Some long time ago, the J-schools started teaching that it was OK for every account of something that had happened to include the writer’s opinion on how the reader ought to look at it, understand it, feel about it, and react to it. All of a sudden, everybody was a “journalist”, and reporters were extinct.
Now look at us! Should we be surprised at the lack of trust?
Just tell me what happened, and make the telling prompt and accurate. I’ll figure out where it fits in The Great Scheme of Things, based on my not inconsiderable education, experience and (dare I say) intelligence. And I’ll form my own reaction, thank you very much.
We live in a very strange country where money is taken from citizens and given to news organizatiosn they do not consume. The idea of user pay is becoming very foreign.
I am very happy to pay for The Line because I read The Line.
Excellent and true. It's strange that in dictatorships newspapers are undermined by censorship by the state, whereas in our democracy newspapers are (likely to be) self-censored from within. Same result but more expensive.
Had a grim chuckle at the reference to "equity-seeking" groups. In left circles; even funnier is that the new term for these groups is "equity deserving."
Essentially MSM has been bought by government using monies confiscated via taxes from various sources to fund this bit of larceny. Is it any wonder that readers have turned away from the MSM who can now be viewed as mere mouthpieces for the dissemination of government approved propaganda. The MSM has gone from reporting news in an impartial fashion which respects the intelligence of the reader to nothing more than a bunch of personal opinion biased diatribes.
An excellent article which all so-called journalists at the public teat should read. The public understands what is taking place -- they aren't paying attention to legacy newsrooms -- the industry obviously doesn't understand. Or they are just plain lazy and prefer to feed at the public trough.
What amazes me is not that the Canadian media now mouthpiece for the government and approved elite perspectives but that they, and even the CBC, still occasionally speak against their pay masters and status masters.
However, things like their reporting on the truckers convoy show that any such optimism must be gauged against very low expectations. Foreign media did a lot better job of reporting on this story than did the established Canadian media who almost entirely pushed the government / elite consensus view. Many current stories of importance similarly get terribly one sided reporting even when covering other perspectives would improve viewer engagement...
The public’s view, she (Marla Boltman) told the committee, should be taken with a “grain of salt.”
No sense of entitlement with that one, is there. Until the people who continue to throw money at a dying industry (in it's current state) remain in the positions they are in, it will only get worse.
I am thankful for outlets such as this one and will support it as long as it remains in operation. If the Lib/NDP alliance get their way, outlets like these will soon be illegal.
If you took away subscriptions to libraries, politicians and their staffs, people in the news businesses I would think the readership would drop substantially. No amount of money will save newspapers or legacy media. People aren't reading newspapers or watching formulaic if not stupid TV news. Stop pissing away my tax dollars!
Instead of tax breaks for old media, let me reduce my taxes by supporting the Line, the Real Story, Paul Wells, Bug-eyed, the Bureau, Michael Geist, Found in Translation, Turning Points and Regs to Riches -- Jeez I'd better cancel my newspaper subscriptions to keep paying for my substack habit!
I'm really of two minds about this. I'm heavily biased in favour of legacy media as I spent more than four decades at The Canadian Press news agency. The writer talks about the media being far to slow to adapt. Adapt to what? From a technology point of view, what is there to adapt to? God knows it took too many media outlets (hello, Toronto Star) an eternity to figure out you don't give away what you product. But really, isn't it more about a mass resignation of the public from legacy media? Most simply are not interested in the stories it publishes and sitting down precisely at 5pm to watch a newscast is quaint, to say the least. Social media has robbed legacy media of tons of people who simply are not coming back. Lots of them like nice, short snappy stories with a grabbing headline. For free. I don't think a lot of people have an attention span that would allow them to read an 800-word story in the Globe and Mail. So, legacy media - in print anyway - seems to be something enjoyed by a shrinking group of people that enjoy serious stories penned by responsible journalists who will admit they're wrong and publish corrections. So, is it correct for legacy media to accept government money, from a moral point of view? Probably not. But I wouldn't turn it down.
I spent a decade in print journalism (2006-2016) and have very conflicting feelings about it. I got into that losing proposition because I truly did love NEWS. Still do. I want to know what's happening, everywhere, all the time. I do not want my precious tax dollars propping up every dying newsroom in the country, however. It taints the product, whatever that product may be. And yet, I want newsrooms to survive.
