- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
My local media just publish verbatim releases from police and corporations.
Check and see if it’s owned by Postmedia. Even if not, a lot of news media are guilty of being lazy and just pushing PR without giving it a critical look… sometimes without even really reading over it…
Nobody had to tell me to stop reading a conservative wank sheet.
K, all I’m saying is that a large number of small local media outlets are being bought out by American owned conglomerates. No need to live up your name. :(
Not sure how I hurt your feelings. Have a hug.
Canada needs a strong public broadcaster. Conservatives hate the CBC because it isn’t owned by a foreign billionaire and doesn’t spew extremist right wing propaganda.
The past few years the CBC has been leaning harder right but I think that they may have been trying to butter up the conservatives because of the, then, impending conservative win. There has been a lot of anti-electric car and anti-heat pump pieces in the past 2 years.
Meanwhile Pollivere wants to get rid of CBC
The “free market” should determine what the news is! /s
Looking at the all the outlets owned by billionaires. They also don’t report on wealth inequality. Isn’t that a weird coincidence?
“Why do we need to tell people what they need to hear? Why can’t we just tell them what they want to hear?”
-Ron Burgundy
Yep. Just look at the globe and mail. Today they published a hit piece fomenting Alberta separatism. They are owned by the Thomson family. The richest family in Canada. Surprise surprise.
Totally support that, and it’s a great time for it as Canada’s under threat and many Canadians are boycotting US media products.
Personally, since cutting off US media and switching to CBC, I’ve really enjoyed a lot of Canadian content and I’ve found myself more appreciative and interested in Canadian cultural products overall.
“When we compare ourselves to the U.K., France or Germany, we see that our public broadcaster is underfunded,” Carney said in French during a campaign stop in Montreal. “That has to change.”
“We expect that in the coming years, we will continue to increase that funding until it can be compared to that provided by other public broadcasters.”
Carney also said funding of the CBC and Radio-Canada would be made statutory, meaning any changes would have to be approved by Parliament, not just the government’s cabinet.
“Canadians themselves and their entire Parliament must decide on the future of Radio-Canada/CBC — not ideologues,” he said.
Wow, just wow. There’s more, read the article.
I think everyone knows how great the BBC is. But, not everyone knows just how big and important it is. It is the largest broadcast news organization in the world. It has more than 5500 journalists and 50 foreign news bureaus. Canada shouldn’t compete with the BBC, but it should at least be BBC-like within its own borders.
Other national broadcasters are also great. Look at Australia’s Triple J for example. Not only does it expose young Australians to Australian music they wouldn’t otherwise hear on commercial radio, it also has science programs aimed at children and young adults. I love Dr. Karl’s stuff, even though I’m definitely not in the target demographic (being non-Australian and old).
IMO, the statutory funding isn’t enough either. It’s a step in the right direction. But, if all it takes is parliament voting, then it’s vulnerable to the next PC majority. If it’s made independent enough, that should also help it avoid accusations of being a government mouthpiece.
It’s dangerous to like a leader as much as I like this guy. There’s much in his world view that inspires ambivalence. But then every actual move is just so on point that it’s hard to ignore this nagging doubt – because it’s just too good to be true.
Like what’s the absolute worst thing he’s done so far? In my book it was scrapping the carbon tax; it was defusing something that could cost the election, in a way that can even be easily reverted, at a time when it’s about the least important short-term concern.
His policy proposals are acceptable but in this day and age that is not how elections are won, especially with misinformation being pumped directly into our veins.
Elections are won on vibes and he comes across as calm and rational in a time when Canadians are desperate for that energy (with an agent of chaos ie. Trump breathing down our collective necks).
If we’re being completely real, the liberals were getting decimated in this election regardless of who they put forth if not for Trump’s aggressive threats towards Canada’s sovereignty and economy.
Yeah, that’s the hilarious thing. If Trump really wanted Canada under his thumb all he’d have to do was literally nothing. If he’d just shut up about Canada and waited then we’d have elected a right-wing stooge who would’ve sold us out for a nickel.
People keep trying to justify Trump’s actions as some kind of convoluted master plan (either his own or Putin’s) but really, he’s just an idiot, and the only reason why he’s been successful is because he lives in a nation of craven cowards who refuse to stand up to him.
I’m going to reiterate a prediction I first made about 5 months ago, that Poilievre was going to win at least a minority but it would actually be very tight. He campaigned hard for 2 years off-season while receiving little to no journalistic scrutiny – just propaganda from the right-wing rags. I always believed his lead would be heavily eroded when the general public started paying attention to him, rather than just his base built on grievance politics.
