was getting objective reporting. I now know my faith then was based on everything being framed the same way. I didn’t know any better. Now, thanks to social media and more recently Substack, I get things framed for me from wild crazy angled directions (for examples pick the last couple of Jen Gerson pieces here in The Line - wow! or follow the precise web-like trail of one Terry Glavin’s newsletters, or listen to Paul Wells long form interview of OPP Acting Superintendent Marcel Beaudin on police crowd control techniques). I’m always finding myself in an “I never thought about it that way before” situation. Maybe I’m fooling myself, but I believe I am way smarter than I was even a few years ago. Losing trust is not a bad thing.
I'm down from 4 newspapers/day to two and I swear I only keep them for the sudoku and crosswords (yes I know I can get free ones online) and by getting to the puzzles I occasionally read some articles and op eds. That's how I know who to follow/wait to follow on substack.
This is a great comment, Dan. Honestly. Because this is exactly what I was referring to with my post. The "diversions" content — puzzles, games, trivia, horoscopes, etc — are, speaking from the perspective of a journalist and former senior newspaper editor, fluff. Nonsense. No greater public good is served. So from my view, cut all that stuff, funnel the money into a reporter on a pressing beat.
But! As any seasoned editor will tell you, if you fucked up a caption on a cartoon or had a crossword puzzle error, you'd be hearing about it for weeks. Weeks. The audience had come to expect these diversions and valued them. What the public wanted the newspaper to be and what the newspaper employees thought it was were wildly off. Not always. But a lot.
Like I said. Expectations were a huge problem. So how the hell do you adapt to a changing marketplace when you're torn between chasing down government corruption and telling Pisces what phase of their sun cycle they're in (you can probably tell I don't know much about astrology).
The fluff may require some work in the typeset room but it doesn't require journalists. But we dumped the journalists or maybe just "re-focused" them so that the news is now often the least interesting section. How many people watched the Superbowl for the football, how many for the half-time show and how many for the ads?
I have a confession. The only reason I subscribed to my local small-town paper when they switched from a free to paid model was to keep the kindly old delivery man employed. I am not kidding. I mentioned his name in my subscription email. We often never get around to reading the hard-copy paper (most of the articles I get one way or another online), but we regularly do the crosswords, which is funny because I am not normally a crossword doer.
B, I do understand.
I live in Calgary so I don't get a "small-town paper." I get the local Postmedia contribution. A large part of the reason is that our carrier really tries to take care of us. Personal contact (defined in odd ways because the paper gets here at 1.00AM delivered by "someone") is a good hook for any business.
Oh, yeah, that word: business. The old robber barons at the papers forgot that and simply thought that we were ATM's. They now know that to be untrue but they haven't figured out the rest.
Your right,Everyone read the papers in different way depending on interest.eg front page headline news , obituaries, crossword, eventually all of it if they have time.but most people don't have, or don't know think they have that kind of time
Hot damn! This is a much better column than what Andrew MacDougall gave us (I am not blaming our wonderful Editors). Andrew basically said "I'm pissed off!" [He was channeling the Prime Face Painter when the PFP said he was pissed off about the Bell layoffs, etc.] And, really, that is all he said.
I responded with a comment that basically said, yeah, I get that you are pissed off but, so what? I challenged Andrew (or his confreres) to actually propose a way to deal with the issue that was a) constructive and had a reasonable chance of success; b) didn't amount to robbing Peter (the public) to pay Paul (legacy media) so they could pour that cash down the toilet; and c) didn't end up harming the rights of Canadians.
So. Here we have a response (? - Perhaps, I delude myself to think that Clarke Ries is actually responding to my challenge). And what is his "prescription?" Charge for your product. Hardly an overwhelming idea - well, unless you are the legacy media. It is a very simple concept but so powerful.
To me, it is a given that there will be more blood to be shed in the media simply because with the electronic distribution available today, we don't need local journalism as we once knew it in every city. Truth is, I can get my international news from the New York Times, The Australian, The Times of London, etc. So, it is clear that for me to expect that the "best" way to get that international news is to continue to subscribe to the Calgary Herald or the Toronto Star or the East Elbow Gazette is foolish. Similarly, I can get national politics from a whole raft of possibilities here in Canada.
What those remaining papers can - and should - do is to intensely cover the more local news. That is the journalism prescription. I know, this is really an old, old prescription but why doesn't the legacy media understand that idea? No way to tell. Now, the remaining legacy media is mostly debt ridden and insolvent.
Really, they are controlled by their debt holders; what they should (but won't) do is to put themselves into voluntary bankruptcy, lay off more people (sorry G & G) and go totally online and, finally, attempt to come out the other side with more reasonable debt. That is the business prescription.
I really, really do like some of Clarke's assertions:
- "Giving your product away for free is a terrible business model. .... Lemonade stands run by six-year-olds have figured this out."
- "If you’re getting rolled up, lit up, and smoked out in the content wars by somebody’s unemployed uncle, work harder or find a new line of work, don’t blame the algorithm."
- "Nobody cares." Except G & G. But, they can be forgiven their sentimentality. Honest!
- "But if you want to live the life of kings, quit bewailing bad fortune and write something they’ll think is worth their hard-earned money."
- "Then charge them to read it." Oh, yeah, the words of wisdom.
A comment to our Editors: Ask Clarke to do more columns.
I’ve found myself following individual journalists over the last decade, rather than the legacy media. The pros are that through apps like Substack and individual podcasts you can interact, if the journalist wants. I’ve watched a few Joe Rogans, but drifted away during the covid wars. Anyway, the cons are that I’m spending hundreds per year to access “subscriber content”, but unfortunately, with the greatest respect to the truly great people I follow, I don’t always want to read or listen to 100% of their content.