Majority of Canadians agree media’s reliance on gov funding impedes impartial reporting. (so what's the answer?)

[CdnFox]

Majority of Canadians agree media’s reliance on gov funding impedes impartial reporting | True North (tnc.news)

 

All states the majority of Canadians don't believe that a media outlet can be impartial if it's receiving substantial government funding. I think a lot of people would say that' pretty obvious.  

At the same time our media is really struggling. It's not like it's just one company, virtually all of our news agencies are barely able to stay afloat. People are just not prepared to pay for news the way that they used to be. And yet an independent media is critical to our democracy.

So if government funding isn't the answer, what is? How can our media survive and still be able to report news and information accurately and relatively impartially to Canadians? Tax breaks? Do we need to focus on boosting smaller Indie news? Do we need to restructure the entire industry? What's the correct solution if governments subsidy isn't it?

[Michael Hardner]

Indie news would be one way. Also autonomous local CBC digital sites are an option. Unfortunately our governments, plural, tend to only listen to the big fish in the pond. 

That's how you get the government writing checks for millions to the National Post...

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Indie news would be one way.

All news leans one way or another. there's no getting away with no 'bias' media no matter what due to the consumer.  But if it's impartial or 'free'  (ie not restrained by gov't influence or regulation due to money) then at least if a left wing indie pops up then a right wing one can pop  up as well.

There is no such thing as an 'autonomous" cbc site.  And the cbc will be gone soon anyway. They are the apex in gov't influenced media, there is no solution involving them. 

I suppose the gov't could provide a "hub", pay for the infrastucture so that pretty much ANY media source could get it's stories out there in a common marketplace and some how earn money for their clicks and views, kind of like "newstube" instead of you tube if you will. That would let big boys and indies compete on a more level playing field. 

But the concern would be how long till a liberal gov't got in wanting to "police" the news for what they call "Misinformation" like we're seeing in england right now? 

Quote

That's how you get the government writing checks for millions to the National Post...

no, left wing gov'ts that want to control what people read and see is how you get gov'ts writing cheques for millions to the national post  

Left wing gov'ts are terrible and very anti freedom but even if we trash them next election that still leaves the problem of what to do about the media struggling. 

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. if a left wing indie pops up then a right wing one can pop  up as well.

2. There is no such thing as an 'autonomous" cbc site.  And the cbc will be gone soon anyway. They are the apex in gov't influenced media, there is no solution involving them. 

 

1. These exist today.  And I think that it's a stronger differentiator to distinguish between real journalism and muckraking.

2. Point taken. I meant autonomous from the central corp in terms of programming.

I doubt that Poilievre will have the guts to completely remove one of the most trusted public information sources, as per recent polling.

The rest of your points are valid, except that governments absolutely have to do something about offshore propaganda.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. These exist today.  And I think that it's a stronger differentiator to distinguish between real journalism and muckraking.

well of course they exist - but they're not that numerous and they're not doing that well.  Most 'small papers' are actually part of a larger media company, and many have been shut down. 

Is promoting their growth in some way a better answer?

Quote

 

2. Point taken. I meant autonomous from the central corp in terms of programming.

I doubt that Poilievre will have the guts to completely remove one of the most trusted public information sources, as per recent polling.

 

I don't particularly believe that's possible either. The rot in the CBC has become absolutely systemic and complete. Anything with ties to the CBC is going to be controlled by the cbcs higher ups. There is no such thing as a independent CBC affiliate.

As to PP - lol  good good, it'll be entertaining to Twatch your reaction when it comes   

Of course defunding doesn't mean it'll all die, radio canada makes enough to potentially keep going, they might salvage a little of it with private money, i hear he's said that quebec cbc might get some minor funding for a few quebec specific programs.  But for the most part it'll be gone unless people like you pony up your own cash. Which you won't. 

And the cbc is not the most trusted news source anymore.  Barely half the people trust it, and it's behind global, ctv and (amusingly) the weather network. And honestly it's mostly liberals who trust the cbc. I doubt he'll be too worried about offending them. 

He's been clear and if elected it's part of his explicit mandate.  he'll do it. 

