I have for a long time been opposed to the idea that Google et al should pay newspapers ANY money.
Firstly, I simply thought that the idea that Google et al would fork over dollars and not find a way to later hit me (and everyone on the internet, for that matter) in a way that allows recovery and more was simply naive.
Second, if I wanted to prop up, say, the Toronto Star then I can buy a subscription to that publication. If I don't want a subscription then why should I "participate" in funding it?
Third, and very importantly to me, I really didn't see how Google et al benefited from the passthrough of clicks more than the particular newspaper. That, of course, is the point of Peter Menzies column herein. Really, the newspapers should be sending money to Google et al rather than the other way around.
The government is trying to solve the wrong problem. They are trying to fix the now broken business model on the behalf of media companies. That's not the public's problem.
The public's problem is that democracy requires universal access to accurate information to help us gauge how well (or not well) government is fulfilling their mandate. News does more than that -- it entertains, supports other businesses -- but those can be delivered by other means.
The problem with social media is that it provides all kinds of information (and disinformation) without an easy means to determine quality (at least not built into the platform). Worse, it's designed only to keep you on the platform, so its algorithms with actively push you to low quality information if you indicate any interest in it at all (even hovering over something clickbaity). That creates an "idea marketplace" that's easily manipulated, where people don't have access to a similar set of basic information (if social is their only source) and that's difficult to trust.
We regulate information in financial markets, creating penalties for those who attempt to manipulate the market. We also mandate that really important information gets shared with everyone at the same time. An open information marketplace requires similar oversight.
I would submit that government regulation should focus on two things.
First there should be legal penalties for attempting to use social platform to sway public opinion in a non-transparent manner. If you used bot farms or networks of related sites to make a piece of content seem way more popular than it is -- the equivalent of talking up a stock as an analyst that you hold interest in -- there should be a legal penalty. Right now, we are relying on tech firms' terms of service to regulate this, but their primary interest is profit and the damage exists in the public sphere. Now, realistically, this will be hard to police. But let's at least acknowledge that defrauding the public in this manner is undesirable!
That said -- if you are transparent; if you are an advocacy group and you work with other aligned with your cause -- have at it. The goal here isn't to stifle legitimate discourse. It's to squash illegitimate (and fraudulant) tactics to hack the algorithm and get access to a lot of eyeballs.
Second: focus the regulation on the algorithm. Social media companies only care about engagement and ad revenue. We need to make the automated decisions on what content they serve up to people transparent. Ideally, the criteria should NOT be the platform's choice. I as a user should be able to determine the criteria behind the content served to me. And, businesses serving content (eg monitizing it) should be held accountable for the content they serve up. That doesn't mean censoring, but it does mean a higher level of accountability at to who these actors are, where they are, and what their business model is. A bunch of sites in Russia all sharing political content for profit in Canada should not be able to hide behind social media anonymity.
Now, this is all new ground and and I think getting this regulation right will take time. But let's focus on 'public good' -- defined here by a trustworthy information ecosystem that still preserves freedom of expression -- and not on propping up specific sectors!
Tony, I THINK that I follow your thread of thought and it APPEARS to be to be sound.
Now, having said that, I want to stress that as a general proposition I don't trust government whatsoever to "assist" me in finding "suitable" content. That means - to me, anyways - that the idea of open disclosure of pertinent details and then allowing virtually any content ("virtually" that I would really have to think that through!).
100%. I don't want government making any content decisions beyond what's currently in the law (hate speech, etc.). But, right now, giant private tech firms *ARE* making choices on what content to serve to billions of users, based on nothing beyond engagement and corresponding ad revenue. That doesn't seem like it serves the public good!
What I really, really want is to limit the platform's ability to select content and put that in user's hands (a 'user's bill of rights' if you need a snappy title). If you really think MSM is lying and only want to get your information from whatever source you want -- cool. But, you'd have to actively make the decision. And, there would need to be corresponding regulations to hold those profiting from content accountable following the same logic we use with other businesses: if you are making money and having an impact, you are held to a higher standard. Just ask mining companies! I don't want to see small content producers weighed down with red tape, but I also don't think that current incentives -- which is that the platform will elevate outrageous content, even if it's untrue -- align with a healthy (and sustainable) information marketplace.
Don't trust government to 'assist' you in finding 'suitable' content?
I am betting that you haven't been on the internet recently.
Well I have and can assure you that it is so vast that you literally have no chance of going only to the sites that Minister Pablo and his boss consider 'suitable'.
That's why we need the guidance of Minister Pablo and his boss!
It's really all so logical if you stop and think it about it.
Tom, I'm sorry but I cannot discern [my own failing here] whether your comment is meant as sarcasm or is meant seriously. I certainly hope the former, not the latter!
All I can say is that I simply don't believe that government - of any strip, mind you - is truly capable of providing unbiased commentary or direction to same. Oh, I accept that there can be very well meaning folks who do provide that service who are employed by the government but I really, really, really [sufficiently strong for you?] don't expect such unbiased direction more than, oh, about three seconds. Remember Lord Acton's dictum: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." So, would I trust the government? Well, perhaps when pigs can fly but not any time sooner.
