Standing ovation. Thank you for demonstrating what integrity and principled business management looks like. It's too bad nobody at the large corporate media has the same guts to say this loudly.
How is this situation anything other than the Liberal party taking care of a crucial member of their coalition, namely the urban Central Canadian chattering class elite, using funds from folks outside their coalition? They get to prop up their own, influencing the opinion makers at the cost of the outsiders, and get to bully the big tech outsiders. I thank The Line for staying outside their train wreck and respecting their subscribers and audience,
It's absolutely gross how the media and decision making elites are lined up on one side, while the rest of Canadians are lined up against them and their interests. (According to Angus Reid).
The fact of the matter is that Canadians trust "Big Tech" and their institutions over the Canadian media and institutions of the Central Canadian elite. My worry is what comes next after this?
I still have far more trust in Canadian media (for all it's faults) than I do in Big Tech. Canadian media is not taking my information & using it for their own purposes (yet, anyway).
In addition to paying for a subscription (thanks!) the best way to support us is to let lots of people know about us. With social media being its current state, it's harder and harder to get the word out that we exist. Word of mouth is probably our best, cheapest option. Regards and thank you, JG
I have similarly done this and I have made my (small, terrifically small) donation but perhaps there is something else that our Line editors can suggest.
This is what I do as well. For the time being we can also share direct links on message services or through text message. I'm really hoping that by encouraging fellow gen-X'ers and older millennials to support media if we want to continue to have access to it, that maybe some will choose to subscribe.
It is so refreshing to see you two standing by your principles - a rarity these days. Thank you. You provide hope in a toxic wasteland of mediocrity, and often cynical and situational ethics in Canada.
Now, create a forum where us readers can interact to contribute work, ideas and money to get you both back to 10% above your previous highest earnings (or some other number). Use your subscribers to strengthen your offerings. We ain't a dumb as we sometimes sound.
BZ to you and Jen!! You have my continued subscription.
PS: I don’t donate to Walmart or Marks, so don’t expect me to donate to you. That said, I am prepared to unreservedly continue my subscription even you index it to inflation.
I feel honored to support your business and watch it grow. I am very happy I found The Line. As far as "legacy media", they did all this to themselves. They lost the goal of being the public good and instead under the ownership of mega corporations became to beholden to sponsors and the billionairres who own them thinking they can implement their way upon everyone. They have spent years writing misleading headlines to suit an agenda, amplifying statistically tiny bad outcomes in a way that leaves people fearful. They tell only a slice of the pie on a particular story, that leaves a much different impression than if they told the entire package. They arrogantly think they can do no wrong, don't apologize for bad coverage, and continue to refuse they are manipulating the messaging to suit their overlords. So, why on earth would you expect people to still buy their papers or watch their news shows. It isn't just about it being dead because its old, its dying because it is delivering corporately owned drivel. I really truly hope substack stays a place for independent journalists to write without the fear of being fired, downsized, corporate reshuffled, or muzzled if they want to talk about something their ownership doesn't want to be presented. There is a hunger for good writing and reporting, not everyone is lazy and wanting to consume 88 headines in 48 seconds on a twitter feed. But people want value, they want to know that you are doing it your way and not because you work for a corp that is sponsored by pharma or online gaming or whatever it may be. All journalists and those who think they are need to take hard looks in the mirror. What they spend most of their time on is trying to get people mad or scared or both. That is no better than what twitter bots do in comments sections. I am sure its a rough ride to support your own site, and I have done my part. The Line is valuable and I hope more quality people start out on their own and stop taking paychecks from mega corporations. We would all be better for it. There are people who will pay for good journalism, they just won't pay to line their bird cage anymore
As much as I know all of this, it still really concerns me. It props up a dying business model, but not in a way that enables it to do what we need in a democracy -- support diverse, skilled journalism.
There is a theme here that troubles me. Instead of thinking of the government's job as supporting dynamic, competitive and sustainable markets, we keep looking at their job as being "prosperity" -- which leads to them 'saving jobs' in industries that are clearly in sunset mode. It's not just journalism -- it's auto manufacturing, its aerospace, it's some of our resource industries. We keep 'bailing out' sectors to save jobs, but that just encourages those businesses to keep doing what they are doing. Canada has low (and declining) productivity and socializing the cost of poor business decisions may be part of the problem. And, it's really expensive!
The public good comes from a sustainable, diverse and fiercely competitive market for journalism. Big tech has disrupted the old model and has not offered any viable sustitute -- in fact it's algorithms are just as likely to highlight scams and misinformation as they are journalism. But, the aim should be to get to a sustainable, diverse and fiercely competitive market for journalism and this legislation actively fails at that.
