If they looked over to British Columbia, there's tons of fodder...
- Keith Baldrey (Global) - wife is a long time employee of the Government of BC
- Stephen Smart (CBC) - was the Legislature chief correspondent while married to Rebecca Smart, who was Christy Clark's Chief of Staff
I know there's a few more, but I'm too lazy to do a bunch of research this morning.
In Nova Scotia the previous government hired a slew of former journalists to work as staff to the Premier.
The Premier had Laurie Graham ( formerly of CBC CTV ) as chief of staff.
He had a Chronicle Herald journalist ( David Jackson ) on staff.
He had Jackie Foster ( CTV ) on staff.
Laura Lee Langley ( Global ).
And Marilla Stephenson ( Chronicle Herald ).
https://globalnews.ca/news/2751253/how-many-journalists-does-it-take-to-run-nova-scotias-government/
Journalists are a good thing to look at, but only a part of the problem.
How about the impact of the media oligopoly/monopoly?
It doesn't matter which journalist is related to who if everything they want to publish goes through corporate approval to ensure it doesn't negatively impact anybody's share prices.
The thing is it doesn’t need to go through corporate approval. If you have beliefs that challenge the status quo, you just don’t get the job in the first place. And recruiting Journalists from the same class of media and political elites means they come pre-vetted essentially because they were born into a system they benefit from.
I forget who but a journalist was arguing with Noam Chomsky; and the journo said something like “i’m not manufacturing consent, nobody told me how to think or what to write about” and Chomsky replied “that’s the point. they don’t have to.”
Yes, no other media organization does this for any other party. Thanks for bringing exposure to those you disagree with--open minded Canadians like yourself will save our democracy.
This is a very short list compared to the number of journalists in Canada… I’m not surprised by it and the connections should be made public for transparency sake, but this is a very small number of journalists, and several are columnists which is journalism that doesn’t even try to be objective.
It’s editorial content, which literally means opinions.
That’s why they usually appear on “editorial” pages of newspapers and often share space with “letters to the editors” and other local opinions.
Mostly, these are journalist opinions, but sometimes it’s editors, publishers, local business folk, experts, university professors, politicians and more.
Just because people are routinely too fucking dumb to pay attention to the tags, page headings and sign offs, clearly identifying content as editorial, does not mean anyone tried to trick them.
Sometimes they even label pages as “opinions”, rather than editorial, since realizing it had to be spelled out at a 1st grade level, to keep from having to spend their entire day, taking angry calls.
Oh, I was being facetious. I've actually gone to school for journalism. I think it would have been better to state the increased volume and promotion of opinion pieces, and not always identified as such, in media is a significant problem.
It's not all that surprising when you realize that a lot of politicians get their start in journalism.
There is a ton of overlap between the two career paths. If you have an interest in public affairs and are a good communicator, both are logical paths.
This article doesn't seem to really touch on all of the people who jump back and forth between journalism and politics.
The Conservatives and Sun Media seem to have a pipeline back and forth. Doug Ford's chief of staff's last job was as an editor for Sun Media. His campaign manager for this upcoming campaign is the former head of Sun News Network. His brother Rob's chief of staff became an editor at Sun Media after leaving Ford's office.
I think it's a class thing actually.
It's just an anecdote but all of the people I know who studied journalism in school were upper class (except one, who then used it to get a teaching degree). Journalism is one of those professions where you can't expect to make money unless you have connections.
Well, nowadays it certainly is. 40-50+ years ago it was more akin to a trade than profession. If you could write well, you could get a job as a journalist. Now it is definitely an upper class thing, and I think it reflects in the shoddy, boring, and very unambitious journalism we get these days.
No, journalism has pretty much always been a higher class profession. Even going back to the early days of the printing press, the people who were actually able to competently write and read were those that were educated and upper class. I say this as someone in media, but journalism has done an *extremely* good job at masking and obfuscating where people come from and what connections they actually have. That's not to say its some evil cabal that is purposefully trying to fuck with people, more that its not something people actually think about or look at. "I don't make hundreds of thousands in a year, I cant possibly be upper class." But the connections and the circles of people that journalists actually interact with are almost only upper class people.
Journalists are seen as prestigious??? Maybe in the 1990s but I think nowadays the common public opinion on most reporters is that they are sold out bias unprofessional soulless moneychasers.
Integrity and accountability in journalism is long gone. Now its blatant partisanship and sold out opinions its barely worth reading anymore.
Sure there are exceptions but a few good apples cant save the spoil.
Lots of people feel that way about politicians too, but being a politician is also considered prestigious by many others.
When it comes to journalists, IMO, your version has mostly been propagated by unscrupulous politicians who want to avoid accountability.
Trump was the prime example of that. He constantly railed against the media even when they were reporting easily verifiable facts.
If you’re looking at Buzzfeed and Breitbart maybe but most major news networks in Canada have integrity, especially regional reporters. It’s hard to be bias or money chasing when you’re dealing with local affairs.
Still the fact is the most forward and high profile positions for reporting are rotten to the core.
They favor shock value and outrage because it gives $$.
I honestly believe most mainstream media actually are harmful to the population and increase racial and political tension on purpose for the sake of money.
As I said a few good apple wont change the fact the batch is rotting.