I've long stated that among journalists - at least the ones I encountered - roughly 80-90 percent are the worst people you'll ever meet, and the remainder are the best. Personal bias increasingly got in the way of facts. Certain people will only hold the party they don't plan on voting for to account. And hey, we're all biased. But the Borg-like ideological monoculture that I saw emerge roughly 15 years ago isn't the group you'd task with holding anyone left-of-center accountable. The stories I could tell, you'd think it was an over-the-top conservative fever dream about how the media operates.
I'm talking vocal celebrations in the newsroom over (recently retired) Jim Flaherty dropping dead of a heart attack. Disgusting stuff that made me yearn to be anywhere else. I drive a large truck now, keep in mind. At least it's an honest living.
That Millennial-age ideological conformism helped spawn the briefly popular but ultimately failed outrage-for-clicks "journalism" of the 2010s, which only served to turn off scores of traditional MSM readers and give the profession even more of a "do not trust" label.
So, I don't know what the solution is, but it obviously isn't THIS. And as much as I loathe large swaths of what remains of the media, I'll watch a cigarettes-and-typewriters gumshoe reporter film from the 1940s while clasping my hands together and wishing it still were so. Sites like this one give me hope. Keep it up.
There is nothing more pressing in modern society that the need for a functional independent 5th estate. We need facts, not opinions. Tabloid journalism belongs at the supermarket checkout. All that is missing is a solution for a response when their economic function model collapsed.
I recently have or have had subscriptions to the NY Times, the (London) Telegraph, Torstar, Globe and Mail, Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Regina Leader Post, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal and National Post (and before it, its pedecessor The Financial Post), and a more than passing acquaintanceship with the Vancouver Sun and Victoria Times Colonist when travelling in their vicinity. I recognize many of the ills you speak of. Sad that Canadian news sources have lost the ability, due to budget constraints, of having boots on the ground internationally and rely on wire services (which may or may not be fastidious in fact checking) for events reporting. And yet major newspapers, if they choose, still retain the capacity to create in-house, thoroughly researched and well written pieces essential to our times, which is a tribute to their journalism staff and shows their preeminent salvageability if corrective action can be taken.
The loss of traditional media would be one of our greatest tragedies not only in terms of those employed in media, but especially for the public at large. I believe Canadians today are the least informed of any generations in recent history, first because of dumbed-down school and post-secondary curricula and second because, having rejected traditional media, they haven't encountered a legitimate replacement. Many accustom themselves to the bad and the ugly of whatever pops up on their phones, social media or indiscriminate web browsing. The end result is a good contingent of our population is without the background to discern truth from fiction or right from wrong, or to judge the nuances inherent in either choice, a situation clearly evident today where politicians are chosen on the basis of manufactured public image and governments are some of the worst in history.
Countries that don't respect our best interests are barking at the door and our allies become more impatient every year with our stubborn irrationality. Knowledge is the key to recognizing and electing informed, credentialed politicans who can form good government and build a bulwark against our enemies. Mainstream media at one time took their role seriously in being a reliable source of timely, accurate reporting of events and provision of facts essential to maintaining an formed and knowledgeable population. Canada needs its media to step up once again to be that educator. The light is still shining brightly at private media sources, thankfully, but they can't do it alone. Mainstream media must find ways to regain its integrity and audience so it can again be a force in the battle against ignorance and disinformation.
Have a core legion of fans that love them and tout their brilliance despite all self-evident voluminous evidence to the contrary.
Those that produce them hate their audience (except for taking their money).
Take up resources & viewing space that could be better used to produce interesting, thoughtful, movies with well written scripts and better acting & direction.
Tired, repetitive, and self-derivative plotting and characters, most of which are technically dead, but still move and destroy or consume everything in their path.
The few non-zombie characters in the movies heroically try to survive but are eventually drug down by the more numerous zombie characters.
I've always been willing to pay for "quality journalism" and for quality information in general, and I think I get it from sites like Unherd, Racket News and The Free Press--as well as from my home library of eight thousand books. Why, then, do I subscribe to neither The Globe and Mail nor the Toronto Star? Is it because I'm an alt-righter turned off by leftist media? But I've always voted NDP. Is it because I'm too uneducated and apathetic to take any interest in public affairs and issues? But, then, what about my two graduate degrees, my subscriptions to other sites, and my willingness to post to forums like this one? Is it an affordability issue, a need to carefully ration money? Explain, then why I was able to help both my daughters buy houses of their own, with my investment account barely noticing the withdrawals.
