Some of the bought & paid for media

[The Bread Guy]

From Canadaland, a list of (mostly smallish, local) media outlets who got some $ - good overall view of the different funds available, too.

Who got paid from Trudeau’s $23.5 million media assistance fund?

Canadaland has obtained a list of the recipients

www.canadaland.com

List also attached

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I see the Investment Fund got one of the largest handouts, likley as they have smart accountants that regularly review potentiel handouts. Most papers getting 3 figure hand outs appear to reside mainly in large urban areas.

 

[North Star]

I find it odd that some of the publications seem to be trade publications, or publications that have limited circulation by their very nature (e.g. the x3 CAA magazines and "Tactics" which is about commercial real estate). Is the intent of this fund "to have access to diverse and reliable sources of news and information" or just keep printers in business? This seem very niche, almost to the point of irrelevancy for the average Canadian.

 

[brihard]

I find it odd that some of the publications seem to be trade publications, or publications that have limited circulation by their very nature (e.g. the x3 CAA magazines and "Tactics" which is about commercial real estate). Is the intent of this fund "to have access to diverse and reliable sources of news and information" or just keep printers in business? This seem very niche, almost to the point of irrelevancy for the average Canadian.

Operating on assumption that the financial assistance as a whole isn’t being contested, why not support niche trade publications? They may play a very important role in a sector narrow enough that profitability is difficult, and there’s bigger bang for buck. They’re potentially also less likely to be effectively politically leveraged due to esoteric subject matter.

I don’t much care either way, but I don’t really take issue with smaller trade publications receiving support if any media are going to receive support.

 

[RangerRay]

Operating on assumption that the financial assistance as a whole isn’t being contested, why not support niche trade publications? They may play a very important role in a sector narrow enough that profitability is difficult, and there’s bigger bang for buck. They’re potentially also less likely to be effectively politically leveraged due to esoteric subject matter.

I don’t much care either way, but I don’t really take issue with smaller trade publications receiving support if any media are going to receive support.

Yep. I would much prefer publications like “Quilters’ Monthly” get government support rather than companies like Postmedia, Torstar or Black Press.

 

[North Star]

Lol...oh, don't get me wrong...I am not a fan of direct subsidies to the media. Government already has too much indirect influence via the way the industry is structured in Canada and the attitudes of journalists themselves. I just think money-hosing trade journals that can legitimately work online-only to service their very niche markets is just compounding a bad idea with piss-poor execution. If we're going to make a massive social blunder, I'd rather it at least be executed with the fig-leaf of saving small local newspapers (even around their larger owners).

 

[The Bread Guy]

... If we're going to make a massive social blunder, I'd rather it at least be executed with the fig-leaf of saving small local newspapers (even around their larger owners).

Agreed, given the smaller outlets are under the post pressure given people want their news for free. There's other funds out there being pumped into Big Media, but outside of some smaller-audience specialty publications, the PDF I shared is mostly small local outlets. And the money they're pumping in looks like they'd fund a position without many benefits, some of a full-time position or some part-time hours.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Subsidizing stuff is a bottomloss hole. Inevitably: "why their useless timewasting hobbies and not my valuable productive pastime"?

Governments do a sh!tty job of choosing winners, and shouldn't try.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Subsidizing stuff is a bottomloss hole. Inevitably: "why their useless timewasting hobbies and not my valuable productive pastime"?

Governments do a sh!tty job of choosing winners, and shouldn't try.

You're not wrong there. So how do you help smaller newsrooms that are supposed to be doing the bulk of in-your-backyard reporting, then? Or do we settle for whatever Big Media decides to share with us, regardless of whether they cover stuff in our own backyards?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Write stuff people want to pay to read. This article discusses the past and present and rise of digital subscriptions in lieu of ad-based revenue. Small newsrooms probably can't follow the same model as big media; they have to put out stuff people find interesting abou their own communities.

"What comes next for the media industry? The validation of disturbing news within certain value systems has finally become a viable business model. But this business model has stratified the press, bringing meaningful results only to large, nationally concerned media outlets. News validation creates a swarming effect: people want to have disturbing news validated by an authoritative notary with a greater followership. Audiences want to pay only for flagship media, such as the New York Times or the Washington Post. If other, smaller media outlets don’t join the chorus, they risk digital backlash; if they do join it, they struggle to differentiate themselves and lack authority to be a recognized news validator, anyway. Most subscription money flows to a few behemoths. The new subscription model has led not only to media polarization but also to media concentration.

The biggest loss, however, is the mutation of journalism into post-journalism. The death of those newspapers that shut down before this mutation was at least honorable. Journalism wanted its picture to fit the world. Post-journalism wants the world to fit its picture, which is a definition of propaganda."