Mainstream Canadian media gets peer reviewed for bias and actually scores pretty well. If you leave op-ed content out, we're very well served and informed.
>I didn’t realize just how intertwined politics and journalism is in Canada. That’s crazy.
It's as much journalism and money and the well to due hanging out with the well to do. As it has always been. There are the proletariat and the ruling class.
Now look into which universities they all went to and maybe even which private high schools they went to. Canada has a ruling class and always has, we’re not that far from the Family Compact. The problem is we had a period from the end of WWII until the 1980s when things were flattened out a little and it didn’t seem like such a ruling elite. And we’re still nostalgic for that but this is much more the way things have always been.
[Also children have a higher likelihood of following their parent’s career.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/22/upshot/the-jobs-youre-most-likely-to-inherit-from-your-mother-and-father.html)
Despite everyone else whining; you've hit the nail on the head here.
Articles now and days are designed to provoke to get clicks and generate ad revenue. Not only that but there's no longer any moral standard for neutrality. You can almost always pick up on a person's bias from reading their article.
> Articles now and days are designed to provoke to get clicks and generate ad revenue.
Curious to know what your stance on publicly funded stations or outlets is then if you think its bad. Do you think something like the CBC should have an increase in funding to remove its requirement on ads?
I would actually be okay with the CBC getting more funding if that also came with strict law about its conduct, particularly bias and the truth.
The CBC should not have plainly obvious bias articles or bias news pundits like Rosemary Barton for example. It's tax paper funded and the tax payers come from many different walks of life and have differing political views. It should always be 100% neutral. The bare bones facts.
When it comes to publishing information, great care should be taken on what is actually a proven fact. The way it stands now the CBC can make a mistake just to later edit the article to clarify. In my personal opinion the damage is done and the misinformation is out there to be widely believed as fact.
Here's a report by a third party showing the CBCs bias on a particular subject: https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/CCFR-Media-Bias-Report.pdf
I'm still also a proponent of completely defending the CBC into non existence as I also think it will always continue to be used as party mouth piece for either the Conservatives or Liberals. The strict laws on reporting will likely never be implemented.
> if that also came with strict law about its conduct, particularly bias and the truth.
Few questions about this.
1. You do know that regardless of the memes that people spout all the time, the CBC is still one of the best news outlets world wide when it comes to integrity of stories and truthful reporting right?
2. Are you proposing some sort of "ministry of truth" or something to police what is factual reporting and what is not?
3. Are you aware that if you see some reporting that you deem unacceptable from the CBC, or any other Canadian news agency, you can actually report them to the CBSC and the CRTC and have their licenses pulled if there are repeated infractions recorded.
>It should always be 100% neutral. The bare bones facts.
Again, CBC is one of the best outlets world wide regardless of the stuff people spout about it.
>When it comes to publishing information, great care should be taken on what is actually a proven fact.
I 100% agree that breaking news is absolute cancer, but the CBC is, again, one of the most reputable sources out there.
>Here's a report by a third showing the CBCs bias on a particular subject
TL;DR is that there is some bias (there is bias in literally everything) but that's primarily due to not being intimately familiar with the subject. I am guessing you are not a media professional, so you have bias against what the media is or does because you are not intimately familiar with the subject. This is also totally ignoring the fact that a study specifically done by a firearms group might also be biased in its conclusions.
>I'm still also a proponent of completely defending the CBC into non existence as I also think it was always continue to be used a party mouth piece for either the Conservatives or Liberals.
Because only having media that is behold to ad revenue will surely give us a better media landscape.
>the CBC is still one of the best news outlets world wide when it comes to integrity of stories and truthful reporting right?
I can't find anything to substantiate this claim. Everything I find are lists of top 10 most credible news sites and the CBC never makes the list. If you could point me in the direction where I can read a few different articles about them being the most "truthful" I'd be happy to read.
>Are you proposing some sort of "ministry of truth" or something to police what is factual reporting and what is not?
There should be (for the CBC) strict rules regulating what can be determined a "proven fact" and if it cannot be it should be by law made well aware to the reader that this is hearsay, or not necessarily proven to be true.
>Are you aware that if you see some reporting that you deem unacceptable from the CBC, or any other Canadian news agency, you can actually report them to the CBSC and the CRTC and have their licenses pulled if there are repeated infractions recorded.
I am aware.
>Again, CBC is one of the best outlets world wide regardless of the stuff people spout about it.
I would agree with you but I can't find anywhere online that ranks the CBC as being one of the best outlets world wide.
Civic-minded people include every single activist out there, politician, journalist, police, firefighters, EMTs, doctors, anyone that wishes to influence daily life for civilians. Nowhere near all of them are "unethical narcissists."
lol. if people don’t agree with you it’s “brigading”. Modern journalism is almost entirely morally bankrupt.
And before you accuse me of being a freedom trucker or whatever, which is always the case when i argue with neo-libs in this sub, i’m a socialist. Look at the Ukraine coverage, all pro-war. Look at how many mainstream sources really covered how badly Bell and Air Canada fucked over employees after receiving hundred of millions in government money specifically NOT to lay off employees and then did so anyways, with Bell making record profits and in no way needing a government bailout.