I'm not going to claim I definitively know what the answer is (though I've proposed some ideas in other threads) but I'm pretty certain that Bill 18 ain't it.
There is no saving the print media. They have no route to profitability. The TV/Cable/Internet oligopoly should be made to pay a certain percent of revenue -- say 1-2% -- into news production or lose their licenses. The online media should be funded by subscriptions and ideally some tax incentives for subscribers. Also, the online media should get favourable tax treatment on revenues. There could be a minimum threshold of subscriber revenue so not every wingnut gets tax breaks.
I don’t recall the newsprint paper companies or the printers having to pay the print media when companies started print and distribute their advertising on their own and or through the likes of Canada Post.
Newpapers either paid to have the paper printed or did it themselves. They didn't have an oligopoly until the Thompson's and Blacks etc were allowed to gobble up papers and gut them -- a trend that continues. BTW adverts paid for the content and subs only paid for delivery.
The New Media companies have purchased licenses to the public airwaves and have a near monopoly position on cable/fibre/wireless and own rights to much of the content on TV which makes them ridiculously profitable but with seemingly no social responsibility for the elite position the government has allowed, if not protected.
1. The owners of newspapers never have had a social conscience beyond getting their point of view in front of the public. It is still the case today.
2. You shouldn’t confuse airwaves with the internet. While cellular data and wifi connections do use radio frequencies, broadband (be it landline, cable, or fibre) does not. Broadband infrastructures are owned by the providers.
3. As for Internet providers owning news and other entertainment services, I have no problem with the CRTC enforcing the laws of the land on them. That said, nothing is stopping BCE from selling off CTV and its radio stations.
4. Canadians need to stop being freeloaders. If we want news, we should be prepared to pay for it.
2. False. Cellular, Wifi, cable and fibre are all now broadband. The infrastructure is owned by the providers, but their territories were granted to them by governments that cared little about competition and the public airwaves that were licensed to "competitors" were purchased on the cheap when the oligopolies made competition unprofitable.
3. BCE doesn't want to sell of CTV or radio stations, they just don't want to have to spend money on delivering news rather than entertainment.
4. We have always paid for our news. We usually paid by buying advertised products. Now we may have to subscribe to get decent news.
God knows I disagree with some of your opinions, but I never disagreed with your principled stance on this and many other issues. Thank you Gerson and Gurney for showing the rest of the world that having balls is more important than money.
Reading the comments, I feel like I'm swimming against the current by saying this, but I'm starting to find the consistent navel-gazing and media industry commentary a little exhausting. I like the mission statement of The Line, have generally enjoyed the writing, and I want to support what will hopefully be a more modern form of news coverage, but I also feel like 90% of what I've read here recently is about the CBC or the news industry more widely (perhaps with a sprinkle of the Toronto election). I agree that this bill is news, but I also feel like there's more going on in this country to talk about.
I’m not tired of it at all. Your discussion of the issue is a very helpful counterpoint to what we otherwise are getting from the msm crowd. Without you, we likely would go along with the accepted narrative and in a few months suddenly wake up wondering what happened.
And as a grammar-freak myself, the typos are survivable lol.
That's a fair perspective and I'm glad you're finding value in, and enjoying, the coverage! For myself, whether The Line thinks it's the right balance is mostly orthogonal to my point, since it's a matter of interest and what I want to be informed about. All I'm trying to say is that there's at least one paying subscriber that would love to see the breadth of topics covered expand. If the focus stays on the media, you're right that it's totally their call, but it wouldn't necessarily be what I'm looking for.
Okay, you finally did it. I signed up to donate $10/month above my subscription. Why? I had a subscription to Macleans magazine since high school (1990) but got rid of it some years ago when it went sideways. I don’t want an echo chamber, I want to hear from different points of view from a source I CAN TRUST. Truth and objectivity matter, I don’t care if they’re unattainable in real life, I still want reporters to aim for them. Too much news today has the answer before the question even gets asked. I actually smile when I see your subscription fee on my credit card bill. Keep it up.🫡
Great stuff Matt! I enjoy all the content you & Jen put out. I am a proud subscriber and trying to share your content (including podcasts) with as wide a circle as I can!! 👏🏻👏🏻 Loved the podcast episode that Jen just did on this topic with Tara Henley (ex-CBC).
Standing ovation. Thank you for demonstrating what integrity and principled business management looks like. It's too bad nobody at the large corporate media has the same guts to say this loudly.
How is this situation anything other than the Liberal party taking care of a crucial member of their coalition, namely the urban Central Canadian chattering class elite, using funds from folks outside their coalition? They get to prop up their own, influencing the opinion makers at the cost of the outsiders, and get to bully the big tech outsiders. I thank The Line for staying outside their train wreck and respecting their subscribers and audience,
It's absolutely gross how the media and decision making elites are lined up on one side, while the rest of Canadians are lined up against them and their interests. (According to Angus Reid).
