Mitacs is just another one of hundreds of ‘NGOs that the government finances. If you are an NGO that gets funded by the government, you are de facto a GOVERNMENT Organization. This is not a proper use of taxpayer money. All government funding of NGOs should be eliminated. An alarming portion of government funded NGOs use the money to hire consultants to lobby the government for more funding. This seems to be one of Ottawa’s major industries, especially when you add in the NGOs used for astroturfing unwanted government policies.
This overlaps with the subset of "non profits" who use their status to channel government grants while avoiding proper oversight on the spending. One day I hope to look into those, too.
I once pored through the line by line federal budget- not the Eaton’s Catalog glossy thing that Justin and Chrystia wave around on budget day, but the one you have to pay for- and was appalled. Typical item: “Heritage Canada gives $2 million grant to [NGO name here], use of funds, to lobby the government for more funding.” I’m not making that up, though I left the actual ngo name blank. Defund all NGOs. They can either hold a car wash or bake sale, or get real jobs.
What is a "proper use of tax money" and who decides?
Eliminating NGOs is all well and good, but it would mean either eliminating services that many people use, or hiring more government staff. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
The loss of "neutral" journalism by limiting what leviathan can corrupt is worth it. Journalism, like any other civic pursuit should be supported by willing customers rather than the looted pockets of taxpayers, particularly now with so many easy options for information access. I liken it to my opposition to subsidization of the arts. Joe sixpack who may prefer C&W (if that's what it's still called) is taxed to subsidize those who own tuxedos and drive their Teslas to the symphony and I say that as an unpaid musician playing in three different customer and privately supported community bands.
Sounds like another operation set up to live off the avails of public money without providing much of any real value to the general public with the exception of a few disciples - sort of like the CBC.
Still left wondering why they rely so heavily on government funding if what they are providing truly is neutral and does adhere to some form of journalistic principles (is that an oxymoron) or do they need some serious help in marketing their product to achieve a larger viewer/reader base?
As far as I can tell, that's a product of the business model they chose: hiring so many people is going to be expensive no matter how you slice it.
But the fact that they're so dependent on government funding has allowed their spending to grow independent of readership rather than the other way around. Perhaps that wasn't a great choice.
Perhaps you are correct. Maybe a public saturated with social media and msm populated by partisan bias have given up on journalism or what passes for journalism?
Mitacs is just another one of hundreds of ‘NGOs that the government finances. If you are an NGO that gets funded by the government, you are de facto a GOVERNMENT Organization. This is not a proper use of taxpayer money. All government funding of NGOs should be eliminated. An alarming portion of government funded NGOs use the money to hire consultants to lobby the government for more funding. This seems to be one of Ottawa’s major industries, especially when you add in the NGOs used for astroturfing unwanted government policies.
This overlaps with the subset of "non profits" who use their status to channel government grants while avoiding proper oversight on the spending. One day I hope to look into those, too.
I once pored through the line by line federal budget- not the Eaton’s Catalog glossy thing that Justin and Chrystia wave around on budget day, but the one you have to pay for- and was appalled. Typical item: “Heritage Canada gives $2 million grant to [NGO name here], use of funds, to lobby the government for more funding.” I’m not making that up, though I left the actual ngo name blank. Defund all NGOs. They can either hold a car wash or bake sale, or get real jobs.
I actually tracked some of those relationships here: https://www.theaudit.ca/p/registered-lobbyist-also-contractor
What is a "proper use of tax money" and who decides?
Eliminating NGOs is all well and good, but it would mean either eliminating services that many people use, or hiring more government staff. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
The loss of "neutral" journalism by limiting what leviathan can corrupt is worth it. Journalism, like any other civic pursuit should be supported by willing customers rather than the looted pockets of taxpayers, particularly now with so many easy options for information access. I liken it to my opposition to subsidization of the arts. Joe sixpack who may prefer C&W (if that's what it's still called) is taxed to subsidize those who own tuxedos and drive their Teslas to the symphony and I say that as an unpaid musician playing in three different customer and privately supported community bands.
Sounds like another operation set up to live off the avails of public money without providing much of any real value to the general public with the exception of a few disciples - sort of like the CBC.
Except that at least the content provided by the IJF is neutral and they appear to care about journalistic principles. :)
Still left wondering why they rely so heavily on government funding if what they are providing truly is neutral and does adhere to some form of journalistic principles (is that an oxymoron) or do they need some serious help in marketing their product to achieve a larger viewer/reader base?
As far as I can tell, that's a product of the business model they chose: hiring so many people is going to be expensive no matter how you slice it.
But the fact that they're so dependent on government funding has allowed their spending to grow independent of readership rather than the other way around. Perhaps that wasn't a great choice.
The number of eyeballs isn’t a sure-fire metric but I can’t think of anything better.
Perhaps you are correct. Maybe a public saturated with social media and msm populated by partisan bias have given up on journalism or what passes for journalism?
Hmmm .... "... living off the avails of ...." rings a bell somewhere. Any thoughts on the comparison?