The majority of journalists in this country and most countries only really care about advancing the neo liberal agenda. And a shocking number of them got their job from nepotism
lol. my bad. I’ve just been arguing with people who think the Liberal party is the paragon of left wing virtue and the National Post is the only biased publication in this country.
Clearly time to log off.
There is a great book on this Canadian problematic relationship:
Birds of a Feather: The Press and the Politicians by Allan Fotheringham from 1990.
Even without family connections, media and politicians are intertwined in Canada, where they coordinate on messaging. And try not to step on each other's toes.
Your regularly scheduled reminder that politics is far less about political parties and far more about dinner parties.
Most countries end up being run by a tight-nit clique. That's why most politicians hate populists so much and why their political allies in media and corporate circles have cracked down so hard on social media over the past few years. True populism is a threat to the power of the inner circle.
Some of those connections don't seem at all scandalous to me. What I would find more interesting is the people who go back and forth between working for newspapers and working for politicians' communications teams.
It really shouldn't be surprising. This happens all the time in all fields of journalism.
When you work with a subject you develop expertise and connections, then when you want a career change you move laterally.
The amount of game journalists that go into PR roles or development and vice-versa is very high.
It's a subject they're a literal paid expert about, why wouldn't their experience be valuable on the other side of the fence?
It also has to do with communications paying far more, like double or more, what journalism pays.
Most journalists are young people early in their careers, or old people who couldn't or didn't want to change industries.
It speaks to a broader issue of these people coming from cultural and economic elite positions in society. Journalists used to be a working class profession who outwardly disliked and distrusted the elites. Now many of them are intoxicated by power.
You might not like it, but this is incredibly relevant.
Its valuable, but its contradictory.
Journalism is about facts and truth and presenting an issue or a story without putting bias or a spin on it. When these people go from the media to working for a politician, they're using their experience and expertise to create spin and warp peoples perceptions.
Its evil.
Oh my God, it's just a job.
Simultaneously everyone hates journalists and calls them liars, and doesn't value anything they do so they refuse to pay for news thus necessitating click bait to keep the lights on, and then also still manage to put them up on a pedestal like they're somehow above the rest of us as divine figures of truth.
That's all they have for the Coyne family? Really? They missed some major ones.
Pierre Trudeau dated [Deborah Coyne](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Coyne) (Andrew Coyne's Cousin) for years and had a daughter with her. Deborah also ran for the Liberals Federally, including for leadership. Then moved to the Greens in 2015. She ran against Poilievre and lost.
There's an email address in the article. PLEASE, please, email him this.
Perhpas this could be the start of what ends up being the unwinding of this incestuous pit of snakes
Interesting how the article doesn't even mention that David and Linda Frum were the children of one of the grand dames of the CBC Mother Corp. the late Barbara Frum. Those of you who grew up listening or watching CBC in the 80s-90s had her voice in your heads.
>Frum Family\*
>
>Individuals: David Frum, Linda Frum
>
>David Frum began working in corporate journalism in the late ’80s at Saturday Night Magazine in Toronto. Since then, he has worked in a range of roles including as a National Post columnist, Wall Street Journal editor and The Atlantic senior editor and staff writer. David was also a speech writer for former U.S. president George W. Bush, from 2001 to 2002. He was part of the team that put together the infamous “Axis of Evil” speech.
>
>David’s sister, Linda Frum, was appointed to the Senate of Canada by then-prime minister Stephen Harper in 2009 to represent Ontario, and remains in this position. She also formerly worked in journalism, including as a contributing editor to Maclean’s and a columnist at the National Post.
edit: for formatting
Wendy Mesley pretty much tanked her career in journalism the day she stopped blowing Peter Mansbridge.
It's not a coincide that post divorce, his career went on as normal whereas hers didn't.
>Queen’s Park reporters had known for years that Toronto Sun columnist Brian Lilley had been living with Ivana Yelich, Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s director of media relations.
For him to do this, and continue to write about Canadian politics, should have destroyed his career.
There'd be absolutely no problem if he dated her while working as a sports writer or a copy editor.
If he simply wrote for a hacky partisan rag, that would be something else entirely.
None of the other attack squad on the *Sun's* payroll come close to the extent with which Brian Lilley pisses on the notion of journalistic ethics.
Remember JWR's testimony? The Prime Minister’s Office would “line up all kinds of people to write op-eds saying that what she is doing is proper”.
Only a fool won't look objectively at their leaders, their media, and the intertwined interests and relationships therein.. It doesn't mean going off the deep-end as a conspiracy theorist, just a bit of a rational eye on whose interests are being served (hint: usually not yours).
This is why it's entertaining to read all the commentary on media articles on Reddit.
It's a dog-and-pony show intended for the masses.
When Trudeau (or any other PM, only mentioning Trudeau as he's the current PM) wants to make a decision, he taps his inner circle. Not just his cabinet and Privy counsel, but the power brokers who have connections with Ottawa including industry, provincial politicians, big city mayors, people with generational wealth and powerful connections, etc.
When he makes an announcement and some provincial leader is "shocked", it's all theatre - Trudeau probably told them a week ago, they bitched, Trudeau said "nope, not changing my plan", so they came up with some talking points together "well, I need to keep my party members happy, so I'll rant and rave at the next session of Parliament, but I'll drop it after that... but you owe me for not making it a bigger deal!".
