Tax credits for subscribers have been discussed. The problem there has been that it'll be a government agency that decides which publications should be eligible, and there's a justifiable fear that those decisions will be politicized.
I tend to mistrust any government interventions into the private sector. But what I saw with the CPF suggests that it's among the least-evil interventions.
The "free stuff" that fuels Alexander Tytler's thesis on how all democracies die takes many forms and usually translates to just another form of vote buying. Government support for the arts , culture, media, and any other vote-rich demographic has ensured the growth of the institutional left. Living in a small community, I can appreciate the family-friendly nature of local news and once in a while an article by a token "curmudgeon" (classical liberal or fiscal conservative) is allowed to distract away from the blob but most issues are only valuable for the flyers attached which can pay their own way. Sorry, but the legacy media is dying for two reasons. One, their partisanship translates to hating half the public that they expect to buy their bilge, and two, their virtual monopoly has been eliminated through technology. Like the CBC, I resent funding those out to destroy western civilization, even at the mindless, mushy, marginal, middle of the political spectrum.
There is perhaps one important difference in this case. It's unreasonable for anyone to expect to be able to shift the CBC back to anywhere near the political center. That's over and done. But just about anyone could start up his or her own local paper and, as long as it contains genuinely local news, be eligible for CPF funding. If the political tone of what's out there doesn't appeal to us...start something new!
(Even better, of course, would be to start up something new withOUT public funding like - oh, I don't know - The Audit.)
You're certainly correct that government should do a much better job focusing on matters of higher priority (like healthcare and other basics). Having spent some time observing the way governments make decisions, I would suggest there are two primary reasons that only rarely happens:
1. Large governments operate by reacting to political, social, and "emergency" incentives. Sometimes those incentives lead to rational choices, and sometimes not. But mega-sized organizations tend to lack self-awareness and the capacity to easily change direction.
2. Some basic problems have no obvious solutions. As I've written (https://www.theaudit.ca/p/what-if-better-healthcare-just-isnt), considering the scope of the challenges faced by modern healthcare, there's a real possibility that all the money in the world just won't work to buy the doctors, nurses, and integrated systems we need. And "all the money in the world" is obviously not available. So the thinking probably goes: if you're not going to completely solve the big problems, you might as well try to manage them while "investing" in other areas, too.
The Audit has included many articles identifying demonstrably stupid and wasteful government spending. It's been my suggestion that those should be our main focus for trimming. We can always come back to assess the nice-to-have programs later.
All that having been said, I might eventually devote a whole post to this question.
But I think we'd all agree that the industry would be much better off if we could fund our own truly independent publications. Substack holds that promise!
"Your paper wouldn't be in business were it not for the subsidies that the government that you hate put in place -- the same subsidies your Trump-adjacent foreign hedge fund owners gladly take to pay your salary." Fairly ill-advised words for a senior government official to make on social media.
The fact is that the government that I hate has put in place these policies and that has propped up these zombies. In turn, that has prevented a painful renaissance of the news business in Canada. Oh, it will be painful but it will happen. Right now, the feds are making the situation worse by keeping these papers alive.
Ultimately, they will close down. And, yes, a lot - a LOT - of money will be paid to those US owners. Far better that they simply fade off into the sunset and allow we Canucks to fend for ourselves. Anyone who has looked at the various papers lately does not see any resemblance to what they used to be so put them out of OUR misery and allow we, the population of Canada, to find other (Canuck) folks to support. The longer we support these carpetbaggers the longer it will take to get past the inevitable pain.
Any money sent from a government can be perceived as undue political influence.
Some see it as a bribe.
Quebecor maybe gets a large amount because it's in Quebec and the Quebec vote is important.
The Walrus is very left-wing. The Liberals love it.
There should no money given by a government to a publication that pretends to be independent.
If it receives government money then it is not idependent.
Perhaps instead a larger proportion of subscriptions should be tax deductible by the subscriber.
By that method the people, not the government, decides which publication gets support.
Tax credits for subscribers have been discussed. The problem there has been that it'll be a government agency that decides which publications should be eligible, and there's a justifiable fear that those decisions will be politicized.