Maybe I just don't know quality when I see it. That's possible. But I'm a retired reference librarian, accustomed to navigating the realm of information, and never once in my career did my employer suggest I was helping others do so unreliably. As it happens, both the history of journalism and the history of publishing are longstanding reading enthusiasms of mine. One high school summer I even worked as a journalist for a major Toronto daily, as part of a training program that saw me spend two weeks each in Entertainment, Sports, and on the Courts and City Hall beats. My copy was regularly published, too.
From many points of view you'd think I'd be the ideal target market for Canada's mainstream media; yet Messrs. Jolly and Deegan seem uninterested in my consumer preferences, and Ms. Boltman clearly doesn't want to hear from me. This is a puzzle. What's certain, though, is that for at least a decade the Globe and Star have published very little that's in conformity with my own understanding of quality, and/or 'need to read'--though in fairness I should add that the Globe hasn't fallen quite as far as the Star, which clearly has given up the struggle to meet even basic standards of competence, objectivity and journalistic ethics.
Just blow it all up, all of it except for perhaps the small community papers where public notices and obituaries are posted. We still need a common forum for notices and Facebook sucks for anything important. They can use that government ad and posting revenue to keep going. Let each province and town decide for themselves if they want to subsidize it.
But for anything the feds touch, blow it all up. All of it. The tax credits, the grants, the CBC, all of it. No one outside their partisan social class even takes them as a trusted voice anymore. For the good of society, kill it.
Quebec will want to leave Canada if they can't keep one of their most important sacred cows subsidized they say... (Even the cows are sacred there). Call their bluff, give it all to the Quebec government to fund and run, including Radio Canada. Lock, stock and barrel. If any other municipality or province wants to take over their legacy Ottawa subsidized media, let them.
Those small community papers could also be funded by their local community to provide hard news. That can then be shared amongst them, CP style but without the official Ottawa stink.
The important thing is that Ottawa cannot be trusted with media anymore. It's too broken, it's too far gone. The Laurentian elites killed it by treating it like a spoiled child.
If people and communities care about subsidized media, let their budgets do the talking, locally.
Hooray for this! The problems lie within.
Some long time ago, the J-schools started teaching that it was OK for every account of something that had happened to include the writer’s opinion on how the reader ought to look at it, understand it, feel about it, and react to it. All of a sudden, everybody was a “journalist”, and reporters were extinct.
Now look at us! Should we be surprised at the lack of trust?
Just tell me what happened, and make the telling prompt and accurate. I’ll figure out where it fits in The Great Scheme of Things, based on my not inconsiderable education, experience and (dare I say) intelligence. And I’ll form my own reaction, thank you very much.
Fred
We live in a very strange country where money is taken from citizens and given to news organizatiosn they do not consume. The idea of user pay is becoming very foreign.
I am very happy to pay for The Line because I read The Line.
Excellent and true. It's strange that in dictatorships newspapers are undermined by censorship by the state, whereas in our democracy newspapers are (likely to be) self-censored from within. Same result but more expensive.
Had a grim chuckle at the reference to "equity-seeking" groups. In left circles; even funnier is that the new term for these groups is "equity deserving."
Essentially MSM has been bought by government using monies confiscated via taxes from various sources to fund this bit of larceny. Is it any wonder that readers have turned away from the MSM who can now be viewed as mere mouthpieces for the dissemination of government approved propaganda. The MSM has gone from reporting news in an impartial fashion which respects the intelligence of the reader to nothing more than a bunch of personal opinion biased diatribes.
An excellent article which all so-called journalists at the public teat should read. The public understands what is taking place -- they aren't paying attention to legacy newsrooms -- the industry obviously doesn't understand. Or they are just plain lazy and prefer to feed at the public trough.
What amazes me is not that the Canadian media now mouthpiece for the government and approved elite perspectives but that they, and even the CBC, still occasionally speak against their pay masters and status masters.
However, things like their reporting on the truckers convoy show that any such optimism must be gauged against very low expectations. Foreign media did a lot better job of reporting on this story than did the established Canadian media who almost entirely pushed the government / elite consensus view. Many current stories of importance similarly get terribly one sided reporting even when covering other perspectives would improve viewer engagement...
The public’s view, she (Marla Boltman) told the committee, should be taken with a “grain of salt.”
No sense of entitlement with that one, is there. Until the people who continue to throw money at a dying industry (in it's current state) remain in the positions they are in, it will only get worse.
