Cda Election Issue - Media Ownership

[maplesyrup]

Concentration of the media into a few large groups is one of the biggest threats to our democracy in Canada.

Every survey ever undertaken in Canada shows that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are concerned about the ownership of our media falling into fewer and fewer hands.

What is our federal government waiting for to address this overriding issue of concern to Canadians?

[Morgan]

Why would you expect this federal government, which is the LPOC, to change media ownership when the current situation works in their favour? The media owners are all Liberals. Conrad Black was the only conservative and now he has sold all his Cdn. holdings to CanWest and the Asper Family. Duh. Not to forget that the CBC is also left wing, so the LPOC has a pretty comfy situation media support wise.

If you want the concentration of media ownership changed, vote PC/CA. The CRTC oversees media ownership. The CRTC members are appointed at the sole discretion of the PM. Change the PM, then you change the CRTC, and presto you have enormous leverage in changing regulations re:media ownership. Journalists question concentration of Cdn. media ownership Nov.10/03.

The fact that most of the media chains in Canada are owned by people politically in line with the ruling Liberal party makes sources of political will for addressing media concentration scarce at best.

[Michael Hardner]

What about Ken Thomson ? Who are the owners ?

[maplesyrup]

Hi Michael....is this what you wanted?

'Media shakeup expected

Canada's broadcasters and publishers look set to head out on the acquisition trail'

by Barbara Shecter

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...25-4f87c973f469

'The Globe and Mail newspaper and CTV Inc., with specialty channels TSN and Discovery, will possibly come up for grabs in 2004 or early 2005, according to insiders. They are owned by Bell Globemedia, which is 68.5% owned by telecom giant BCE Inc. It was created in late 2000 after BCE bought CTV. The Globe newspaper was folded into Globemedia and its owner, Toronto's Thomson family, became the other significant shareholder.'

'Insiders doubt the government will move on the issue before an expected spring election. But if the restrictions are dropped in 2004, the inducement of cheaper borrowing costs through a larger investment pool could trigger the sale or spinoff of television and radio stations from companies that own those "culture" businesses alongside the cable and phone networks that carry them.'

This exemplifies the kind of problems we have with our secret lobbying, behind closed doors, deceiving the Canadian public, style of government.

So they will have the election with no hint ahead of time, of what they are really going to do, and then once the election is over, they will have their majority, and then do whatever the big lobbyists want. That's the reality of the Liberals, and no effective opposition.

Edited January 8, 2004 by maplesyrup

[Michael Hardner]

Sure. Something like that. Ted Rogers is another big player. Try to find a simple list of individuals with large media holdings itemized by what they own and you'll have some trouble.

[Morgan]

Here's a CBC list and holdings [circa 2002 ]of the big hitters-an amazingly short list. Read the text for the holdings, I'll just list the owners:

Media Ownership.

1. Bell Globemedia

2. CanWest Global

3. G.T.C. Transcontinental Group

4. Shaw Communications Inc.

5. Quebecor

6. Rogers Communications

[Michael Hardner]

But the big question would still be WHO are the shareholders, HOW MUCH do they own exactly and WHAT are their political leanings ?

As far as I know Thomson and Rogers are conservative. So were the Bassetts...

[Morgan]

Wrong on both counts. Globe and Mail is perceived to be very Liberal by Cdn. journalists who speak from experience. And let me remind you that Rogers media owns Macleans magazine and if that's not a Liberal propaganda machine, I don't know what is.

"Survey: Greater Concentration of Newspaper Ownership Decreases Quality and Credibility of Newspapers" by Gail Chiasson, Feb 14, 2003, PubZone.com

A vast majority (86%) of Canadian journalists believe that the greater concentration of newspaper ownership decreases the quality of newspapers and 95% believe that it decreases public credibility of newspapers, according to a recent poll of journalists from nine Canadian dailies.

The Newspapers in Canada Pilot Study received responses from 361 reporters, columnists, copy editors and managers from Le Devoir, The Gazette, Ottawa Citizen, The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Journal de Montréal, La Presse and Vancouver Sun.