I share your trepidation at the thought of government taking it upon itself to be the arbiter of what is and what is not misinformation.
Unfortunately, His Exalted Self does not share this trepidation and given that his instincts are more totalitarian than democratic, I expect that we can look forward to Soapie's yoga videos getting pride of place on the internet once the hirsute Minister Pablo has finished 'fixing' it.
The competitive media marketplace will self-balance over time. It's already bubbling. We have SubStack ("The LIne") and Rumble.ca emerging with "build your own newspaper" models. Entrepreneurial journalists, video analysts and 9-year-old kids are replacing conventional "eyeballs".
Meta is correct. The golden goose will be killed by a passé "print" industry.
Rumble.ca is under development. But if you are looking for "Dubai Hotel", Christian Singles", "Alcohol Treatment" and "Domain Names", this is the place to drop in.
Rumble.com on the other hand is full of all sorts of silliness: Blackrock to buy Bitcoin. Bongdino rooting out FBI spies for the Donald, cute dog stories, Russel Brand ('nuff said), Carl Jung’s Discovery of The Collective Unconscious (late on this one guys, Jung published it in 1916)
In the Substacks scattered among the gems (The Line, Paul Wells, a few others) are a lot of gravel, rocks, dust and debris. As it should be. Voices need room to speak and Substack is better than most.
The "print industry/media, newspapers will die. Not right way but not long to go now. In a way, it's sad because we've all lived it with them through the great years when independent journalism was expected and celebrated. And the National Enquirer was a trashy fish wrap at the grocery check-out.
Rumble seems to offer nothing up "what we think you would enjoy", possibly without algorithms.
The public doesn't need newspapers; it just needs news. No business model is guaranteed (ask a farmer). Maybe it will all become old-persons-hobbies, and billionaire-funded propaganda.
Most journalists worthy of being heard are those who are diligent in reporting facts and the majority of them are already out of the Corporate style media and on substack or creating a news worthy site of their own. What is left in the Corporate media outlets are those who are far from being termed "journalist". They would not know a story if it knocked them off their chair. They repeat the drone of the Liberal/Progressive Canadian Press and thats as far as they look for a story. If it makes the Government in Ottawa (Liberal) look bad, they dont report it at all. They can do all they like and recieved money from Google or Meta but for what? Most Canadian's are very aware of the downward dive in integrety, or truth, stated or heard from the media today. They handed in their journalism degree (if indeed they ever had one) repeating the Government narrative and pushing social justice, like the activist they are. They do not report the news or write stories any longer, they propogate and initiate or contribute to activism.
How many journalists do you know ML? If one writes for a corporate outlet are they to be considered unprofessional, poorly trained, unimaginative, that they park their brains and imagination in their locker when they come in every morning? Just because of where they work? Does each and every one of them when putting a story together, political or otherwise, automatically pump up their "political" masters? And only them? Not all journalists write political stories.
When did activism become a dirty word and deed? Which social justice do you not care for?
I don't believe you have read a legacy "paper" in far too long. You have spun a web of deceit and a picture of grovelling sycophants. I have no doubt that some exist at some outlets but I would point at middle management, not the journalists. As can be easily found the unprofessional, the masters of misinformation, are but a click away. I'd name names of a few of Canada's worst but that would be rude.
Disagreeing with the writer regarding the content is fine. Blaming all the writers is muddleheaded.
I worked for two small weekly papers some years back. We all wore many hats. Writing, advertising, layout, PS, Ill, a brilliantly accurate copy editor, paste-up, yes, we pasted the paper together before sending it off to the printers. We had a proud circulation of about 50,000 a week. What is odd/interesting is that today, online, an article can be as long as is wanted. Broken down into single sentences, sometimes two for ease of readability. The CBC layout for instance. With the paper, articles would be given a fixed number of column inches based on how many ads were running on a given week. The write would be told shortly before the past up would start and frantic rewrites would happen to accommodate the number of pages. That was one of my specific jobs—the layout. As the paper was free, it was 100% ad supported. This was 25 years ago. Not so long in the great scheme of things. One is still published, and one lasted over 50 years in various incarnations, tho it is no longer in print. Another has risen to take its place and it is both paper and online. Also supported by local advertising. Still about 50,000 circ.
Really ML, I wish you could walk a mile or two in a journalist's shoes before you so disrespectfully dismiss them. Use your imagination, just try it.
How the current jockeying about will affect them is hard to see. Both the Govs and the Meta, Googles, etc, should p*ss-off other than in a distant regulatory way.