I never could have dared hope I’d be this wrong. But the factors I identified are still in play, and the difference largely amounts to strong circumstantial reinforcements. I.e. the new elements are the undercutting of his fake issues and Dumpster showing us what not to do so much more clearly (understandably to a wide audience) than I anticipated.
Having serious stakes really amps up how tired many of us actually are with politicians running on vibes. I don’t think it’s accurate to call Carney’s behavior vibes when it’s marked by things like answering questions and fulfilling promises. Vibes are a big part of what’s getting rejected so hard with both Poilievre and to a lesser but still significant extent Singh. And it’s because this time we can’t afford to just play the usual “it’s time for something else” whack-a-mole.
At this point I wouldn’t reduce anyone’s views and choices to being vibes based. Even the really bad ones are rooted in deeply held ideology and deliberate movements to radicalize people by appealing to/infiltrating those ideologies.
The stakes in Canada are certainly higher than in the US where many do not know or are just now learning what a tariff is.
Perhaps this election is less vibes based due to those high stakes but I do feel Carney is the right vibe, or at least the one Canadians are looking for, even if it is not intentional and just happens to be who he is.
He is in many ways the antithesis to Trump, in terms of being relatively dry and matter of fact, which is the type of leader Canadians are looking to rally around.
I appreciate your insights. Far right wolf-in-sheeps-clothing conservatives have seen success globally by presenting themselves as reformists and it seemed like Canada was about to go down the same path.
Perhaps it wouldn’t have played out that way once Poilievre’s lack of substance received broader scrutinity but Trudeau’s and the Liberal party’s approval rating just a few months ago would suggest otherwise. Poilievre, Jenni Byrne and the rest of the conservative party likely assumed this would be a cakewalk.
Credit to Trudeau for realizing people were tired of him and Canada for having a system where a new leader could be voted in by the party before an election was called, so that it didn’t turn into the shitshow that was the Biden-Harris handoff.
I don’t know if I’d say the stakes are higher. Poilievre could win and I’d still rather be here than the states (for as long as here still isn’t). 😛
For vibes, I look more to Charlie Angus. And it’s probably for the best that he can reflect what’s in our hearts and give us that catharsis, without being in a position to really enflame tensions. There’s already a considerable difference between what I’d want to say and do and what my smarter more measured, dispassionate self would say and do. And then Carney finds a stance and tone that’s close to my latter option, but I must begrudgingly admit is even better.
I know right? I have to fight myself to keep my skepticism healthy.
Doubt your own party leader?
This is one of those “tell me your political leaning without telling me” type comments.
E: I acknowledge this joke didn’t hit and ultimately was super unclear.
Perhaps you’d be so kind as to tell me what you think I’m telling you. I’m struggling to see the gotcha in making a choice while preserving skepticism.
I suspect a big part of it is me not being particularly clear in my messaging nor successfully using an overtly obvious comedic tone. It’s a miss on my part by virtue of drive-by commentary ha ha.
The main intent to my joke was pointing to the asymmetry between how the left and right tend to view party leaders - the left tends to be more skeptical to the leader of their own movement, where the right tends to evangelize them, and how Canada is USA light in this context (MAGA for instance is a Trump religion, whereas there was no such movement around Kamala - PP attempted to emulate this, where Carney kind of jumped in as the Liberals “best compromise” (in light of Trudeau and Freeland’s numbers)).
It’s also why the Overton window continuously moves right.
Ah, ok. Comedy is hard. 😄
Seems to be mid 20th-century liberal with national projects.
Nice.
I’m not sure if everyone knows this, but commercial weather forecasters get their weather information from Environment Canada, the American NOAA, and so on. Very few have their own weather satellites etc. The Environment Canada weather forecasts are pretty barebones, but they’re the kind that are useful for pilots, shipping, etc. The Weather Network, Weather Channel, AccuWeather, all take that information and build on it for fancier and more user-friendly weather reports.
I think it would be great if the CBC could have a basic news wire service that commercial news services could build on. The local bureaus that Carney is recommending don’t have to be full setups with reporters doing live to-camera pieces. They could be more like Thomson Reuters dispatches (a Canadian company btw). That would make the money go farther, and would provide a barebones framework for the more detailed reporting that say City or CTV wanted to do.
Anyhow, it’s great that the current PM (and likely future PM) is a guy who lived and worked in London for a while, and understands how great the BBC is.