I am thankful for outlets such as this one and will support it as long as it remains in operation. If the Lib/NDP alliance get their way, outlets like these will soon be illegal.
If you took away subscriptions to libraries, politicians and their staffs, people in the news businesses I would think the readership would drop substantially. No amount of money will save newspapers or legacy media. People aren't reading newspapers or watching formulaic if not stupid TV news. Stop pissing away my tax dollars!
Instead of tax breaks for old media, let me reduce my taxes by supporting the Line, the Real Story, Paul Wells, Bug-eyed, the Bureau, Michael Geist, Found in Translation, Turning Points and Regs to Riches -- Jeez I'd better cancel my newspaper subscriptions to keep paying for my substack habit!
I'm really of two minds about this. I'm heavily biased in favour of legacy media as I spent more than four decades at The Canadian Press news agency. The writer talks about the media being far to slow to adapt. Adapt to what? From a technology point of view, what is there to adapt to? God knows it took too many media outlets (hello, Toronto Star) an eternity to figure out you don't give away what you product. But really, isn't it more about a mass resignation of the public from legacy media? Most simply are not interested in the stories it publishes and sitting down precisely at 5pm to watch a newscast is quaint, to say the least. Social media has robbed legacy media of tons of people who simply are not coming back. Lots of them like nice, short snappy stories with a grabbing headline. For free. I don't think a lot of people have an attention span that would allow them to read an 800-word story in the Globe and Mail. So, legacy media - in print anyway - seems to be something enjoyed by a shrinking group of people that enjoy serious stories penned by responsible journalists who will admit they're wrong and publish corrections. So, is it correct for legacy media to accept government money, from a moral point of view? Probably not. But I wouldn't turn it down.
Ugh, what a close-to-home topic for myself.
I spent a decade in print journalism (2006-2016) and have very conflicting feelings about it. I got into that losing proposition because I truly did love NEWS. Still do. I want to know what's happening, everywhere, all the time. I do not want my precious tax dollars propping up every dying newsroom in the country, however. It taints the product, whatever that product may be. And yet, I want newsrooms to survive.
I've long stated that among journalists - at least the ones I encountered - roughly 80-90 percent are the worst people you'll ever meet, and the remainder are the best. Personal bias increasingly got in the way of facts. Certain people will only hold the party they don't plan on voting for to account. And hey, we're all biased. But the Borg-like ideological monoculture that I saw emerge roughly 15 years ago isn't the group you'd task with holding anyone left-of-center accountable. The stories I could tell, you'd think it was an over-the-top conservative fever dream about how the media operates.
I'm talking vocal celebrations in the newsroom over (recently retired) Jim Flaherty dropping dead of a heart attack. Disgusting stuff that made me yearn to be anywhere else. I drive a large truck now, keep in mind. At least it's an honest living.
That Millennial-age ideological conformism helped spawn the briefly popular but ultimately failed outrage-for-clicks "journalism" of the 2010s, which only served to turn off scores of traditional MSM readers and give the profession even more of a "do not trust" label.
So, I don't know what the solution is, but it obviously isn't THIS. And as much as I loathe large swaths of what remains of the media, I'll watch a cigarettes-and-typewriters gumshoe reporter film from the 1940s while clasping my hands together and wishing it still were so. Sites like this one give me hope. Keep it up.
There is nothing more pressing in modern society that the need for a functional independent 5th estate. We need facts, not opinions. Tabloid journalism belongs at the supermarket checkout. All that is missing is a solution for a response when their economic function model collapsed.
I recently have or have had subscriptions to the NY Times, the (London) Telegraph, Torstar, Globe and Mail, Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Regina Leader Post, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal and National Post (and before it, its pedecessor The Financial Post), and a more than passing acquaintanceship with the Vancouver Sun and Victoria Times Colonist when travelling in their vicinity. I recognize many of the ills you speak of. Sad that Canadian news sources have lost the ability, due to budget constraints, of having boots on the ground internationally and rely on wire services (which may or may not be fastidious in fact checking) for events reporting. And yet major newspapers, if they choose, still retain the capacity to create in-house, thoroughly researched and well written pieces essential to our times, which is a tribute to their journalism staff and shows their preeminent salvageability if corrective action can be taken.