Sorry Lou, I did use a broad brush on that. I am speaking of the main stream Big Corporate Media, not small community based newspapers. Unfortunately they have been gone for some time or mostly are all gone. Am stating this even after I cancelled my local newspaper that was a staple in the community for years and years. Suddenly they were running Canadian Press news stories from the East and Vancouver. As I spoke to the Editor on the phone telling him exactly why I was cancelling it, he seemed quite sober about the fact I would consider doing so. You see Lou, I live in a very Conservative place and one that has been Conservative since long before my time. When I begin reading the Toronto Star in my community paper, I unsubscribe pretty quick. If I wanted to read the Toronto StarI would actually buy one. You can call that journalism Lou, but even though I did not own or print my own paper, I have always been a willing reader. In fact Lou, I went to journalism in college back in the day and as much as I like it, I found out pretty quick the money was in advertising, not reporting. Reporting costs money, it makes nothing unless it makes headlines to get more advertisers interested in placing ads. The new journalism is afforded to us by and for the Federal Liberal Party of Canada, with taxpayers money. The bias is so blatant it’s basically Liberal propaganda. I have always read and watched the news right up until 2017. Things have changed and there is no room for any truth today as it’s about selling a social structure based on ideology, not facts. I already have my own social structure , I don’t need anyone else’s. I do apologize for doing that painting with a broad brush as I did not mean every and all newspapers and broadcasters.
Substack is acting up again. I received your reply in my email but you are not here.
To that end, shoot me some links that describe what's happening in Alberta. I have a few friends in Lethbridge and the Edmonton area but that hardly accounts for a broad opinion.
What policy decisions have done the most damage in your mind? Fairly broad strokes are ok.
Fisheries on the east coast are problematic (indigenous fishers are pissed, I don't know if that is resolved) but the west coast is ok. The salmon are running. Problems with keeping the shellfish industry toxin-free (boat salvage, crap leaching into the waters), and fish farms should be moved inland into tanks. Better control of diseases. Other places have done so with great success. People shouldn't be afraid to innovate.
What I don't understand is the constitutional issues you apparently are much more aware of. Send me some links.
I think Scott Moe is not a very smart man.
Canada will survive. Sometimes it feels like it's all falling apart. Maybe that's just the vibe from our neighbours. Some people love the whole political circus. Others could care less. Some get excited when something becomes politicized when it really shouldn't have. Try to get a majority of Canadians excited about something, I think it will have to do with hockey. Not the guy not in 24 Sussex. For 5 years I barely paid attention to Fed/Prov. politics. It was American news, pretty much non-stop. It was insane. Took months to break the habit even after we voted. Now should I drop in to see what's happening, it's exactly what Matt calls muscle memory. I know exactly where to go almost like I never looked away.
Hey ML, I still have to disagree with you. There are hundreds and hundreds of small town papers, on pulp paper, across Canada. True, fewer than there once was, but they are still out there. What you won't read is anything political in them other than the municipal level, unless an MP gets run over by a car or something while in town. My favorite part was always the classifieds; slices of life really. That has pretty much died out unfortunately.
So Big Corp. NaPo, TorStar, asst Suns (Post Media), CBC, etc. Politically it's their ballpark and I don't subscribe to any of them. Globe and Mail has such an in your face pay wall that I click it shut and to the hell with their story. At least TorStar doesn't make you pay for everything and the available stuff is generally good quality. NaPo's headlines are often a hoot, so trashy. But they all have the BIG stories of the day as do so many of the smaller offerings. I don't see that a liberal slant is so bad. The majority of Canadians could be called small L liberals and I don't mean in a political way. Most Canadians aren't really political.
I would have unsubscribed too if my local rag started running too many news aggregator stories. I'm glad you spoke to the editor. That was the right thing to do.
Advertising runs the world. Of course that's where the money is and always has been. TV, radio, media, the mail (all those bloody flyers) and all of the entertainment industry. For the most part a balance is maintained. Artists through the centuries painted & sculpted the party line (Sistine Chapel). FB, Twitter, Google in it's entirety, all of the social media offerings make their money from advertising. Google has raised it to an art form. How are we going to know what we want if we are not told? That's only a little sarcastic.
You don't live in a Conservative town, hon, anymore than I live in a Liberal one. Those are political labels and are self IDd. Never mind who won in the riding there are also some card carrying members of other parties among the far more numerous non card carrying folks who vote differently when they vote. Too many don't vote at all which is a shame.
I'm not as concerned as you re the journalism bailouts/funding. I'm not sure that it was a necessary move but COVID was such an aberration that I understand the concern. As far as everyone all of a sudden being pro-Lib all of a sudden, I just don't see it. When a publication/article gets too out of line one way or the other there is always someone calling them on it. It's all in flux and I'm sure we will see big changes sooner than later.
***************************Some time later:
My daughter called. She's in bed with covid. This is actually a good thing as it makes her slow down just a little bit and we had a long lovely chat which was overdue.
Now where was I? I was just reading an article in the TorStar. Bracketing the article, top and bottom, was page wide ads about donating to the Conservative Party of Canada. Something about gas prices and something else. Big donate button.
I don't know about you but I appreciate it when I can read what the pros and cons of new legislation is by someone who can give a good overview with some pertinent links. Reading leg is so dry. Clever people like Matt and Jen do a great job and they are not alone.