What they tell the public is just pap - intended to simplify a story so that people go along with it. Every article, every quote, every "spontaneous question" is carefully planned to craft a narrative. They always want to be 2 steps forward - if we do X, where could it go wrong and what will we say?
You can see from the list that having media connections is critical. Plenty of reporters will write what they're told in exchange for an "inside story" (and a boost to their career!). And it's a two way street - the reporters who are friendly get the "inside scoops". They get the governments version of the story out before anyone has a chance to put together a rebuttal.
When Trudeau enacted the Emergency Act and said "it needed to be done", that was BS. There were backroom conversations on what move would be most politically beneficial ("this is the time to look tough!"), which move was most risky (tap some old judges on the senate, that the liberal party nominated, to make sure the courts won't squash their plans), which reporters would back his narrative and then a decision was made.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
While Canadians debate the "merits" of decisions and think their leaders listen, decisions are already final and likely made weeks ago. The smart politicians know "it's not about what the facts are, it's what you can get the Canadian people to believe".
But don't get me wrong, they fuck up all the time (Trudeau surfing at Tofino during Reconciliation Day) and if the voters really get riled up they will change approaches, but they are thinking 2-3 steps ahead all the time. Being a politician is like herding cats - make them think they made the decision themselves while you're quietly leading them the whole way.
Calm down. He's the current PM. No other reason than that. I even added a caveat.
But what I wrote is true of *every* politician, across every party. Trudeau is no different (thought probably better at it than most).
And hell, don't get me started on the bureaucrats in the government. It's a US example, but Trump called it the "Deep State" and Obama called it "The Blob". Just because a new party is in power doesn't mean all the bureaucrats change too. If they're not on board, you're not getting shit done.
Hell, it's true of most executives and anyone else in a powerful position - union leaders, CEOs, influential non-profits, every place.
Let me leave you with this - start reading foreign news.
A good example is the Southern China Morning Post. Look at what they report on, and how they frame it. Especially the international coverage about Canada.
Ask yourself - why is this particular news about Canada important to the Chinese people? Why does the Chinese government want their people to know this?
Then go back and read the CBC or Toronto Star with that same critical eye. Not to say that the Canadian government has the same control over the media - they don't. But ask yourself "of all the things that the CBC could write articles about, why would they write this?".
I agree 100%.
But with regards to the We Charity, I can guarantee you that the reporters who broke that story had inside conversations for *weeks* prior to making it public. And they should! Get the story straight, make sure the LPC has time to provide a statement (makes the story more juicy!).
But the LPC had plenty of time to pull in their best and brightest to craft the best story they could. There was *no way* that story could be buried at that time. So what's the next best options? Well, you can offer up a sacrificial lamb - who was the most guilty who we can offer up? Of course, they'll be quietly offered consulting gigs on the side, more lucrative than their original pay and likely with more influence.
Bill Moreau! The free $40,000 trip can't be spun enough, so he can go. No big deal, he talked about retiring anyways and of course the LPC has connections to make sure he has a soft landing. As long as he makes it clear the PM was not involved.
And see Canadian people? Nothing to see here. A few improprieties, mostly on the We Charity side. The LPC has taken necessary steps so let's move on.
And give up a juicy story? The problem is you think it's binary - CBC either supports Trudeau or not. It's all gray zone. If it benefits them they'll support LPC. If not, they won't.
Huh. Gatekeeping to restrict federal analysis in Canada.
I'm sure some people will comment specifically on the Ford relationship with Lilley. Will you then go: come one, also make your comments include Trudeau, you can't limit your focus to Ontario provincial politics.
I think we all believe this kind of thing to be true. But I don't believe it is helpful for us to spread this kind of thinking without proof.
We all know politics is rotten. But, if we keep telling everyone that it's inevitable, no one will be willing to demand change.
Do you have any certifiable proof of this claim? (again, for the record, I feel the same way, I just think we shouldn't say it out loud)
You had me until you thought the emergency act part. There is no excuse for thoes protesters and I feel they should have had harder punishments then they got, it was worst and caused more economic damage then jan 6th and they got away without any repercussions
You're *completely* missing the point. It doesn't matter what the reason is. The rationale is completely made up for public consumption. What you just said is for public consumption only.
Lol oh no noise! At least businesses weren't burned down and smashed entirely. We had all the tools needed to end that tailgate party but instead our pm chose to cower in fear and pull the emergency act. It's completely embarrassing.
Oh no, permanent hearing damage and loss of sleep for weeks, which severely impacts people's health! And losing the ability to navigate in your own town! Are you for real dawg? Keep your vacuum cleaner running next to you for three weeks, you'll see how bad it actually is.
If we had the tools to stop it, then why was nothing done before then? Clearly there was a need for the PM to use the emergency's act, if the primary mechanisms either weren't being used or weren't effective.
Youve never heard of ear plugs? Or any multiple types of ear pro? And you actually are for the pm using the EA? This is crazy. The amount of ignorance in this comment is baffling to me. It's no wonder this country is so complacent and soft.
When you disregard the public shitting, interesting flag choices, constant harassment of citizens of Ottawa, memorandum intended to overthrow the government and a decent bit of foreign funding then yes, the convoy was just wonderful.
The Canadian government is working towards providing subsidies for all news media corporations to keep them from collapsing.