 

[brihard]

Write stuff people want to pay to read. This article discusses the past and present and rise of digital subscriptions in lieu of ad-based revenue. Small newsrooms probably can't follow the same model as big media; they have to put out stuff people find interesting abou their own communities.

"What comes next for the media industry? The validation of disturbing news within certain value systems has finally become a viable business model. But this business model has stratified the press, bringing meaningful results only to large, nationally concerned media outlets. News validation creates a swarming effect: people want to have disturbing news validated by an authoritative notary with a greater followership. Audiences want to pay only for flagship media, such as the New York Times or the Washington Post. If other, smaller media outlets don’t join the chorus, they risk digital backlash; if they do join it, they struggle to differentiate themselves and lack authority to be a recognized news validator, anyway. Most subscription money flows to a few behemoths. The new subscription model has led not only to media polarization but also to media concentration.

The biggest loss, however, is the mutation of journalism into post-journalism. The death of those newspapers that shut down before this mutation was at least honorable. Journalism wanted its picture to fit the world. Post-journalism wants the world to fit its picture, which is a definition of propaganda."

Major journalism has really never not been partisan. Go back to any old British newspapers, it was pretty clear which were Tory and which were Whig.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure. But from where I sit, it's decidedly more partisan now than it was not too long ago in my lifetime.

The author isn't the first to suggest that big media have switched to subscriber-satisfying content generation in order to stay alive. All can subscribe to bubbles that reinforce the way they want to see the world. All are happy.

 

[FJAG]

Major journalism has really never not been partisan. Go back to any old British newspapers, it was pretty clear which were Tory and which were Whig.

Or read newspaper articles during the American Civil War. The party politics were vicious.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

or the Spanish-US War "Remember the Maine" If you want a real life lesson on how media can influence public opinion.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Interesting concept "We will continue to be your single source of truth… Unless you hear it from us it is not the truth."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1551690346039492608

 

[QV]

In the matter of subsidizing... We just need a little more republic capitalism and less democratic socialism in our thought processes when it comes to that.

 

[Spencer100]

one word Unifor

I would have you look at the correlation between the funds and unions. Plus Jerry Dais was on the committee to look at publishers that would be receiving funds. Big conflict of interest there but in Justin's rule no one cares.

And why did Jerry Dais just up quit be union president?

 

[Skysix]

Children tied up and men in cots in Ukraine orphanages - BBC News

A BBC News investigation uncovers widespread abuse of disabled children and adults in institutions.

www.bbc.com

The subtext of this report is that Ukraine should not be allowed to join the Eu because they persist in Soviet era care methods of the disabled. IE: we don't want such primitives in the EU.

"useful idiots" that (hopefully) do not realise they are assisting the Russian efforts to annex Ukraine by reducing the Wests willingness to fund/militarily support the Ukrainians fight to retain their soverignity.

 

[CBH99]

Write stuff people want to pay to read. This article discusses the past and present and rise of digital subscriptions in lieu of ad-based revenue. Small newsrooms probably can't follow the same model as big media; they have to put out stuff people find interesting abou their own communities.

"What comes next for the media industry? The validation of disturbing news within certain value systems has finally become a viable business model. But this business model has stratified the press, bringing meaningful results only to large, nationally concerned media outlets. News validation creates a swarming effect: people want to have disturbing news validated by an authoritative notary with a greater followership. Audiences want to pay only for flagship media, such as the New York Times or the Washington Post. If other, smaller media outlets don’t join the chorus, they risk digital backlash; if they do join it, they struggle to differentiate themselves and lack authority to be a recognized news validator, anyway. Most subscription money flows to a few behemoths. The new subscription model has led not only to media polarization but also to media concentration.

The biggest loss, however, is the mutation of journalism into post-journalism. The death of those newspapers that shut down before this mutation was at least honorable. Journalism wanted its picture to fit the world. Post-journalism wants the world to fit its picture, which is a definition of propaganda."

I’ll bet you a few bucks that if a new media organization came along that

a) presented the facts in an unbiased way

b) wasn’t afraid to say “Nothing new to report today. Believe it or not, not a whole lot happens in a typical day.”

c) presented both sides of an argument and allowed the viewer/reader to come to their own opinion


It might end up doing pretty well. I think a majority of people are sick and tired of a mainstream media that is sensationalized, polarized, and clearly feeding the rapid decline of society.

0.02

 

[OldSolduer]

Interesting concept "We will continue to be your single source of truth… Unless you hear it from us it is not the truth."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1551690346039492608

Any government official that says that is immediately suspect.