The loss of traditional media would be one of our greatest tragedies not only in terms of those employed in media, but especially for the public at large. I believe Canadians today are the least informed of any generations in recent history, first because of dumbed-down school and post-secondary curricula and second because, having rejected traditional media, they haven't encountered a legitimate replacement. Many accustom themselves to the bad and the ugly of whatever pops up on their phones, social media or indiscriminate web browsing. The end result is a good contingent of our population is without the background to discern truth from fiction or right from wrong, or to judge the nuances inherent in either choice, a situation clearly evident today where politicians are chosen on the basis of manufactured public image and governments are some of the worst in history.
Countries that don't respect our best interests are barking at the door and our allies become more impatient every year with our stubborn irrationality. Knowledge is the key to recognizing and electing informed, credentialed politicans who can form good government and build a bulwark against our enemies. Mainstream media at one time took their role seriously in being a reliable source of timely, accurate reporting of events and provision of facts essential to maintaining an formed and knowledgeable population. Canada needs its media to step up once again to be that educator. The light is still shining brightly at private media sources, thankfully, but they can't do it alone. Mainstream media must find ways to regain its integrity and audience so it can again be a force in the battle against ignorance and disinformation.
The legacy media are like zombie movies.
Way too many of them.
Uninspired.
Sensationalist by nature.
Have a core legion of fans that love them and tout their brilliance despite all self-evident voluminous evidence to the contrary.
Those that produce them hate their audience (except for taking their money).
Take up resources & viewing space that could be better used to produce interesting, thoughtful, movies with well written scripts and better acting & direction.
Tired, repetitive, and self-derivative plotting and characters, most of which are technically dead, but still move and destroy or consume everything in their path.
The few non-zombie characters in the movies heroically try to survive but are eventually drug down by the more numerous zombie characters.
They. Just. Won't. Die.
I've always been willing to pay for "quality journalism" and for quality information in general, and I think I get it from sites like Unherd, Racket News and The Free Press--as well as from my home library of eight thousand books. Why, then, do I subscribe to neither The Globe and Mail nor the Toronto Star? Is it because I'm an alt-righter turned off by leftist media? But I've always voted NDP. Is it because I'm too uneducated and apathetic to take any interest in public affairs and issues? But, then, what about my two graduate degrees, my subscriptions to other sites, and my willingness to post to forums like this one? Is it an affordability issue, a need to carefully ration money? Explain, then why I was able to help both my daughters buy houses of their own, with my investment account barely noticing the withdrawals.
Maybe I just don't know quality when I see it. That's possible. But I'm a retired reference librarian, accustomed to navigating the realm of information, and never once in my career did my employer suggest I was helping others do so unreliably. As it happens, both the history of journalism and the history of publishing are longstanding reading enthusiasms of mine. One high school summer I even worked as a journalist for a major Toronto daily, as part of a training program that saw me spend two weeks each in Entertainment, Sports, and on the Courts and City Hall beats. My copy was regularly published, too.
From many points of view you'd think I'd be the ideal target market for Canada's mainstream media; yet Messrs. Jolly and Deegan seem uninterested in my consumer preferences, and Ms. Boltman clearly doesn't want to hear from me. This is a puzzle. What's certain, though, is that for at least a decade the Globe and Star have published very little that's in conformity with my own understanding of quality, and/or 'need to read'--though in fairness I should add that the Globe hasn't fallen quite as far as the Star, which clearly has given up the struggle to meet even basic standards of competence, objectivity and journalistic ethics.
I can't wait for the CRTC's consultation for who gets how much of the $100M from Google. It is going to be some legit Hunger Games dynamics there.
Just blow it all up, all of it except for perhaps the small community papers where public notices and obituaries are posted. We still need a common forum for notices and Facebook sucks for anything important. They can use that government ad and posting revenue to keep going. Let each province and town decide for themselves if they want to subsidize it.
But for anything the feds touch, blow it all up. All of it. The tax credits, the grants, the CBC, all of it. No one outside their partisan social class even takes them as a trusted voice anymore. For the good of society, kill it.
Quebec will want to leave Canada if they can't keep one of their most important sacred cows subsidized they say... (Even the cows are sacred there). Call their bluff, give it all to the Quebec government to fund and run, including Radio Canada. Lock, stock and barrel. If any other municipality or province wants to take over their legacy Ottawa subsidized media, let them.
Those small community papers could also be funded by their local community to provide hard news. That can then be shared amongst them, CP style but without the official Ottawa stink.
The important thing is that Ottawa cannot be trusted with media anymore. It's too broken, it's too far gone. The Laurentian elites killed it by treating it like a spoiled child.
If people and communities care about subsidized media, let their budgets do the talking, locally.