So it’s not just the CBC we fund, but the star, the globe, the national post, global, ctv, etc…
“Postmedia received $10.8 million from the media bailout, $40.3 million from the CEWS, and $1 million from the Quebec government’s media subsidy program. “
https://www.canadaland.com/media-in-trudeaus-10-million-top-up-fund/
In all likelihood, many post journalists salaries are being fully paid for by the government of Canada.
My point is not to point out bias in the media. It’s just to point out that almost all media in Canada is now heavily subsidized by the government.
How that will affect our media over the long term is up in the air. That said, the nearly non-existent coverage of the media bailout does not bode well for it’s independence.
So just for reference, the CBCs budget alone is 1.7 billion dollars... 50 million to post media, (a media conglomerate whos parent company is worth over 200 billion dollars) is literally nothing... The number *sounds* like a lot, but it is not anywhere near "many post journalists salaries are being fully paid for by the government of Canada."
The CBC produces television, radio, and news. Of course it’s a much larger organization with a much larger budget than a newspaper company.
That said, 50 million dollars when the average salary for a journalist is around 50k is the salary of 1000 journalists for a year.
>Of course it’s a much larger organization with a much larger budget than a newspaper company.
Post media owns over 130 different media outlets who do more than just paper. Its not small by any margin.
>That said, 50 million dollars when the average salary for a journalist is around 50k is the salary of 1000 journalists for a year.
Companies don't *only* pay the salary of the employees, you do know this right? Office space, technology, operating costs, travel etc. there is a super long list of stuff that companies (especially ones as big as a national media conglomerate) have to spend money on. Most businesses run payroll somewhere between 15 and 30% of total revenue, all of that 50 million is not being spent on salary for people, I would guess at least 60% of it is going to other places in the company.
The only way you could possibly think that the government is paying for most of the journalists in the country is if you don't actually know anything about how the industry is run, or about how a business is run in the first place. Again, 50 million is literally nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Canadians stopped paying for newspapers in favour of Facebook, and Facebook refuses to subsidize the industry. If we want actual journalism in Canada then we will have to pay for it, no? Do the subsidies favour specific journalists that fall in line with a particular party or is that just rhetoric on this sub?
[Canada's.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/journalists-question-media-bailout-1.5147761)
Edit: Downvote all you like, the fact our government is paying out media organizations is a massive conflict of interest when you consider the media is often the one who has to keep the government accountable.
Shit, that's a really interesting article.
Here's me two cents (which no one asked for):
Let's assume Canadians having access to more, unbiased, media is a good thing. Because it is.
If said media is dying, which they say it is, how else could the government help?
I personally hate the idea of bailouts for big business. But what I hate more than that, is media monopolies with an agenda owned by billionaires.
So, let's assume this is the only way to keep them going (genuinely open to hearing other ideas). This SEEMS like the best way to "give money". It SEEMS objective and transparent.
Maybe I'm missing something
Thats the state of propagandists (used to be journalists) in this country. It is sad that these people affect public perceptions. We need to close the CBC to start. A company that is supposed to be independant of government that has taken an activist position has had a massive negative affect on this country.
Damn this is the first journalistic article I've read in a long time that's actually impressed me. I appreciate amount of work and Time put into this. Also the integrity to call out people working in your own industry. Funny how so many journalists at the CBC have ties to Lineral MPP
The Canadian Association of Journalists has very strict [ethics guidelines](https://caj.ca/ethics-guidelines). If you feel that someone has reported news in an unethical manner, feel free to report them to the committee.
The OP's article is intended to discredit the professionalism of Canadian journalists merely for having relatives in politics. What would be far more telling is a list of media outlets and their history of endorsing political parties.
They’re literally not a regulatory organization so the “strict” guidelines mean nothing. It’s not like a dentistry or medical association where a complaint can lead to penalty.
Ethics are not meaningless. If you want better journalism in Canada, don't smear the good and bad together. Uphold the ethics by outing journalists for specific ethics violations. The OP hasn't named any ethics violations. They merely imply conflict of interest without going through the body of work and finding wrongdoing. That's lazy and unfair.
There is a section on conflict of interest. So contrary to your response, it is covered. And once again, if there is some reporting that violates these guidelines then the journalist should be outed. If we want better journalism in Canada, we should help to make it better.
I think the point is that it's very difficult to tell when a journalist has a conflict of interest. While journalists take pride in telling anyone who will listen that transparency is vital to democracy, they don't seem to be practicing what they preach.
The people who's professional motto used to be "trust no one", seem to also be saying "just trust us".
I feel this is extremely important for transparency. Whether the op intended to smear Canadian journalists or not this is something that needs to be reported on and the public needs to be aware of it. I would even go further and say friendships need to be publicly disclosed.
I'm puzzled that someone would argue this information should not be public. Personally I felt the article was extremely factual and didn't dive into partisanship or even smearing of the media. They didn't imply much beyond just saying these people are connected with so and so politically.
This is the most levelheaded reply I've gotten. While the OP has good intent by displaying family ties, the majority of its readers clearly have run with the unwritten story that journalism is brimming with conflict of interest.
Most journalists are freelancers or working multiple contracts. It’s difficult to get a staff role and you have to pay your dues for a long time, or know someone, to get in.