We see things differently. I do read a lot more "truth" than otherwise. I go looking for more, often just based on a name or a snip of info. Mostly I read information in my "papers". That the Liberals are often top of the page is probably because they are the government. They do get things right occasionally. The same way Harper's Conservatives, for 9 years, had the same pride of place. Social structure? I don't see that the govs of the day have much sway in that market beyond people's expectations. Govs move slowly, much more slowly than people. Something is always simmering just under the surface. Sometimes good, sometimes hateful. Mostly if the gov pushes the people will say "meh" and ignore them. Still, the people will decide and what's in the papers doesn't have as much clout as you'd think. Look at this link. Tons of interesting info.
FB and YouTube top the list for social networks used for news. That scares me! "As of late 2021, 57 percent of adults who responded to a global survey stated that they trusted traditional media whereas 59 percent said they trusted search engines." Interesting and it explains a lot.
I'll keep calling on your broad brush strokes :) But I do hope you explore the truth out there a bit again. I don't see the that basic ideologies are any different than they have ever been but I also don't see social structures shifting in any meaningful ways. It's not as if The Great Reset is actually a thing. They stole that title too. You think the WEF could do better.
PS I don't vote Liberal (except once, being strategic) or Conservative. I have yet to be given a reason to.
The major legacy news media and the CBC should be ashamed of themselves going cap in hand and asking to be put on the federal payroll. He who pays the piper calls the tune and in 2022 that piper is the PMO. Just like in Putin's Russia and Xi's China.
With respect, Mr Menzies, your op-ed relies an awful lot on claims made by Meta. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but by doing so you appear to be undermine the credibility of the arguments you've presented here.
Which is not to say that the present federal government has adopted the right approach with the proposed legislation. Nonetheless, in this context Meta strikes me as the boy who cried wolf or, at the very least, a self-interested party to the dispute.
Ben Thompson wrote a very long article on this a few years back. Here's the relevant part
It’s hardly controversial to note that the traditional business model for most publishers, particularly newspapers, is obsolete. Absent the geographic monopolies formerly imposed by owning distribution, newspapers have nothing to offer advertisers: the sort of advertising that was formerly done in newspapers, both classified and display, is better done online.
-and
fail to understand about newspapers is that it is not simply the business model that is obsolete: rather, everything is obsolete. Most local newspapers are simply not worth saving, not because local news isn’t valuable, but rather because everything else in your typical local newspaper is worthless.
In other words do I really need a subscription to my local paper to read bout the FBI raid on Trumps compound?
Journalism livelihoods are being destroyed for no good reason as we have created a habit of allowing companies like Meta, Amazon, Google, Uber and Apple to continually blur the lines between traditional industries and themselves. Their mantra is disrupt first and deal with laws they've broken later---after getting rich.
People need to stop being afraid of being run over on the information highway and afraid of being labelled a Luddite for daring to question these companies' practices. Amazon is a leech on society, being one of the biggest companies in the USA and paying what... about 10% of the taxes they should, simply by dangling employment in front of governments. Sounds like railroad barons. Meta is the same bully in its own ways. And they all have zero customer service while they make billions. Worse than traditional telecoms and banks that we all love to complain about.
I was hoping the editors at The Line would be a voice of common sense instead of being sucked in by the well-crafted public relations efforts from these companies with tons of money. Our traditional news media is essential to our democracy, and Meta is not a news organization. Maybe people should be allowed to put text-only links in their Facebook post about interesting news they've read, so they are more likely to go to the source. A flashy Open Graph graphic and text feed do more to keep you from leaving the site than being a gift to traditional news media. I don't know what the solutions are, but I'm glad people are starting to stand up through their governments. The recent tax break for news subscriptions is a good idea. Let's tax these companies properly to pay for the maintenance of our democracy if they have no concern about how their activities affect our society, as evidenced by their quickness to use their money to defend themselves with PR and lawyers.
Journalism livelihoods have not been destroyed but Big Tech. They were destroyed by greedy monopolists who consolidated the newspaper industry, cut costs to the bone by getting rid of journalists both international and local. Without local news, the local papers closed all across the country -- before everyone was getting news on the web. Now we have been reduced to a small number of papers in major centres we get whatever comes over the wire reprinted or editorials that are always partisan based on whichever paper you choose.
So the problem pre-dated Meta posting links and that problem is that our government and that of the US has allowed more and more consolidation in all businesses -- tech, media, banking, telecom, energy, grocery, pharmacy, rail, airlines etc. and we are the poorer for it.
If you want the government running the news business -- expect to pay more for less and all decisions will be political. (See Dairy, Eggs, CBC etc.)
We all know what happened when the beer companies all consolidated -- we got all beer tasting the same. Now we have craft breweries that are winning us over by making a better product. I look at The Line, and Tangle and Paul Wells, and Bari Weiss and Rumble (parts of it) as the craft brewers of journalism.
I have for a long time been opposed to the idea that Google et al should pay newspapers ANY money.
