Just speculating (maybe). Plus! Woke media bucks on the way, what a Trump win could mean for cable news and the "independent" but easily fired panel that approves qualified journalism organizations
Boy, did I receive a surprise this morning - being quoted in The Rewrite. Don't know what to say.
Now, i actually don't think the report will directly recommend a tax on ISPs. Instead it will say something like "The CBC requires diverse funding sources in order to be a leading provider of diverse diversity. Consideration should be given to having the diverse benefactors (ISPs and Big Tech) of the CBCs diverse offerings contribute to its operations."
I also predict the word diverse will appear 27M times in the report.
The time has come for me to better support Substack journalists, of whom I currently pay four. But to be able to afford that I must cancel my subscription to the National Post which, I’m sure, won’t hurt them as they receive government support anyway.
I used to like CBC but fell off the wagon when every interview or opinion piece seemed designed to make me feel guilty for being alive. I am willing to go back if there’s a change, but don’t dare tax me for something I don’t support. My taxes are already being used for multiple services and programs I don’t support.
First and most important, I hope you have a good vacation, Peter.
I did vote yes to the poll. A consistent source of funding is important. But I voted yes with the expectation that the CBC focuses on news gathering and reporting, locally, nationally, and internationally. And that the public broadcaster sustains journalism across the country. I don't want to spend a lot of time fleshing that out, but if you listen to the Line podcast, I thought the vision that was presented by Gerson and Gurney was close to bang on, and I heard Jen say something similar here at the U of C in August. So I would say yes to the sustainable funding thru that tax for that type of vision, but not for the CBC as it currently stands. And I think you put the mechanism for the funding in place, and attach the reform to it.
A couple of other quick hitters. I think any private company (Western Standard, Globe and Mail, Post Media) choose what they do and don't publish, or what they highlight versus bury. I expect that as a consumer. In the same respect as I expect Loblaw to advertise their prices, and not mention that Safeway has the same product on sale. These private companies make their choices. I can go to Rebel News, the Western Standard or the Star, and see evidence of it.
I laughed at the thought of Jordan Peterson on any panel. Anytime I have listened to an interview woth him or his podcast, I don't hear him really actually have a discussion. I hear lots of grievances, which is fine. I guess, but not very productive, in my opinion. When I listen to Chantal Hebert, I hear someone who has seen a lot, and reminds us that what seems like a terrible crisis today, is something that might have already happened before.
I absolutely agree that stable funding is imperative for any organization. Now, having said that, I think that the waste that goes on in the Ceeb and it's terrifically biased reporting mean that it must be massively reformed. I do not think that it is at all realistic to expect the Ceeb to reform itself so, for me, the choices are to a) simply eliminate it and call it a day or b) close it down and create a new organization that will take on SOME [only some - CBC drama? ug! and so forth] of the tasks that the Ceeb currently does but to find a way to ensure balance.
How does someone ensure balance? That I cannot say as I am not in the industry but I think that the first thing is that the "usual suspects" [i.e. the journalists] should publicly acknowledge that, as a group and individually, they have a leftist bias. There is nothing wrong with leaning left (or right) but the most important thing is to acknowledge your personal bias and to then consider how to ensure that bias does not skew your reporting / selection of topics upon which to report / etc.
Thanks Ken. I have 2 comments and a question. First comment is that if we are looking at bias in the media as a whole, I think it's quite evenly split between left and right. But that's just my opinion. I had an interesting conversation with someone who considered the Star and CTV to be defined as mainstream media, but did not consider Sun and Postmedis to be mainstream media. Which to me was a affirmation that the Sun and the Post have successfully marketed themselves as not of the mainstream. Which, if you look at it, what is the real difference between postmedia and CTV?
My question. If there was a government agency called the Nonpartisan Information Bureau of Canada (the NIBC) whose role it was to provide information and news across digital, cable, TV and radio to all of Canada, is that even something we can strive for? In other words, is it the history of the CBC or the concept of a central information provider that's the problem?
You raise an interesting question and I will - kind of - address it in a moment.
I think that your interlocutor who did not consider the Sun and Postmedia mainstream is a person who defines mainstream as having left leaning views and anything which is not left is therefore not mainstream. The problem, therefore is in the definition of mainstream and the ability to accept that some folks legitimately view things differently.
Okay, to your question. I worry in a general sense about any sort of government monopoly on news, etc. You may recall - sorry, you are probably too young - there used to be a news agency known as Tass - which translated to "truth", as I recall - and there was a newspaper (remember them?) called Pravda - which translated to "News", it seems to me. Actually, those organs (deliberate use of the word - look up how that word was used in former days) still exist but they were most pertinent in their former incarnation as the news agency of the Soviet Union and the main newspaper of the Communist Party of the USSR. My point is that a government monopoly simply has a tendency to become truly tainted - look at what the Face Painter is doing now to see the progression.