The survey was conducted in conjunction with the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada taking place Feb. 13-15/03 in Montreal.

A total of 83% of respondents say that their newspapers' owners' views and interests are regularly reflected in their papers. Those that feel that the owners' standpoints are regularly presented in their newspapers was well over 90% at the Montreal Gazette, Ottawa Citizen, National Post, Toronto Star and Vancouver Sun.

That these are the views of several of these papers is not surprising, since reporters had expressed difficulty with CanWest Global imposing its views in the past year. While 76% of journalists believe that editorials are frequent vehicles for ownership, 56% also consider that news coverage also generally portrays the positions of ownership. 65% of respondents say that newspapers should not disseminate ownerships' views and interests.

Only three papers have a plurality supporting the presence of ownership's point of view: National Post, Ottawa Citizen and Toronto Star.

Further, nearly all journalists believe that greater media ownership convergence (a single company owning both newspapers and television stations) decreases the quality of newspaper content (89%) and decreases the public credibility of newspapers (94%).

100% of Le Devoir respondents answer in the affirmative about both the decrease in quality and credibility. The Globe and Mail is the most liberal, with 77% feeling it decreases quality and 79% that it decreases credibility. 

[Michael Hardner]

Globe and Mail is perceived to be very Liberal by Cdn. journalists who speak from experience.

I hope you're not referring to the article you quoted. I don't believe they're referring to "liberal" as in politics in that article.

The Globe and Mail has been known as Tory blue for a long time. But, if you think that the Torys were left then we're at a standstill, since that means there was no right-wing party before 1987 or whenever Reform was born...

[Morgan]

Of course I mean politics.

The whole article referred to owner's standpoints, owner's point of view, owner's views and interests.

Just because Thomson is a billionaire does not mean he is not a liberal. Look at Paul Martin, Bill Gates, Maurice Strong. Maybe you think the GM is Tory blue but the people in the newspaper industry do not agree. If you haven't noticed the left wing bias in the Globe and Mail's news coverage, it's because you share the same political persuation.

[Michael Hardner]

Morgan, read it again. You're wrong. The article refers to the readership's liberal attitudes towards ownership's point of view not liberal vs conservative attitudes.

If you think the G&M is liberal you're off the map. They've supported Tories for a long long time...

[Michael Hardner]

Here's the quote:

The Globe and Mail is the most liberal, with 77% feeling it decreases quality and 79% that it decreases credibility. 

Liberal is used here to mean open-minded. from my Pocket Oxford dictionary:

liberal: adjective ... open-minded, not prejudiced, not strict or rigorous

ie. Globe readers are more open-minded about the effect of ownership on the views expressed in the paper.

There is no other mention of specific political leanings in the article, and all of the questions asked pertain to the effect of owners' positions on editorial views. There is no mention of any questions regarding specific political stances. The word 'liberal' is used in the last paragraph to contrast Globe readers' openness to media convergence versus Le Devoir readers.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok. I found the actual survey.

McGill Survey

Look up table 14 and table 15. These are the questions that the article refers to when it says that the Globe is more 'liberal'. They surveyed the journalists and found that the Globe journalists were more open to the idea of convergence.

Nowhere in the article is a specific political leaning mentioned. Search for 'liberal' 'conservative' 'left' 'right' and you won't find it mentioned.

I hope this clears this up...

[Neal.F.]

Michael I was amused by the definition of liberal that you came up with:

"liberal: adjective ... open-minded, not prejudiced, not strict or rigorous"

Open minded: Let me tell you that there are alot of people who are looking for "open minds" into which they can dump their pernicious ideas.... I think a discerning mind is more desirable than an open one.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael I was amused by the definition of liberal that you came up with:

"liberal: adjective ... open-minded, not prejudiced, not strict or rigorous"

Thank the Oxford dictionary, not me. Many people confuse "liberal" with "Liberal".

Open minded: Let me tell you that there are alot of people who are looking for "open minds" into which they can dump their pernicious ideas.... I think a discerning mind is more desirable than an open one.

These aren't mutually exclusive attributes. I think it's good to be open to new ideas, then to evaluate them against one's principles...