Firstly, I simply thought that the idea that Google et al would fork over dollars and not find a way to later hit me (and everyone on the internet, for that matter) in a way that allows recovery and more was simply naive.
Second, if I wanted to prop up, say, the Toronto Star then I can buy a subscription to that publication. If I don't want a subscription then why should I "participate" in funding it?
Third, and very importantly to me, I really didn't see how Google et al benefited from the passthrough of clicks more than the particular newspaper. That, of course, is the point of Peter Menzies column herein. Really, the newspapers should be sending money to Google et al rather than the other way around.
The government is trying to solve the wrong problem. They are trying to fix the now broken business model on the behalf of media companies. That's not the public's problem.
The public's problem is that democracy requires universal access to accurate information to help us gauge how well (or not well) government is fulfilling their mandate. News does more than that -- it entertains, supports other businesses -- but those can be delivered by other means.
The problem with social media is that it provides all kinds of information (and disinformation) without an easy means to determine quality (at least not built into the platform). Worse, it's designed only to keep you on the platform, so its algorithms with actively push you to low quality information if you indicate any interest in it at all (even hovering over something clickbaity). That creates an "idea marketplace" that's easily manipulated, where people don't have access to a similar set of basic information (if social is their only source) and that's difficult to trust.
We regulate information in financial markets, creating penalties for those who attempt to manipulate the market. We also mandate that really important information gets shared with everyone at the same time. An open information marketplace requires similar oversight.
I would submit that government regulation should focus on two things.
First there should be legal penalties for attempting to use social platform to sway public opinion in a non-transparent manner. If you used bot farms or networks of related sites to make a piece of content seem way more popular than it is -- the equivalent of talking up a stock as an analyst that you hold interest in -- there should be a legal penalty. Right now, we are relying on tech firms' terms of service to regulate this, but their primary interest is profit and the damage exists in the public sphere. Now, realistically, this will be hard to police. But let's at least acknowledge that defrauding the public in this manner is undesirable!
That said -- if you are transparent; if you are an advocacy group and you work with other aligned with your cause -- have at it. The goal here isn't to stifle legitimate discourse. It's to squash illegitimate (and fraudulant) tactics to hack the algorithm and get access to a lot of eyeballs.
Second: focus the regulation on the algorithm. Social media companies only care about engagement and ad revenue. We need to make the automated decisions on what content they serve up to people transparent. Ideally, the criteria should NOT be the platform's choice. I as a user should be able to determine the criteria behind the content served to me. And, businesses serving content (eg monitizing it) should be held accountable for the content they serve up. That doesn't mean censoring, but it does mean a higher level of accountability at to who these actors are, where they are, and what their business model is. A bunch of sites in Russia all sharing political content for profit in Canada should not be able to hide behind social media anonymity.
Now, this is all new ground and and I think getting this regulation right will take time. But let's focus on 'public good' -- defined here by a trustworthy information ecosystem that still preserves freedom of expression -- and not on propping up specific sectors!
Tony, I THINK that I follow your thread of thought and it APPEARS to be to be sound.
Now, having said that, I want to stress that as a general proposition I don't trust government whatsoever to "assist" me in finding "suitable" content. That means - to me, anyways - that the idea of open disclosure of pertinent details and then allowing virtually any content ("virtually" that I would really have to think that through!).
100%. I don't want government making any content decisions beyond what's currently in the law (hate speech, etc.). But, right now, giant private tech firms *ARE* making choices on what content to serve to billions of users, based on nothing beyond engagement and corresponding ad revenue. That doesn't seem like it serves the public good!
What I really, really want is to limit the platform's ability to select content and put that in user's hands (a 'user's bill of rights' if you need a snappy title). If you really think MSM is lying and only want to get your information from whatever source you want -- cool. But, you'd have to actively make the decision. And, there would need to be corresponding regulations to hold those profiting from content accountable following the same logic we use with other businesses: if you are making money and having an impact, you are held to a higher standard. Just ask mining companies! I don't want to see small content producers weighed down with red tape, but I also don't think that current incentives -- which is that the platform will elevate outrageous content, even if it's untrue -- align with a healthy (and sustainable) information marketplace.
Don't trust government to 'assist' you in finding 'suitable' content?
I am betting that you haven't been on the internet recently.
Well I have and can assure you that it is so vast that you literally have no chance of going only to the sites that Minister Pablo and his boss consider 'suitable'.
That's why we need the guidance of Minister Pablo and his boss!
It's really all so logical if you stop and think it about it.
Tom, I'm sorry but I cannot discern [my own failing here] whether your comment is meant as sarcasm or is meant seriously. I certainly hope the former, not the latter!
All I can say is that I simply don't believe that government - of any strip, mind you - is truly capable of providing unbiased commentary or direction to same. Oh, I accept that there can be very well meaning folks who do provide that service who are employed by the government but I really, really, really [sufficiently strong for you?] don't expect such unbiased direction more than, oh, about three seconds. Remember Lord Acton's dictum: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." So, would I trust the government? Well, perhaps when pigs can fly but not any time sooner.