The fact of the matter is that Canadians trust "Big Tech" and their institutions over the Canadian media and institutions of the Central Canadian elite. My worry is what comes next after this?
I still have far more trust in Canadian media (for all it's faults) than I do in Big Tech. Canadian media is not taking my information & using it for their own purposes (yet, anyway).
You don't think advocating for Bill C18 is about ultimately taking advantage of Canadians in a more nefarious way than big tech?
At least big tech is transparent in how they will take advantage of you, Laurentian media isn't.
First off, my congratulations, G & G, on your stance.
Next, I have to recognize the dangerously thin ice upon which you already skate and how it will be further thinning.
So, lastly, how can we, your readership, assist you on a go forward basis?
In addition to paying for a subscription (thanks!) the best way to support us is to let lots of people know about us. With social media being its current state, it's harder and harder to get the word out that we exist. Word of mouth is probably our best, cheapest option. Regards and thank you, JG
I have similarly done this and I have made my (small, terrifically small) donation but perhaps there is something else that our Line editors can suggest.
This is what I do as well. For the time being we can also share direct links on message services or through text message. I'm really hoping that by encouraging fellow gen-X'ers and older millennials to support media if we want to continue to have access to it, that maybe some will choose to subscribe.
It is so refreshing to see you two standing by your principles - a rarity these days. Thank you. You provide hope in a toxic wasteland of mediocrity, and often cynical and situational ethics in Canada.
“... toxic wasteland of mediocrity ...” Love 💕 it!
It’s why I love your work...and will continue to pay to read it
Bravo! Double my monthly rate!
Now, create a forum where us readers can interact to contribute work, ideas and money to get you both back to 10% above your previous highest earnings (or some other number). Use your subscribers to strengthen your offerings. We ain't a dumb as we sometimes sound.
BZ to you and Jen!! You have my continued subscription.
PS: I don’t donate to Walmart or Marks, so don’t expect me to donate to you. That said, I am prepared to unreservedly continue my subscription even you index it to inflation.
I feel honored to support your business and watch it grow. I am very happy I found The Line. As far as "legacy media", they did all this to themselves. They lost the goal of being the public good and instead under the ownership of mega corporations became to beholden to sponsors and the billionairres who own them thinking they can implement their way upon everyone. They have spent years writing misleading headlines to suit an agenda, amplifying statistically tiny bad outcomes in a way that leaves people fearful. They tell only a slice of the pie on a particular story, that leaves a much different impression than if they told the entire package. They arrogantly think they can do no wrong, don't apologize for bad coverage, and continue to refuse they are manipulating the messaging to suit their overlords. So, why on earth would you expect people to still buy their papers or watch their news shows. It isn't just about it being dead because its old, its dying because it is delivering corporately owned drivel. I really truly hope substack stays a place for independent journalists to write without the fear of being fired, downsized, corporate reshuffled, or muzzled if they want to talk about something their ownership doesn't want to be presented. There is a hunger for good writing and reporting, not everyone is lazy and wanting to consume 88 headines in 48 seconds on a twitter feed. But people want value, they want to know that you are doing it your way and not because you work for a corp that is sponsored by pharma or online gaming or whatever it may be. All journalists and those who think they are need to take hard looks in the mirror. What they spend most of their time on is trying to get people mad or scared or both. That is no better than what twitter bots do in comments sections. I am sure its a rough ride to support your own site, and I have done my part. The Line is valuable and I hope more quality people start out on their own and stop taking paychecks from mega corporations. We would all be better for it. There are people who will pay for good journalism, they just won't pay to line their bird cage anymore
As much as I know all of this, it still really concerns me. It props up a dying business model, but not in a way that enables it to do what we need in a democracy -- support diverse, skilled journalism.
There is a theme here that troubles me. Instead of thinking of the government's job as supporting dynamic, competitive and sustainable markets, we keep looking at their job as being "prosperity" -- which leads to them 'saving jobs' in industries that are clearly in sunset mode. It's not just journalism -- it's auto manufacturing, its aerospace, it's some of our resource industries. We keep 'bailing out' sectors to save jobs, but that just encourages those businesses to keep doing what they are doing. Canada has low (and declining) productivity and socializing the cost of poor business decisions may be part of the problem. And, it's really expensive!
The public good comes from a sustainable, diverse and fiercely competitive market for journalism. Big tech has disrupted the old model and has not offered any viable sustitute -- in fact it's algorithms are just as likely to highlight scams and misinformation as they are journalism. But, the aim should be to get to a sustainable, diverse and fiercely competitive market for journalism and this legislation actively fails at that.