[Morgan]

Hardner,

I'll grant you that the original McGill survey did not identify any particular political bias of the owners, be it liberal or conservative. Ms. Chiason misused the word"liberal" in her summary of the results in PubZone. But I don't think your spin on "liberal" makes sense either. That the G&M journalists are less likely than other journalists to recognize that convergence is a negative factor does not make them "open minded." It means they are more likely than every other journalist in Canada to tow the corporate line. In fact, if you looked at their responses in the other columns, they are 7% more likely than the National Post journalists to say it's okay for the owners to impose their values on news coverage. The G&M journalists are not that different from National Post in the across the board replies on admitting that owners influence news content, how they report the news, or how they seek out the news. So it's not as though there no ownership influence in the G&M...rather it's that the G&M journalists don't see it as a problem that their bosses also own TV in addition to their newspaper...which is somewhat "thick" in my books.

2. Because Ms. Chiason misused the word "liberal", I have found 2 other articles that point to the G&M's left leaning bias. Maybe the G&M was conservative at one time, like the NYT was at one time, but in recent years, both appear to have adopted a left lean bias.

Black sells National Post, which he established as a counter balance to the left leaning G&M .

Hollinger had been reluctant to sell the first 50pc, and did so in order to clinch the deal last year for the sale of its local newspaper interests in Canada. It had harboured ambitions of buying back the half share in due course.The National Post is a conservative alternative to Canada's liberal-leaning Toronto Globe & Mail, but the tensions in the joint ownership emerged almost immediately.

AND

Wikipedia Encyclopedia's overview of G&M

Editorially, the Globe and Mail has historically been a conservative paper, though in the past few years it has increasingly become more liberal , especially when compared to its chief rival, the National Post. Due to the competition from the Post the paper has made other changes, such as the introduction of colour photographs and the creation of the "Review" section on Arts and Entertainment.

Maybe the influence of the President and CEO of Bell Globe Media, Ivan Fecan,accounts for this left lean in the G&M? Fecan used to run CBC TV in the 1990's so perhaps he brought his CBC-acquired political philosophy with him to Bell Globalmedia? Who knows?Ken Thomson has steadily been re-directing his energies to the US specialty publishing market and perhaps this situation has also contributed to a new "attitude" in the G&M.

[Michael Hardner]

Hardner,

I'll grant you that the original McGill survey did not identify any particular political bias of the owners, be it liberal or conservative. Ms. Chiason misused the word"liberal" in her summary of the results in PubZone. But I don't think your spin on "liberal" makes sense either. That the G&M journalists are less likely than other journalists to recognize that convergence is a negative factor does not make them "open minded." It means they are more likely than every other journalist in Canada to tow the corporate line.

The definition I used is from the Oxford dictionary as I pointed out. And I don't think it means that Globe journalists are more open-minded. They used 'liberal' to mean that they're open to the idea of convergence.

For the record, I don't think that convergence of large media is a good thing.

In fact, if you looked at their responses in the other columns, they are 7% more likely than the National Post journalists to say it's okay for the owners to impose their values on news coverage. The G&M journalists are not that different from National Post in the across the board replies on admitting that owners influence news content, how they report the news, or how they seek out the news. So it's not as though there no ownership influence in the G&M...rather it's that the G&M journalists don't see it as a problem that their bosses also own TV in addition to their newspaper...which is somewhat "thick" in my books.

Gotcha.

2. Because Ms. Chiason misused the word "liberal", I have found 2 other articles that point to the G&M's left leaning bias. Maybe the G&M was conservative at one time, like the NYT was at one time, but in recent years, both appear to have adopted a left lean bias.

I think the use was correct.

In recent years, the Reform party appeared which was to the right of the PC party and without a stake in the establishment media.

So, the pillars of the centre are a more to the left in the broad spectrum than they were.

Black sells National Post, which he established as a counter balance to the left leaning G&M .

I think it was a counter balance to the Star, Canada's largest paper and a huge Liberal supporting organ.

