Crown Corporations

[Michael Hardner]

I have no idea what you are on about.

Your quote "When a crown needs capital, they are simply given it anmd the taxpayers own the risk, but inevitably do not see the reward."

Why do you say that the taxpayers do not see the reward ? Is there one or are they just not looking for it ?

[Michael Hardner]

I would rather have 3. With Canada Post, we only have one. No one is allowed to deliver a letter cheaper than the post office.

But 2 is better than 1 and 3 is better than 2... for everybody in these examples, including the workers who have other options to consider - or in the case of an organized workforce, have somebody else to compare to.

[M.Dancer]

Your quote "When a crown needs capital, they are simply given it anmd the taxpayers own the risk, but inevitably do not see the reward."

Why do you say that the taxpayers do not see the reward ? Is there one or are they just not looking for it ?

There may be one but is diluted to the point of invisability. Shareholders on the otherhand receive dividends and sharevalue growth. When A crown company grows in value, how can we as shareholders divest ourselves and reap the reward of owning risk?

[Michael Hardner]

There may be one but is diluted to the point of invisability. Shareholders on the otherhand receive dividends and sharevalue growth. When A crown company grows in value, how can we as shareholders divest ourselves and reap the reward of owning risk?

The invisibility is a function of us not looking hard enough. If we were responsible shareholders, we would hold all government organs (refrain from joking here) to the same standard as private companies, even including pet projects that we deem necessary though not profitable.

[M.Dancer]

But 2 is better than 1 and 3 is better than 2... for everybody in these examples, including the workers who have other options to consider - or in the case of an organized workforce, have somebody else to compare to.

I am not arguing for a monopoly. If the are 10 companies engaged in a marketplace, and one of those is a money losing enterprise funded by the governement, the other 9 companies suffer from sales revenue diverted to the crown. CBC for instance relies on advertising to top up the gift the receive from the tax payer, and in doing so, limit opportunities for the private enterprises.

[ZenOps]

CBC is under an old mandate of being the national emergency channel.

It costs a lot, because technically they have to at least try to get every square inch of Canada. Sort of like Canadapost, where they probably lose money when they try to deliver a package further north. If left to private enterprise, many northern communities would simply starve or have greatly reduced services.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not arguing for a monopoly. If the are 10 companies engaged in a marketplace, and one of those is a money losing enterprise funded by the governement, the other 9 companies suffer from sales revenue diverted to the crown. CBC for instance relies on advertising to top up the gift the receive from the tax payer, and in doing so, limit opportunities for the private enterprises.

But it's not across-the-board bad for workers either, or bad in every case. If there were only CTV, then it would probably be worse for workers than if there were CTV, and CBC.

[M.Dancer]

But it's not across-the-board bad for workers either, or bad in every case. If there were only CTV, then it would probably be worse for workers than if there were CTV, and CBC.

Workers are not the be all and end all..Companies do not exist for the sake of workers.

And there is not only the CTV so that example is not real world.

There is only Cannada post. I assume you must feel that being a Canada Post employee is horrible.

[Michael Hardner]

I assume you must feel that being a Canada Post employee is horrible.

I do. I do feel that.

I jumped in on this, though, only because of the chance to point out a Dancer mis-step. One of life's small pleasures, I must say.

[Evening Star]

It would certainly become smaller as 3/4 of its revenues are from our tax dollars. Giving them free money provides no incentive to actually improve their product in such a way that would attract viewers, which would attract more ad dollars.

They would change their product so as to attract ad dollars, yes. Whether this would necessarily be an improvement is the question. I'm not sure that it would and I've listed numerous examples where dependence on advertising has potentially compromised reporting.

Btw, attracting ad dollars often means attracting those viewers who have money to spend, not just attracting viewers period. It's like a voting system weighted by income.

I'm still curious if you have evidence that suggests that the presence of Crowns has negatively impacted labour conditions or employment levels in any sector.

[M.Dancer]

They would change their product so as to attract ad dollars, yes. Whether this would necessarily be an improvement is the question. I'm not sure that it would

You are not sure that a communications company attracting a wider and larger audience is a good thing? Oh My!

and I've listed numerous examples where dependence on advertising has potentially compromised reporting.

I have only seen one and the article showed otherwise.

Btw, attracting ad dollars often means attracting those viewers who have money to spend, not just attracting viewers period.

Patently false. TV is BROADCASTING...not narrowcasting.

I'm still curious if you have evidence that suggests that the presence of Crowns has negatively impacted labour conditions or employment levels in any sector.

You should know by now that I don't consider empoyees the reason to have a company. But it stands to reason if by including a subsidized player who also competes for the same revenue pie , the privates are disadvantaged.

[Evening Star]

I have only seen one and the article showed otherwise.

There were more in post #67, especially if you follow the links.

[M.Dancer]

There were more in post #67, especially if you follow the links.

I have a hard time taking Chomsky seriously...

But what you showed isn't advertising influencing editorial, quite the opposite. it is editorial influencing advertising.

A good example is the airlines. If there is a major air accident airlines will pull their ads. This isn't an effort to influence the editoirial, but simply a matter of good taste.

[Evening Star]

These do seem to suggest more than that:

A 1992 US study of 150 news editors found that 90 per cent said that advertisers tried to interfere with newspaper content, and 70 per cent tried to stop news stories altogether. 40 per cent admitted that advertisers had in fact influenced a story.

When Esquire killed a short story about a gay man writing papers for college students for sex, the Wall Street Journal discovered that some large corporations, like Proctor and Gamble, had standing orders for magazines to provide prior warnings about offensive content so the company could withdraw its advertisements (Knecht 1997). For publications not to provide these warnings meant risking the loss of large advertising accounts. Esquire killed the short story for this reason.

A Fortune magazine exposé of Steve Forbes during his bid for the presidency revealed that the Forbes’ publisher routinely re-wrote stories to avoid alienating advertisers (Diamond 1996).

You are not sure that a communications company attracting a wider and larger audience is a good thing? Oh My!

Not necessarily in every case and not at all cost, no.

[Evening Star]

I have a hard time taking Chomsky seriously...

What about Edward Herman, btw, who is a trained media analyst and economist?

[Evening Star]

Admittedly, though, I'd probably have to go to the original sources (that Craig cites) to actually verify how fairly he is reporting those cases.