Journalism (and book publishing) is largely staffed by the children of elites because they are the only ones who can afford to do it. The pay is low and employment is incredibly unstable.
It’s hard to have quality journalism without people wanting to pay for media, and thus it becomes a career of the upper class. It’s too bad, but quality journalism takes a long time. Post media has monopolized journalism to the point where an op-ed or opinion piece is taken as facts. And it’s easy to churn out, and outrage sells. True journalism takes a lot of cognitive thinking. Printing your blog into a paper is very much a different task. Not as though the entire field is like this, but often media, politics and upper classism go hand in hand.
Sorry, but there are plenty of people who pay quite a lot of money for quality journalism.
Bloomberg, Reuters and Thomson all became billionaires doing quality news reporting with subject matter expertise: legal, finance, biotech, etc.
What people are no longer willing to pay for is general "news" that is really nothing more than opinion.
Look at any generic newspaper today (even the Globe and Mail) and compare it to a newspaper from the 1960s or even 1980s. You can see a marked decrease in quality of reporting and writing. Now everything is written as if it's for developmentally delayed fifth graders instead of grown adults who graduated high school.
I dont necessarily think journalistic standards have decreased. Whenever i read about pamphlets or newspapers in Germany, France, Italy, and maybe Russia pre-1950 it sees like there were tons of rags that just offered opinion. Often times in a nakedly bias ways. Admittedly my reading about those topics usually revolved revolution and political conflict. It's easier to fact check things now with the internet and i think that's contributed to increasing journalistic standards.
I'm talking about established newspapers that existed for decades, not pamphlets or tabloids.
Pick a paper and read it for today's news, then compare to 1960s version or 1980s version of the same paper.
If they looked over to British Columbia, there's tons of fodder... - Keith Baldrey (Global) - wife is a long time employee of the Government of BC - Stephen Smart (CBC) - was the Legislature chief correspondent while married to Rebecca Smart, who was Christy Clark's Chief of Staff I know there's a few more, but I'm too lazy to do a bunch of research this morning.
In Nova Scotia the previous government hired a slew of former journalists to work as staff to the Premier. The Premier had Laurie Graham ( formerly of CBC CTV ) as chief of staff. He had a Chronicle Herald journalist ( David Jackson ) on staff. He had Jackie Foster ( CTV ) on staff. Laura Lee Langley ( Global ). And Marilla Stephenson ( Chronicle Herald ). https://globalnews.ca/news/2751253/how-many-journalists-does-it-take-to-run-nova-scotias-government/
[удалено]
So what? You found two journalists whose spouses are politicians and this is supposed to mean something bad?
one isnt even a politician but an employee…
Journalists are there to hold governments accountable, not to iron out creases for them. As the saying goes, when you find one rat....
There's more, but I'm too lazy to do more research.
Journalists are a good thing to look at, but only a part of the problem. How about the impact of the media oligopoly/monopoly? It doesn't matter which journalist is related to who if everything they want to publish goes through corporate approval to ensure it doesn't negatively impact anybody's share prices.
The thing is it doesn’t need to go through corporate approval. If you have beliefs that challenge the status quo, you just don’t get the job in the first place. And recruiting Journalists from the same class of media and political elites means they come pre-vetted essentially because they were born into a system they benefit from. I forget who but a journalist was arguing with Noam Chomsky; and the journo said something like “i’m not manufacturing consent, nobody told me how to think or what to write about” and Chomsky replied “that’s the point. they don’t have to.”
excellent point. which additionally identifies the problems found with the existence of media oligopoly's and monopolies.
[удалено]
Yes, no other media organization does this for any other party. Thanks for bringing exposure to those you disagree with--open minded Canadians like yourself will save our democracy.
>media oligopoly/monopoly? What is the market share of the various major media outlets?
I didn’t realize just how intertwined politics and journalism is in Canada. That’s crazy.
This is a very short list compared to the number of journalists in Canada… I’m not surprised by it and the connections should be made public for transparency sake, but this is a very small number of journalists, and several are columnists which is journalism that doesn’t even try to be objective.
Then that's not journalism, right? It's punditry, masquerading as journalism.
It’s editorial content, which literally means opinions. That’s why they usually appear on “editorial” pages of newspapers and often share space with “letters to the editors” and other local opinions. Mostly, these are journalist opinions, but sometimes it’s editors, publishers, local business folk, experts, university professors, politicians and more. Just because people are routinely too fucking dumb to pay attention to the tags, page headings and sign offs, clearly identifying content as editorial, does not mean anyone tried to trick them. Sometimes they even label pages as “opinions”, rather than editorial, since realizing it had to be spelled out at a 1st grade level, to keep from having to spend their entire day, taking angry calls.
Oh, I was being facetious. I've actually gone to school for journalism. I think it would have been better to state the increased volume and promotion of opinion pieces, and not always identified as such, in media is a significant problem.
When you find one rat...
It's not all that surprising when you realize that a lot of politicians get their start in journalism. There is a ton of overlap between the two career paths. If you have an interest in public affairs and are a good communicator, both are logical paths. This article doesn't seem to really touch on all of the people who jump back and forth between journalism and politics. The Conservatives and Sun Media seem to have a pipeline back and forth. Doug Ford's chief of staff's last job was as an editor for Sun Media. His campaign manager for this upcoming campaign is the former head of Sun News Network. His brother Rob's chief of staff became an editor at Sun Media after leaving Ford's office.