God help us if my comment were meant seriously.
I share your trepidation at the thought of government taking it upon itself to be the arbiter of what is and what is not misinformation.
Unfortunately, His Exalted Self does not share this trepidation and given that his instincts are more totalitarian than democratic, I expect that we can look forward to Soapie's yoga videos getting pride of place on the internet once the hirsute Minister Pablo has finished 'fixing' it.
The competitive media marketplace will self-balance over time. It's already bubbling. We have SubStack ("The LIne") and Rumble.ca emerging with "build your own newspaper" models. Entrepreneurial journalists, video analysts and 9-year-old kids are replacing conventional "eyeballs".
Meta is correct. The golden goose will be killed by a passé "print" industry.
Rumble.ca is under development. But if you are looking for "Dubai Hotel", Christian Singles", "Alcohol Treatment" and "Domain Names", this is the place to drop in.
Rumble.com on the other hand is full of all sorts of silliness: Blackrock to buy Bitcoin. Bongdino rooting out FBI spies for the Donald, cute dog stories, Russel Brand ('nuff said), Carl Jung’s Discovery of The Collective Unconscious (late on this one guys, Jung published it in 1916)
In the Substacks scattered among the gems (The Line, Paul Wells, a few others) are a lot of gravel, rocks, dust and debris. As it should be. Voices need room to speak and Substack is better than most.
The "print industry/media, newspapers will die. Not right way but not long to go now. In a way, it's sad because we've all lived it with them through the great years when independent journalism was expected and celebrated. And the National Enquirer was a trashy fish wrap at the grocery check-out.
Rumble seems to offer nothing up "what we think you would enjoy", possibly without algorithms.
Thanks Lou. We seem to think alike on some occasions.
Sometimes :)
The public doesn't need newspapers; it just needs news. No business model is guaranteed (ask a farmer). Maybe it will all become old-persons-hobbies, and billionaire-funded propaganda.
Most journalists worthy of being heard are those who are diligent in reporting facts and the majority of them are already out of the Corporate style media and on substack or creating a news worthy site of their own. What is left in the Corporate media outlets are those who are far from being termed "journalist". They would not know a story if it knocked them off their chair. They repeat the drone of the Liberal/Progressive Canadian Press and thats as far as they look for a story. If it makes the Government in Ottawa (Liberal) look bad, they dont report it at all. They can do all they like and recieved money from Google or Meta but for what? Most Canadian's are very aware of the downward dive in integrety, or truth, stated or heard from the media today. They handed in their journalism degree (if indeed they ever had one) repeating the Government narrative and pushing social justice, like the activist they are. They do not report the news or write stories any longer, they propogate and initiate or contribute to activism.
How many journalists do you know ML? If one writes for a corporate outlet are they to be considered unprofessional, poorly trained, unimaginative, that they park their brains and imagination in their locker when they come in every morning? Just because of where they work? Does each and every one of them when putting a story together, political or otherwise, automatically pump up their "political" masters? And only them? Not all journalists write political stories.
When did activism become a dirty word and deed? Which social justice do you not care for?
I don't believe you have read a legacy "paper" in far too long. You have spun a web of deceit and a picture of grovelling sycophants. I have no doubt that some exist at some outlets but I would point at middle management, not the journalists. As can be easily found the unprofessional, the masters of misinformation, are but a click away. I'd name names of a few of Canada's worst but that would be rude.
Disagreeing with the writer regarding the content is fine. Blaming all the writers is muddleheaded.
I worked for two small weekly papers some years back. We all wore many hats. Writing, advertising, layout, PS, Ill, a brilliantly accurate copy editor, paste-up, yes, we pasted the paper together before sending it off to the printers. We had a proud circulation of about 50,000 a week. What is odd/interesting is that today, online, an article can be as long as is wanted. Broken down into single sentences, sometimes two for ease of readability. The CBC layout for instance. With the paper, articles would be given a fixed number of column inches based on how many ads were running on a given week. The write would be told shortly before the past up would start and frantic rewrites would happen to accommodate the number of pages. That was one of my specific jobs—the layout. As the paper was free, it was 100% ad supported. This was 25 years ago. Not so long in the great scheme of things. One is still published, and one lasted over 50 years in various incarnations, tho it is no longer in print. Another has risen to take its place and it is both paper and online. Also supported by local advertising. Still about 50,000 circ.
Really ML, I wish you could walk a mile or two in a journalist's shoes before you so disrespectfully dismiss them. Use your imagination, just try it.
How the current jockeying about will affect them is hard to see. Both the Govs and the Meta, Googles, etc, should p*ss-off other than in a distant regulatory way.