 

Quote

The rest of your points are valid, except that governments absolutely have to do something about offshore propaganda.

This kind of assumes that people are too stupid to manage their own affairs.  

If the gov't wants to do anything it can always do education programs on the importance of using identified sources (such as local media or the like where it's obviously not foriegn) and how to fact check. 

But any effort to control what people see gets abused before long. 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. well of course they exist - but they're not that numerous and they're not doing that well.  Most 'small papers' are actually part of a larger media company, and many have been shut down. 

2. Is promoting their growth in some way a better answer?

3. ...it'll be entertaining to Twatch your reaction when it comes   

4. Of course defunding doesn't mean it'll all die, radio canada makes enough to potentially keep going, they might salvage a little of it with private money, i hear he's said that quebec cbc might get some minor funding for a few quebec specific programs.  But for the most part it'll be gone unless people like you pony up your own cash. Which you won't. 

5. And the cbc is not the most trusted news source anymore.  Barely half the people trust it, and it's behind global, ctv and (amusingly) the weather network. And honestly it's mostly liberals who trust the cbc. I doubt he'll be too worried about offending them. 

6. This kind of assumes that people are too stupid to manage their own affairs.  

1. No, I mean digital outfits like Black lock.  We should be promoting these on here.

2. The digital ones, yes I would say so.

3. If it does, I can just say I'll be sad.  If you're entertained by my sadness, sure... Mark it on the calendar.

4. Strange.  Why do you think that I won't? Care to compare how much we spend annually on Canadian media?

And we're establishing that the CBC won't disappear altogether, good.

5. Yes, it seems we're looking at the same source.  Interesting that TV across the board was more trusted than newspaper.

6. Well, if you accept that bias happens and it's a thing to be monitored then I'm sure that Russian, Chinese, and Iranian propaganda is also a concern.

 

[Five of swords]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Majority of Canadians agree media’s reliance on gov funding impedes impartial reporting | True North (tnc.news)

 

All states the majority of Canadians don't believe that a media outlet can be impartial if it's receiving substantial government funding. I think a lot of people would say that' pretty obvious.  

At the same time our media is really struggling. It's not like it's just one company, virtually all of our news agencies are barely able to stay afloat. People are just not prepared to pay for news the way that they used to be. And yet an independent media is critical to our democracy.

So if government funding isn't the answer, what is? How can our media survive and still be able to report news and information accurately and relatively impartially to Canadians? Tax breaks? Do we need to focus on boosting smaller Indie news? Do we need to restructure the entire industry? What's the correct solution if governments subsidy isn't it?

Biased reporting is a product of the identitly of the people who control the media. It has nothing to do with who funds them.

Edited August 17, 2024 by Five of swords

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Biased reporting is a product of the identitly of the people who control the media. It has nothing to do with who funds them.

🤔 What an odd assertion.  WHO FUNDS MEDIA has nothing to do with WHO CONTROLS MEDIA.

 

Is there a particular group that controls media then?  Maybe, to your mind, a people or religion... perhaps known to have dwelled in the desert at some point?

 

Curious 🤔

[Five of swords]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

🤔 What an odd assertion.  WHO FUNDS MEDIA has nothing to do with WHO CONTROLS MEDIA.

 

Is there a particular group that controls media then?  Maybe, to your mind, a people or religion... perhaps known to have dwelled in the desert at some point?

 

Curious 🤔

Jews control the media and their motive is to push jewish interests, not to make money. They don't care if they make money from it.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Jews control the media and their motive is to push jewish interests, not to make money. They don't care if they make money from it.

Your opinion is on brand for your Holocaust denial... Sorry... questioning...

[ExFlyer]

Well, PP is saying he will defund the CBC.

Perhaps he will go as far as defunding all media

That means he will also have to stop social media from having to pay the media.

The only money any media should get from government if government wants to buy space for advertising.

Edited August 18, 2024 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, I mean digital outfits like Black lock.  We should be promoting these on here.

 

I agree but i dont'  know how successful their business model is or what would be necessary to make it a more successful model that others could also do.  but sure - more of that. 

Quote

2. The digital ones, yes I would say so.

Well the obvious follow up is how then?