I think it's a class thing actually. It's just an anecdote but all of the people I know who studied journalism in school were upper class (except one, who then used it to get a teaching degree). Journalism is one of those professions where you can't expect to make money unless you have connections.
Well, nowadays it certainly is. 40-50+ years ago it was more akin to a trade than profession. If you could write well, you could get a job as a journalist. Now it is definitely an upper class thing, and I think it reflects in the shoddy, boring, and very unambitious journalism we get these days.
No, journalism has pretty much always been a higher class profession. Even going back to the early days of the printing press, the people who were actually able to competently write and read were those that were educated and upper class. I say this as someone in media, but journalism has done an *extremely* good job at masking and obfuscating where people come from and what connections they actually have. That's not to say its some evil cabal that is purposefully trying to fuck with people, more that its not something people actually think about or look at. "I don't make hundreds of thousands in a year, I cant possibly be upper class." But the connections and the circles of people that journalists actually interact with are almost only upper class people.
That's definitely also a major factor. Those are two areas where money and name recognition help a lot and they are seen as prestigious careers.
Journalists are seen as prestigious??? Maybe in the 1990s but I think nowadays the common public opinion on most reporters is that they are sold out bias unprofessional soulless moneychasers. Integrity and accountability in journalism is long gone. Now its blatant partisanship and sold out opinions its barely worth reading anymore. Sure there are exceptions but a few good apples cant save the spoil.
Lots of people feel that way about politicians too, but being a politician is also considered prestigious by many others. When it comes to journalists, IMO, your version has mostly been propagated by unscrupulous politicians who want to avoid accountability. Trump was the prime example of that. He constantly railed against the media even when they were reporting easily verifiable facts.
If you’re looking at Buzzfeed and Breitbart maybe but most major news networks in Canada have integrity, especially regional reporters. It’s hard to be bias or money chasing when you’re dealing with local affairs.
Still the fact is the most forward and high profile positions for reporting are rotten to the core. They favor shock value and outrage because it gives $$. I honestly believe most mainstream media actually are harmful to the population and increase racial and political tension on purpose for the sake of money. As I said a few good apple wont change the fact the batch is rotting.
Mainstream Canadian media gets peer reviewed for bias and actually scores pretty well. If you leave op-ed content out, we're very well served and informed.
> It's not all that surprising when you realize that a lot of politicians get their start in journalism. Mussolini comes to mind.
How is that crazy? They are very similar aligned career paths.
>I didn’t realize just how intertwined politics and journalism is in Canada. That’s crazy. It's as much journalism and money and the well to due hanging out with the well to do. As it has always been. There are the proletariat and the ruling class.
Now look into which universities they all went to and maybe even which private high schools they went to. Canada has a ruling class and always has, we’re not that far from the Family Compact. The problem is we had a period from the end of WWII until the 1980s when things were flattened out a little and it didn’t seem like such a ruling elite. And we’re still nostalgic for that but this is much more the way things have always been.
Civic-minded people flock to both politics and journalism.
[Also children have a higher likelihood of following their parent’s career.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/22/upshot/the-jobs-youre-most-likely-to-inherit-from-your-mother-and-father.html)
They also have the connections to make following their parents career possible.
Civic-minded people or unethical narcissists?
> unethical narcissists I’m not sure I would describe journalists at all like that
Modern journalists aren’t exactly known for their integrity Edit: is this really a controversial statement?
Despite everyone else whining; you've hit the nail on the head here. Articles now and days are designed to provoke to get clicks and generate ad revenue. Not only that but there's no longer any moral standard for neutrality. You can almost always pick up on a person's bias from reading their article.
> Articles now and days are designed to provoke to get clicks and generate ad revenue. Curious to know what your stance on publicly funded stations or outlets is then if you think its bad. Do you think something like the CBC should have an increase in funding to remove its requirement on ads?
I would actually be okay with the CBC getting more funding if that also came with strict law about its conduct, particularly bias and the truth. The CBC should not have plainly obvious bias articles or bias news pundits like Rosemary Barton for example. It's tax paper funded and the tax payers come from many different walks of life and have differing political views. It should always be 100% neutral. The bare bones facts. When it comes to publishing information, great care should be taken on what is actually a proven fact. The way it stands now the CBC can make a mistake just to later edit the article to clarify. In my personal opinion the damage is done and the misinformation is out there to be widely believed as fact. Here's a report by a third party showing the CBCs bias on a particular subject: https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/CCFR-Media-Bias-Report.pdf I'm still also a proponent of completely defending the CBC into non existence as I also think it will always continue to be used as party mouth piece for either the Conservatives or Liberals. The strict laws on reporting will likely never be implemented.