You may say that your new entity would not have a monopoly but you need to think through what government competition would do to other sources. And so forth.
Anyway, assume that your new organization is pure as the driven snow at it's commencement. How do you maintain impartiality? Inspectors? I shudder as that sounds to me to be similar to thought police - political commissars in the old days. The reality is that ultimately journalists have to police themselves but when the government simply throws money and says, take it and "do good" the usual suspects build empires and put forth the "correct" way of thinking which is defined in whatever way it is defined and then no one else is "doing good."
Put differently, I have no problem with Rosie Barton's political views but I have a huge problem that her political views are presented as though they are the "mainstream" with no consideration or presentation of another perspective by an equally skilled presenter. Can your proposal guarantee that diversity of views? I suspect not simply because guarantees are for toasters and automobiles and not for much else in life.
Completely agree that the risk of the CBC becoming a quasi-monopoly in news exists, but that is not the only risk of a levy on ISP users.
How long will it be before the CRTC decides other channels also deserve to benefit from a levy on ISP users? CTV and Global are losing over $100M a year so why shouldn't they also benefit from an ISP levy? There are 14 mandatory carry cable channels, how long until they demand their own ISP levy?
Why stop at just an ISP levy? How about levies on cell phone plans, smart TVs, and computers? I mean what use are these devices without content from the CBC?
I also don't think that the CBC should have stable long-term funding, as it breads complacency and mediocrity. The last 9 years of stable funding under Trudeau proves this.
I think we will see all those requests on the table at the upcoming CRTC news hearing. The one think that won’t be contemplated is letting Global and CTV fail and letting someone else give it a try.
Time to disconnect. From all corporate. “Buy Local” has never been so important. Trade your wares, happily pay provincial and municipal, but all 3 are broke, in debt, out of control. Ouch.
This is your best instalment yet; everyone who reads Paul Wells, The Line, The Hub, et al., should be reading your Substack. Have a relaxing vacation.
Boy, did I receive a surprise this morning - being quoted in The Rewrite. Don't know what to say.
Now, i actually don't think the report will directly recommend a tax on ISPs. Instead it will say something like "The CBC requires diverse funding sources in order to be a leading provider of diverse diversity. Consideration should be given to having the diverse benefactors (ISPs and Big Tech) of the CBCs diverse offerings contribute to its operations."
I also predict the word diverse will appear 27M times in the report.
You must watch the hearings. :-)
lol! 👍
The time has come for me to better support Substack journalists, of whom I currently pay four. But to be able to afford that I must cancel my subscription to the National Post which, I’m sure, won’t hurt them as they receive government support anyway.
I’ve given up my TV streaming services.
Off to a bar in Montana, Peter? Happy travels! I expect a full report on your return.
I used to like CBC but fell off the wagon when every interview or opinion piece seemed designed to make me feel guilty for being alive. I am willing to go back if there’s a change, but don’t dare tax me for something I don’t support. My taxes are already being used for multiple services and programs I don’t support.
First and most important, I hope you have a good vacation, Peter.
I did vote yes to the poll. A consistent source of funding is important. But I voted yes with the expectation that the CBC focuses on news gathering and reporting, locally, nationally, and internationally. And that the public broadcaster sustains journalism across the country. I don't want to spend a lot of time fleshing that out, but if you listen to the Line podcast, I thought the vision that was presented by Gerson and Gurney was close to bang on, and I heard Jen say something similar here at the U of C in August. So I would say yes to the sustainable funding thru that tax for that type of vision, but not for the CBC as it currently stands. And I think you put the mechanism for the funding in place, and attach the reform to it.
A couple of other quick hitters. I think any private company (Western Standard, Globe and Mail, Post Media) choose what they do and don't publish, or what they highlight versus bury. I expect that as a consumer. In the same respect as I expect Loblaw to advertise their prices, and not mention that Safeway has the same product on sale. These private companies make their choices. I can go to Rebel News, the Western Standard or the Star, and see evidence of it.
I laughed at the thought of Jordan Peterson on any panel. Anytime I have listened to an interview woth him or his podcast, I don't hear him really actually have a discussion. I hear lots of grievances, which is fine. I guess, but not very productive, in my opinion. When I listen to Chantal Hebert, I hear someone who has seen a lot, and reminds us that what seems like a terrible crisis today, is something that might have already happened before.
I’m glad you laughed! That’s the reaction it was intended to solicit. I try to be optimistic about the CBC but they make it hard. Here’s something I wrote for The Star earlier this year. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/the-change-required-to-save-the-cbc-from-pierre-poilievre/article_a89f0f1c-af2e-11ee-a918-afb6b17a0d61.html
Mike, I, unlike you, voted no in Peter's poll.