Quote

3. If it does, I can just say I'll be sad.  If you're entertained by my sadness, sure... Mark it on the calendar.

Thanks. I'll set some popcorn aside.  

Quote

4. Strange.  Why do you think that I won't? Care to compare how much we spend annually on Canadian media?

Becuse the left never does. And polling indicates that this is no different.  People won't reach into their pockets to pay for the cbc as it is today.

Quote

And we're establishing that the CBC won't disappear altogether, good.

MIGHT not. They're not shutting it down, but the CBC would have to survive on it's own merits.  It may have to change it's name too but as long as they can make it on their own then they'll get that chance.

Quote

5. Yes, it seems we're looking at the same source.  Interesting that TV across the board was more trusted than newspaper.

That's kind of because nobody reads the paper anymore i think. 

There's a lot of people who tune in to global news in the evening and that is their entire consumption of news.  It's free, it's there etc.  So those people are obviously going to say they trust the one source they consume more - otherwise they're kind of admitting they're wasting their time  

Quote

6. Well, if you accept that bias happens and it's a thing to be monitored then I'm sure that Russian, Chinese, and Iranian propaganda is also a concern.

Not even a tiny concern.  At all. You honestly don't think i know enough to question what i read on al-jazeera for example?

The concern is that such actors can produce news or information  and make it appear that it's coming from somewhere else more legitimate.   A story reported by a local person who's not a local person at all and which never happened for example. 

Which is why i say efforts to teach people about sources and uncorroborated "experiences" and such produce the desired result without giving the gov't the power to decide what is "fake news" and what isn't. 

[Five of swords]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your opinion is on brand for your Holocaust denial... Sorry... questioning...

Dude it isn't like I would care if the holocaust happened lol...no more than I care about what happened to Carthage. If germans did kill millions of jews I would think the most important lesson should be that when you try to subvert and export a people then they might get angry and kill you. Jews would only have themselves to blame.

 

I just think that unfortunately, it just didn't happen like that. It was just war propaganda da no different than the infants on bayonets propaganda from ww1, which England finally admitted was bunk. 

[NAME REMOVED]

3 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Jews control the media and their motive is to push jewish interests, not to make money. They don't care if they make money from it.

You have just proven that you intellectually disabled. Congratulations! 

2 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Dude it isn't like I would care if the holocaust happened lol...no more than I care about what happened to Carthage. If germans did kill millions of jews I would think the most important lesson should be that when you try to subvert and export a people then they might get angry and kill you. Jews would only have themselves to blame.

 

Wow.

[herbie]

Quote an amazingly timed discussion.
CTV just finished major cuts in it's news programming.
Global is now doing a second round of cuts to news programming.
PP has promised to end the govt funding of CBC abd cripple that news programming.

Well we can just get our news from Facebook and Elon's X shall we? And count on tiny independent sources that have no real trained reporters and editorial oversight or ones where there is active interjection of content under the pretense of 'balance', eh?

To quote Dana Carvey's Church Lady - How convenient!

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

You have just proven that you intellectually disabled. Congratulations! 

Wow.

This is the guy that black dog got mad at me for suggesting he MIGHT be a nazi  

Seriously he doesn't hide his support for the nazi party of hitler, and fair enough everyone's entitled to their beliefs. but i thought i'd save you some time - there's no point in trying to "suggest" or embarrass him when he approves of nazi behavior or defends them, he genuinely believes they did the right thing and they didn't start world war 2, they were living peaceably and were attacked out of hatred and envy by france and britian. 

6 hours ago, herbie said:

Quote an amazingly timed discussion.
CTV just finished major cuts in it's news programming.
Global is now doing a second round of cuts to news programming.
PP has promised to end the govt funding of CBC abd cripple that news programming.

Well we can just get our news from Facebook and Elon's X shall we? And count on tiny independent sources that have no real trained reporters and editorial oversight or ones where there is active interjection of content under the pretense of 'balance', eh?

To quote Dana Carvey's Church Lady - How convenient!

the point was to suggest a better way to promote a free and healthy media in canada without direct gov't funding.  Soo what you're saying is that you're butthurt but can't think of anything better?