I tend to mistrust any government interventions into the private sector. But what I saw with the CPF suggests that it's among the least-evil interventions.
The "free stuff" that fuels Alexander Tytler's thesis on how all democracies die takes many forms and usually translates to just another form of vote buying. Government support for the arts , culture, media, and any other vote-rich demographic has ensured the growth of the institutional left. Living in a small community, I can appreciate the family-friendly nature of local news and once in a while an article by a token "curmudgeon" (classical liberal or fiscal conservative) is allowed to distract away from the blob but most issues are only valuable for the flyers attached which can pay their own way. Sorry, but the legacy media is dying for two reasons. One, their partisanship translates to hating half the public that they expect to buy their bilge, and two, their virtual monopoly has been eliminated through technology. Like the CBC, I resent funding those out to destroy western civilization, even at the mindless, mushy, marginal, middle of the political spectrum.
There is perhaps one important difference in this case. It's unreasonable for anyone to expect to be able to shift the CBC back to anywhere near the political center. That's over and done. But just about anyone could start up his or her own local paper and, as long as it contains genuinely local news, be eligible for CPF funding. If the political tone of what's out there doesn't appeal to us...start something new!
(Even better, of course, would be to start up something new withOUT public funding like - oh, I don't know - The Audit.)
My question to anyone who will listen is this:
Canadians can’t get doctors, we’re disastrously behind in our commitments to our allies and our roads are falling apart.
Shouldn’t the subsidy for media drop to ZERO until those problems are all completely fixed?
You're certainly correct that government should do a much better job focusing on matters of higher priority (like healthcare and other basics). Having spent some time observing the way governments make decisions, I would suggest there are two primary reasons that only rarely happens:
1. Large governments operate by reacting to political, social, and "emergency" incentives. Sometimes those incentives lead to rational choices, and sometimes not. But mega-sized organizations tend to lack self-awareness and the capacity to easily change direction.
2. Some basic problems have no obvious solutions. As I've written (https://www.theaudit.ca/p/what-if-better-healthcare-just-isnt), considering the scope of the challenges faced by modern healthcare, there's a real possibility that all the money in the world just won't work to buy the doctors, nurses, and integrated systems we need. And "all the money in the world" is obviously not available. So the thinking probably goes: if you're not going to completely solve the big problems, you might as well try to manage them while "investing" in other areas, too.
The Audit has included many articles identifying demonstrably stupid and wasteful government spending. It's been my suggestion that those should be our main focus for trimming. We can always come back to assess the nice-to-have programs later.
All that having been said, I might eventually devote a whole post to this question.
Oh for sure we do. I’m still not clear on the government’s rationale for funding when and where postal costs are no longer an issue.
Why should these incumbent properties be subsidized at the expense of new, digital news innovators? I guess that is the question
Actually, digital periodicals are also eligible:
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/periodical-fund/digital-periodical.html
But I think we'd all agree that the industry would be much better off if we could fund our own truly independent publications. Substack holds that promise!
looks like Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed went full tilt in Twitter and said the quiet thing that should not be said....
And that was ..........................?
"Your paper wouldn't be in business were it not for the subsidies that the government that you hate put in place -- the same subsidies your Trump-adjacent foreign hedge fund owners gladly take to pay your salary." Fairly ill-advised words for a senior government official to make on social media.
Well, she is right. But.
The fact is that the government that I hate has put in place these policies and that has propped up these zombies. In turn, that has prevented a painful renaissance of the news business in Canada. Oh, it will be painful but it will happen. Right now, the feds are making the situation worse by keeping these papers alive.
Ultimately, they will close down. And, yes, a lot - a LOT - of money will be paid to those US owners. Far better that they simply fade off into the sunset and allow we Canucks to fend for ourselves. Anyone who has looked at the various papers lately does not see any resemblance to what they used to be so put them out of OUR misery and allow we, the population of Canada, to find other (Canuck) folks to support. The longer we support these carpetbaggers the longer it will take to get past the inevitable pain.
Oh, and thank you for the quote!
An incredibly ill-advised social media statement by a current federal minister.
And, an entirely typical comment insofar as "ill-advised" goes.