I absolutely agree that stable funding is imperative for any organization. Now, having said that, I think that the waste that goes on in the Ceeb and it's terrifically biased reporting mean that it must be massively reformed. I do not think that it is at all realistic to expect the Ceeb to reform itself so, for me, the choices are to a) simply eliminate it and call it a day or b) close it down and create a new organization that will take on SOME [only some - CBC drama? ug! and so forth] of the tasks that the Ceeb currently does but to find a way to ensure balance.
How does someone ensure balance? That I cannot say as I am not in the industry but I think that the first thing is that the "usual suspects" [i.e. the journalists] should publicly acknowledge that, as a group and individually, they have a leftist bias. There is nothing wrong with leaning left (or right) but the most important thing is to acknowledge your personal bias and to then consider how to ensure that bias does not skew your reporting / selection of topics upon which to report / etc.
Thanks Ken. I have 2 comments and a question. First comment is that if we are looking at bias in the media as a whole, I think it's quite evenly split between left and right. But that's just my opinion. I had an interesting conversation with someone who considered the Star and CTV to be defined as mainstream media, but did not consider Sun and Postmedis to be mainstream media. Which to me was a affirmation that the Sun and the Post have successfully marketed themselves as not of the mainstream. Which, if you look at it, what is the real difference between postmedia and CTV?
My question. If there was a government agency called the Nonpartisan Information Bureau of Canada (the NIBC) whose role it was to provide information and news across digital, cable, TV and radio to all of Canada, is that even something we can strive for? In other words, is it the history of the CBC or the concept of a central information provider that's the problem?
You raise an interesting question and I will - kind of - address it in a moment.
I think that your interlocutor who did not consider the Sun and Postmedia mainstream is a person who defines mainstream as having left leaning views and anything which is not left is therefore not mainstream. The problem, therefore is in the definition of mainstream and the ability to accept that some folks legitimately view things differently.
Okay, to your question. I worry in a general sense about any sort of government monopoly on news, etc. You may recall - sorry, you are probably too young - there used to be a news agency known as Tass - which translated to "truth", as I recall - and there was a newspaper (remember them?) called Pravda - which translated to "News", it seems to me. Actually, those organs (deliberate use of the word - look up how that word was used in former days) still exist but they were most pertinent in their former incarnation as the news agency of the Soviet Union and the main newspaper of the Communist Party of the USSR. My point is that a government monopoly simply has a tendency to become truly tainted - look at what the Face Painter is doing now to see the progression.
You may say that your new entity would not have a monopoly but you need to think through what government competition would do to other sources. And so forth.
Anyway, assume that your new organization is pure as the driven snow at it's commencement. How do you maintain impartiality? Inspectors? I shudder as that sounds to me to be similar to thought police - political commissars in the old days. The reality is that ultimately journalists have to police themselves but when the government simply throws money and says, take it and "do good" the usual suspects build empires and put forth the "correct" way of thinking which is defined in whatever way it is defined and then no one else is "doing good."
Put differently, I have no problem with Rosie Barton's political views but I have a huge problem that her political views are presented as though they are the "mainstream" with no consideration or presentation of another perspective by an equally skilled presenter. Can your proposal guarantee that diversity of views? I suspect not simply because guarantees are for toasters and automobiles and not for much else in life.
Completely agree that the risk of the CBC becoming a quasi-monopoly in news exists, but that is not the only risk of a levy on ISP users.
How long will it be before the CRTC decides other channels also deserve to benefit from a levy on ISP users? CTV and Global are losing over $100M a year so why shouldn't they also benefit from an ISP levy? There are 14 mandatory carry cable channels, how long until they demand their own ISP levy?
Why stop at just an ISP levy? How about levies on cell phone plans, smart TVs, and computers? I mean what use are these devices without content from the CBC?
I also don't think that the CBC should have stable long-term funding, as it breads complacency and mediocrity. The last 9 years of stable funding under Trudeau proves this.
I think we will see all those requests on the table at the upcoming CRTC news hearing. The one think that won’t be contemplated is letting Global and CTV fail and letting someone else give it a try.
Thanks for a thoughtful response. I was born in the early 70s so I dot remember TASS.
Do remember TASS!
No. Freaking. Chance. Any subscription for anything must voluntary.
As always Peter, I enjoy your commentary.
And, before I forget, have a good and refreshing vacation. As noted by Timothy Denton, we expect you to report on your time in that Montana bar.
I find your honesty in reporting wonderful. If only the rest of your fellow craftsmen would do the same!
Absolutely not!
Time to disconnect. From all corporate. “Buy Local” has never been so important. Trade your wares, happily pay provincial and municipal, but all 3 are broke, in debt, out of control. Ouch.