Sorry Lou, I did use a broad brush on that. I am speaking of the main stream Big Corporate Media, not small community based newspapers. Unfortunately they have been gone for some time or mostly are all gone. Am stating this even after I cancelled my local newspaper that was a staple in the community for years and years. Suddenly they were running Canadian Press news stories from the East and Vancouver. As I spoke to the Editor on the phone telling him exactly why I was cancelling it, he seemed quite sober about the fact I would consider doing so. You see Lou, I live in a very Conservative place and one that has been Conservative since long before my time. When I begin reading the Toronto Star in my community paper, I unsubscribe pretty quick. If I wanted to read the Toronto StarI would actually buy one. You can call that journalism Lou, but even though I did not own or print my own paper, I have always been a willing reader. In fact Lou, I went to journalism in college back in the day and as much as I like it, I found out pretty quick the money was in advertising, not reporting. Reporting costs money, it makes nothing unless it makes headlines to get more advertisers interested in placing ads. The new journalism is afforded to us by and for the Federal Liberal Party of Canada, with taxpayers money. The bias is so blatant it’s basically Liberal propaganda. I have always read and watched the news right up until 2017. Things have changed and there is no room for any truth today as it’s about selling a social structure based on ideology, not facts. I already have my own social structure , I don’t need anyone else’s. I do apologize for doing that painting with a broad brush as I did not mean every and all newspapers and broadcasters.
Substack is acting up again. I received your reply in my email but you are not here.
To that end, shoot me some links that describe what's happening in Alberta. I have a few friends in Lethbridge and the Edmonton area but that hardly accounts for a broad opinion.
What policy decisions have done the most damage in your mind? Fairly broad strokes are ok.
Fisheries on the east coast are problematic (indigenous fishers are pissed, I don't know if that is resolved) but the west coast is ok. The salmon are running. Problems with keeping the shellfish industry toxin-free (boat salvage, crap leaching into the waters), and fish farms should be moved inland into tanks. Better control of diseases. Other places have done so with great success. People shouldn't be afraid to innovate.
What I don't understand is the constitutional issues you apparently are much more aware of. Send me some links.
I think Scott Moe is not a very smart man.
Canada will survive. Sometimes it feels like it's all falling apart. Maybe that's just the vibe from our neighbours. Some people love the whole political circus. Others could care less. Some get excited when something becomes politicized when it really shouldn't have. Try to get a majority of Canadians excited about something, I think it will have to do with hockey. Not the guy not in 24 Sussex. For 5 years I barely paid attention to Fed/Prov. politics. It was American news, pretty much non-stop. It was insane. Took months to break the habit even after we voted. Now should I drop in to see what's happening, it's exactly what Matt calls muscle memory. I know exactly where to go almost like I never looked away.
It's late. Hope you're having a good weekend.
Hey ML, I still have to disagree with you. There are hundreds and hundreds of small town papers, on pulp paper, across Canada. True, fewer than there once was, but they are still out there. What you won't read is anything political in them other than the municipal level, unless an MP gets run over by a car or something while in town. My favorite part was always the classifieds; slices of life really. That has pretty much died out unfortunately.
So Big Corp. NaPo, TorStar, asst Suns (Post Media), CBC, etc. Politically it's their ballpark and I don't subscribe to any of them. Globe and Mail has such an in your face pay wall that I click it shut and to the hell with their story. At least TorStar doesn't make you pay for everything and the available stuff is generally good quality. NaPo's headlines are often a hoot, so trashy. But they all have the BIG stories of the day as do so many of the smaller offerings. I don't see that a liberal slant is so bad. The majority of Canadians could be called small L liberals and I don't mean in a political way. Most Canadians aren't really political.
I would have unsubscribed too if my local rag started running too many news aggregator stories. I'm glad you spoke to the editor. That was the right thing to do.
Advertising runs the world. Of course that's where the money is and always has been. TV, radio, media, the mail (all those bloody flyers) and all of the entertainment industry. For the most part a balance is maintained. Artists through the centuries painted & sculpted the party line (Sistine Chapel). FB, Twitter, Google in it's entirety, all of the social media offerings make their money from advertising. Google has raised it to an art form. How are we going to know what we want if we are not told? That's only a little sarcastic.
You don't live in a Conservative town, hon, anymore than I live in a Liberal one. Those are political labels and are self IDd. Never mind who won in the riding there are also some card carrying members of other parties among the far more numerous non card carrying folks who vote differently when they vote. Too many don't vote at all which is a shame.
I'm not as concerned as you re the journalism bailouts/funding. I'm not sure that it was a necessary move but COVID was such an aberration that I understand the concern. As far as everyone all of a sudden being pro-Lib all of a sudden, I just don't see it. When a publication/article gets too out of line one way or the other there is always someone calling them on it. It's all in flux and I'm sure we will see big changes sooner than later.
***************************Some time later:
My daughter called. She's in bed with covid. This is actually a good thing as it makes her slow down just a little bit and we had a long lovely chat which was overdue.
Now where was I? I was just reading an article in the TorStar. Bracketing the article, top and bottom, was page wide ads about donating to the Conservative Party of Canada. Something about gas prices and something else. Big donate button.
I don't know about you but I appreciate it when I can read what the pros and cons of new legislation is by someone who can give a good overview with some pertinent links. Reading leg is so dry. Clever people like Matt and Jen do a great job and they are not alone.