I'm not going to claim I definitively know what the answer is (though I've proposed some ideas in other threads) but I'm pretty certain that Bill 18 ain't it.
In my simple view, the legacy news outlets of today are similar to Britain’s coal mines of the 80s. It’s over, but it’s messy moving on.
There is no saving the print media. They have no route to profitability. The TV/Cable/Internet oligopoly should be made to pay a certain percent of revenue -- say 1-2% -- into news production or lose their licenses. The online media should be funded by subscriptions and ideally some tax incentives for subscribers. Also, the online media should get favourable tax treatment on revenues. There could be a minimum threshold of subscriber revenue so not every wingnut gets tax breaks.
I don’t recall the newsprint paper companies or the printers having to pay the print media when companies started print and distribute their advertising on their own and or through the likes of Canada Post.
Newpapers either paid to have the paper printed or did it themselves. They didn't have an oligopoly until the Thompson's and Blacks etc were allowed to gobble up papers and gut them -- a trend that continues. BTW adverts paid for the content and subs only paid for delivery.
The New Media companies have purchased licenses to the public airwaves and have a near monopoly position on cable/fibre/wireless and own rights to much of the content on TV which makes them ridiculously profitable but with seemingly no social responsibility for the elite position the government has allowed, if not protected.
1. The owners of newspapers never have had a social conscience beyond getting their point of view in front of the public. It is still the case today.
2. You shouldn’t confuse airwaves with the internet. While cellular data and wifi connections do use radio frequencies, broadband (be it landline, cable, or fibre) does not. Broadband infrastructures are owned by the providers.
3. As for Internet providers owning news and other entertainment services, I have no problem with the CRTC enforcing the laws of the land on them. That said, nothing is stopping BCE from selling off CTV and its radio stations.
4. Canadians need to stop being freeloaders. If we want news, we should be prepared to pay for it.
1. True
2. False. Cellular, Wifi, cable and fibre are all now broadband. The infrastructure is owned by the providers, but their territories were granted to them by governments that cared little about competition and the public airwaves that were licensed to "competitors" were purchased on the cheap when the oligopolies made competition unprofitable.
3. BCE doesn't want to sell of CTV or radio stations, they just don't want to have to spend money on delivering news rather than entertainment.
4. We have always paid for our news. We usually paid by buying advertised products. Now we may have to subscribe to get decent news.
"But the silence will really be a reflection of shame". Thank you for explaining so clearly.
God knows I disagree with some of your opinions, but I never disagreed with your principled stance on this and many other issues. Thank you Gerson and Gurney for showing the rest of the world that having balls is more important than money.
Reading the comments, I feel like I'm swimming against the current by saying this, but I'm starting to find the consistent navel-gazing and media industry commentary a little exhausting. I like the mission statement of The Line, have generally enjoyed the writing, and I want to support what will hopefully be a more modern form of news coverage, but I also feel like 90% of what I've read here recently is about the CBC or the news industry more widely (perhaps with a sprinkle of the Toronto election). I agree that this bill is news, but I also feel like there's more going on in this country to talk about.
We'll be taking a break from C-18 for a while. I'm tired of hearing my own voice on it. JG
I’m not tired of it at all. Your discussion of the issue is a very helpful counterpoint to what we otherwise are getting from the msm crowd. Without you, we likely would go along with the accepted narrative and in a few months suddenly wake up wondering what happened.
And as a grammar-freak myself, the typos are survivable lol.
That's a fair perspective and I'm glad you're finding value in, and enjoying, the coverage! For myself, whether The Line thinks it's the right balance is mostly orthogonal to my point, since it's a matter of interest and what I want to be informed about. All I'm trying to say is that there's at least one paying subscriber that would love to see the breadth of topics covered expand. If the focus stays on the media, you're right that it's totally their call, but it wouldn't necessarily be what I'm looking for.
Okay, you finally did it. I signed up to donate $10/month above my subscription. Why? I had a subscription to Macleans magazine since high school (1990) but got rid of it some years ago when it went sideways. I don’t want an echo chamber, I want to hear from different points of view from a source I CAN TRUST. Truth and objectivity matter, I don’t care if they’re unattainable in real life, I still want reporters to aim for them. Too much news today has the answer before the question even gets asked. I actually smile when I see your subscription fee on my credit card bill. Keep it up.🫡
Expected nothing less from you and Jenn. This principled stand is a rarity, thank you.
Great stuff Matt! I enjoy all the content you & Jen put out. I am a proud subscriber and trying to share your content (including podcasts) with as wide a circle as I can!! 👏🏻👏🏻 Loved the podcast episode that Jen just did on this topic with Tara Henley (ex-CBC).