Hollinger had been reluctant to sell the first 50pc, and did so in order to clinch the deal last year for the sale of its local newspaper interests in Canada. It had harboured ambitions of buying back the half share in due course.The National Post is a conservative alternative to Canada's liberal-leaning Toronto Globe & Mail, but the tensions in the joint ownership emerged almost immediately.

AND

Wikipedia Encyclopedia's overview of G&MQUOTE 

Editorially, the Globe and Mail has historically been a conservative paper, though in the past few years it has increasingly become more liberal , especially when compared to its chief rival, the National Post. Due to the competition from the Post the paper has made other changes, such as the introduction of colour photographs and the creation of the "Review" section on Arts and Entertainment. 

Maybe the influence of the President and CEO of Bell Globe Media, Ivan Fecan,accounts for this left lean in the G&M? Fecan used to run CBC TV in the 1990's so perhaps he brought his CBC-acquired political philosophy with him to Bell Globalmedia? Who knows?Ken Thomson has steadily been re-directing his energies to the US specialty publishing market and perhaps this situation has also contributed to a new "attitude" in the G&M.

Well... I do believe that the G&M has gone more to the left (they grudgingly gave Chretien a passing grade as PM in their eulogy to him) but they supported Ernie Eves and Mike Harris as far as I remember. I don't remember who they supported in 2000.

[Michael Hardner]

More clarification...

You're right on the Globe/BCE link to the leftward shift of that paper...

From a column of Bob McDonald of the Toronto Sun August 21, 2001

Also, some may have forgotten that in the last election, The Globe supported Chretien's Liberals for re-election.  That political shift followed the fact that BCE, the parent company of Bell Canada, had bought both The Globe and the CTV television network.  Both Bell and CTV are subject to the control of the

CRTC, a federal government-appointed agency.

This is a dangerous byproduct of convergence in a heavily regulated market.

[maplesyrup]

Journalism's Chronic Illness

Fabulists abound, and a new study says Canadians don't trust the news. Yet the media's current crisis is business as usual

Good article.

[caesar]

Canwest not only owns most newspapers; it owns many tv and radio stations. It does dictate some editorials to it newspapers. It is right wing with the National Post being extreme right wing.

This is pretty scary stuff as they decide what we should or should not be told.

[caesar]

Interesting web site lists some of the publications owned by CanWest; http://www.creativeresistance.ca/awareness...st-monopoly.htm

[caesar]

http://www.yourmedia.ca/modules/canwest/ov.../overview.shtml

a more recent article

[August1991]

"The media is too left wing; the media is too right wing; the media is under the control of the Liberal Party (through the CRTC); the media is under the control of a few rich robber barons." Well, what is it?

Well, who cares? Even in countries where the media is absolutely controlled, people manage to get information, if they want to get it.

If the CBC were to broadcast interviews with Jack Layton all day long, the NDP would still get about 20% of the vote.

The problem with democracy is not that people are manipulated or misinformed. The problem is that there is no practical benefit in being informed about politics.

Having information about the housing market, legal practice or new networking technology can make you rich. Having information about politics gives you nothing (except a reputation for reading the newspaper).

Most people have detailed knowledge about their jobs, but only vague knowledge about political parties. The media has nothing to do with this situation.

[caesar]

"Having information about politics gives you nothing (except a reputation for reading the newspaper"

"The problem with democracy is not that people are manipulated or misinformed. The problem is that there is no practical benefit in being informed about politics."

What are you talking about. People need to know the truth and what is happening in our country and the world in order to make an informed decision.

We need to know what is going on and how our government leaders are using our taxpayer's money for.

August, you are making no sense at all.

[maplesyrup]

August1991........that's fine for you to say when the party you support gets loads of support from the mainstream press whether it be radio tv, or print media.

The reality is the media represents business interests and so any party which is not going to cut business taxes to the bone, gets short shrift in the media.

And to suggest that the media doesn't pump right wing parties is wrong. And to suggest it has no effect is wrong as well, otherwise why do they do it? They do it obviously because the media influences.

A good example was the recent Cons leadership race - the publicity they received was overwhelming.

Chretien helped to level the playing field with his election financing legislation. Too bad the Cons want to abolish it so the right wing can control the agenda even more than they already do.