We see things differently. I do read a lot more "truth" than otherwise. I go looking for more, often just based on a name or a snip of info. Mostly I read information in my "papers". That the Liberals are often top of the page is probably because they are the government. They do get things right occasionally. The same way Harper's Conservatives, for 9 years, had the same pride of place. Social structure? I don't see that the govs of the day have much sway in that market beyond people's expectations. Govs move slowly, much more slowly than people. Something is always simmering just under the surface. Sometimes good, sometimes hateful. Mostly if the gov pushes the people will say "meh" and ignore them. Still, the people will decide and what's in the papers doesn't have as much clout as you'd think. Look at this link. Tons of interesting info.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/563514/social-networks-used-for-news-canada/
FB and YouTube top the list for social networks used for news. That scares me! "As of late 2021, 57 percent of adults who responded to a global survey stated that they trusted traditional media whereas 59 percent said they trusted search engines." Interesting and it explains a lot.
I'll keep calling on your broad brush strokes :) But I do hope you explore the truth out there a bit again. I don't see the that basic ideologies are any different than they have ever been but I also don't see social structures shifting in any meaningful ways. It's not as if The Great Reset is actually a thing. They stole that title too. You think the WEF could do better.
PS I don't vote Liberal (except once, being strategic) or Conservative. I have yet to be given a reason to.
The major legacy news media and the CBC should be ashamed of themselves going cap in hand and asking to be put on the federal payroll. He who pays the piper calls the tune and in 2022 that piper is the PMO. Just like in Putin's Russia and Xi's China.
With respect, Mr Menzies, your op-ed relies an awful lot on claims made by Meta. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but by doing so you appear to be undermine the credibility of the arguments you've presented here.
Which is not to say that the present federal government has adopted the right approach with the proposed legislation. Nonetheless, in this context Meta strikes me as the boy who cried wolf or, at the very least, a self-interested party to the dispute.
Ben Thompson wrote a very long article on this a few years back. Here's the relevant part
It’s hardly controversial to note that the traditional business model for most publishers, particularly newspapers, is obsolete. Absent the geographic monopolies formerly imposed by owning distribution, newspapers have nothing to offer advertisers: the sort of advertising that was formerly done in newspapers, both classified and display, is better done online.
-and
fail to understand about newspapers is that it is not simply the business model that is obsolete: rather, everything is obsolete. Most local newspapers are simply not worth saving, not because local news isn’t valuable, but rather because everything else in your typical local newspaper is worthless.
In other words do I really need a subscription to my local paper to read bout the FBI raid on Trumps compound?
https://stratechery.com/2017/the-local-news-business-model/
Journalism livelihoods are being destroyed for no good reason as we have created a habit of allowing companies like Meta, Amazon, Google, Uber and Apple to continually blur the lines between traditional industries and themselves. Their mantra is disrupt first and deal with laws they've broken later---after getting rich.
People need to stop being afraid of being run over on the information highway and afraid of being labelled a Luddite for daring to question these companies' practices. Amazon is a leech on society, being one of the biggest companies in the USA and paying what... about 10% of the taxes they should, simply by dangling employment in front of governments. Sounds like railroad barons. Meta is the same bully in its own ways. And they all have zero customer service while they make billions. Worse than traditional telecoms and banks that we all love to complain about.
I was hoping the editors at The Line would be a voice of common sense instead of being sucked in by the well-crafted public relations efforts from these companies with tons of money. Our traditional news media is essential to our democracy, and Meta is not a news organization. Maybe people should be allowed to put text-only links in their Facebook post about interesting news they've read, so they are more likely to go to the source. A flashy Open Graph graphic and text feed do more to keep you from leaving the site than being a gift to traditional news media. I don't know what the solutions are, but I'm glad people are starting to stand up through their governments. The recent tax break for news subscriptions is a good idea. Let's tax these companies properly to pay for the maintenance of our democracy if they have no concern about how their activities affect our society, as evidenced by their quickness to use their money to defend themselves with PR and lawyers.
Journalism livelihoods have not been destroyed but Big Tech. They were destroyed by greedy monopolists who consolidated the newspaper industry, cut costs to the bone by getting rid of journalists both international and local. Without local news, the local papers closed all across the country -- before everyone was getting news on the web. Now we have been reduced to a small number of papers in major centres we get whatever comes over the wire reprinted or editorials that are always partisan based on whichever paper you choose.
So the problem pre-dated Meta posting links and that problem is that our government and that of the US has allowed more and more consolidation in all businesses -- tech, media, banking, telecom, energy, grocery, pharmacy, rail, airlines etc. and we are the poorer for it.
If you want the government running the news business -- expect to pay more for less and all decisions will be political. (See Dairy, Eggs, CBC etc.)
We all know what happened when the beer companies all consolidated -- we got all beer tasting the same. Now we have craft breweries that are winning us over by making a better product. I look at The Line, and Tangle and Paul Wells, and Bari Weiss and Rumble (parts of it) as the craft brewers of journalism.