The Environment Canada weather forecasts are pretty barebones
I’m going to have to disagree with you on that. I actually really like how Environment Canada presents their forecasts. They have a text description for each day, which I like because it shows how much data they actually have about the forecast for that day. Also, no ads and no bullshit on their website.
Now more than ever I see the value on the CBC.
Sweet! Tax cuts benefiting the wealthy and new spending!
Joking aside: juicing CBC’s mandate to cover local news is great. There are strong arguments that it should stop selling ads for some services (like podcasts and local news) so small producers have a shot at getting started. Hopefully that’ll be included in the mandate change.
The CBC needs to be cleaned out and returned to a fact based news company, local news and made in Canada shows that aren’t stupid gimmicks.
But there is definitely a ton of money being wasted.
shows that aren’t stupid gimmicks.
I don’t own a tv, but what are the gimmick-based shows? Schitt’s Creek, Baroness von Sketch Show, and Kim’s Convenience are recent(ish) CBC shows that did very well.
CBC’s news seems fine. They do a decent job on local reporting.
But I stopped enjoying their analysis and current affairs programming in the early 2000s. I’m not sure what changed, but the presenters and format really turned me off.
What do you base that statement on?
The first paragraph is based on my news listening habits.
The second paragraph is based on my desire to turn on CBC radio or a podcast. I used to enjoy Morningside, the House, Basic Black, As It Happens, Prime Time, Vinyl Cafe, and Ideas.
Around the time Definitely Not the Opera started, and Michael Enright got the Sunday morning show, I found that I just didn’t want to listen as much. Shows started to be vehicles for their hosts. Some interviewers seemed to be reading from a prepared list of questions. Interviewees don’t seem to be experts, so much as partisans (I don’t need an LPC/CPC hack telling me how they’re doing in the polls).
Local news programming remains fine. White Coat/Black Art provides a novel perspective. The Debaters is still funny. I have no desire to listen to other shows.
Sorry…the question was for the commenter above who said that a ton of money was wasted. My mistake.
I have decided to do my part and pay the $6 a month rather than just creating new email addresses when there is news I want to see or using my pihole to avoid ads.
Same here! Can’t say I watch a ton on gen (other than local news which was free anyway) but access to CBC news network is nice. And have been getting back into 22 minutes!
I have been watching several CBC shows, without ads via my pi-hole, I would watch CBC news via youtube whenever I wanted to and could because CBCNN is not always streaming but now that I am not paying for youtube and trying to get off of youtube, first by watching less US stuff. Seeing as how I got a refund for my year worth of youtube, and several other US service providers, I can afford the $6 a month to watch CBCNN ad free on the CBC app.
And just how much of it will be used in executive compensation?
EDIT: While I am in support of more funding for local news coverage my comment is in reference to the $3.3 million in bonuses paid to 45 executives after having laid off 141 employees back in August.
In the context of executive wages, it’s important to contrast this to what the industry standard is. We’re not reinventing capitalism overnight (nor is it the argument being litigated), and fair market incentives must be competitive to retain talent. It’s not a matter of whether someone agrees fair market is right or not - it’s the reality of how society currently functions (and I point out because this is almost always the fundamental principle to most of these arguments).
An aggregate $73k bonus is generally very small in executive talent pool - the article also goes on to point out the rest of the employee base also got $15k. Neither of these are particularly glaring.
Instead consider Catherine Tait (CBC) - her base salary is ~$500k, with a target bonus of 7-28% (~$30k-$155k) and no additional incentives. That makes her max total compensations about $700k at best (and generally more like $600k). This is super low for a typical pay band at the CEO level.
Contrast this to Andrew MacLeod (PostMedia) - his base salary is $1.1M, with his incentives (bonus, rsu/PSU, stock, etc.) in the same 2024 year $785k, making his total compensation $1.89M, or triple Taits.
Looking around at a number of these, the CBC is pretty consistently on the low end of these ranges, especially when considering the size of the organization.
I’m essentially pointing out your comment argued the opposite of your stance.
You’ve given me a lot to read up. I appreciate the write-up.
He’s also expanding their mandate to cover more local news, so that’s going to have a lot of costs that won’t be going to executives.
I’m certainly looking forward to better local coverage.
Publicly funded local news is really important. The right wing propaganda often flies under the radar when it comes to local news outlets that are part of some large billionaire-owned corporation.
Some amount. And the rest would be used to pay salaries for existing and new staff who produce Canadian news and entertainment.