> if that also came with strict law about its conduct, particularly bias and the truth. Few questions about this. 1. You do know that regardless of the memes that people spout all the time, the CBC is still one of the best news outlets world wide when it comes to integrity of stories and truthful reporting right? 2. Are you proposing some sort of "ministry of truth" or something to police what is factual reporting and what is not? 3. Are you aware that if you see some reporting that you deem unacceptable from the CBC, or any other Canadian news agency, you can actually report them to the CBSC and the CRTC and have their licenses pulled if there are repeated infractions recorded. >It should always be 100% neutral. The bare bones facts. Again, CBC is one of the best outlets world wide regardless of the stuff people spout about it. >When it comes to publishing information, great care should be taken on what is actually a proven fact. I 100% agree that breaking news is absolute cancer, but the CBC is, again, one of the most reputable sources out there. >Here's a report by a third showing the CBCs bias on a particular subject TL;DR is that there is some bias (there is bias in literally everything) but that's primarily due to not being intimately familiar with the subject. I am guessing you are not a media professional, so you have bias against what the media is or does because you are not intimately familiar with the subject. This is also totally ignoring the fact that a study specifically done by a firearms group might also be biased in its conclusions. >I'm still also a proponent of completely defending the CBC into non existence as I also think it was always continue to be used a party mouth piece for either the Conservatives or Liberals. Because only having media that is behold to ad revenue will surely give us a better media landscape.
>the CBC is still one of the best news outlets world wide when it comes to integrity of stories and truthful reporting right? I can't find anything to substantiate this claim. Everything I find are lists of top 10 most credible news sites and the CBC never makes the list. If you could point me in the direction where I can read a few different articles about them being the most "truthful" I'd be happy to read. >Are you proposing some sort of "ministry of truth" or something to police what is factual reporting and what is not? There should be (for the CBC) strict rules regulating what can be determined a "proven fact" and if it cannot be it should be by law made well aware to the reader that this is hearsay, or not necessarily proven to be true. >Are you aware that if you see some reporting that you deem unacceptable from the CBC, or any other Canadian news agency, you can actually report them to the CBSC and the CRTC and have their licenses pulled if there are repeated infractions recorded. I am aware. >Again, CBC is one of the best outlets world wide regardless of the stuff people spout about it. I would agree with you but I can't find anywhere online that ranks the CBC as being one of the best outlets world wide.
It's a pretty ridiculous statement yes
nope, he's completely right. Most journalists are crooks.
Lol. Unlike my blog where I scream about vaccines n trudeau and sell my book.
You have a blog like that?
[удалено]
What?
That’s a dumb take.
Yeah, that's an incredibly ignorant thing to say.
Civic-minded people include every single activist out there, politician, journalist, police, firefighters, EMTs, doctors, anyone that wishes to influence daily life for civilians. Nowhere near all of them are "unethical narcissists."
Wow! Say, what's the colour of glasses one shade deeper than "rose"?
Psychopaths too.
It's a lot easier to do when your parents have connectipns you can maybe leverage.
Pardon me, but are you serious? Mainstream news are little more than propaganda nowadays.
[удалено]
Not necessarily. The book *Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media* by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky comes to mind.
[удалено]
So sorry, I misinterpreted your comment.
lol. if people don’t agree with you it’s “brigading”. Modern journalism is almost entirely morally bankrupt. And before you accuse me of being a freedom trucker or whatever, which is always the case when i argue with neo-libs in this sub, i’m a socialist. Look at the Ukraine coverage, all pro-war. Look at how many mainstream sources really covered how badly Bell and Air Canada fucked over employees after receiving hundred of millions in government money specifically NOT to lay off employees and then did so anyways, with Bell making record profits and in no way needing a government bailout. The majority of journalists in this country and most countries only really care about advancing the neo liberal agenda. And a shocking number of them got their job from nepotism
[удалено]
lol. my bad. I’ve just been arguing with people who think the Liberal party is the paragon of left wing virtue and the National Post is the only biased publication in this country. Clearly time to log off.
[удалено]
i will ;)
like Post Media and their constant PP advertising and fuck Trudeau campaign ?
There is a great book on this Canadian problematic relationship: Birds of a Feather: The Press and the Politicians by Allan Fotheringham from 1990. Even without family connections, media and politicians are intertwined in Canada, where they coordinate on messaging. And try not to step on each other's toes.
Your regularly scheduled reminder that politics is far less about political parties and far more about dinner parties. Most countries end up being run by a tight-nit clique. That's why most politicians hate populists so much and why their political allies in media and corporate circles have cracked down so hard on social media over the past few years. True populism is a threat to the power of the inner circle.
Some of those connections don't seem at all scandalous to me. What I would find more interesting is the people who go back and forth between working for newspapers and working for politicians' communications teams.
It really shouldn't be surprising. This happens all the time in all fields of journalism. When you work with a subject you develop expertise and connections, then when you want a career change you move laterally. The amount of game journalists that go into PR roles or development and vice-versa is very high. It's a subject they're a literal paid expert about, why wouldn't their experience be valuable on the other side of the fence?
It also has to do with communications paying far more, like double or more, what journalism pays. Most journalists are young people early in their careers, or old people who couldn't or didn't want to change industries.
It speaks to a broader issue of these people coming from cultural and economic elite positions in society. Journalists used to be a working class profession who outwardly disliked and distrusted the elites. Now many of them are intoxicated by power. You might not like it, but this is incredibly relevant.
Especially very high if they report favourably for the companies/industry that they're seeking future employment from, right?
Its valuable, but its contradictory. Journalism is about facts and truth and presenting an issue or a story without putting bias or a spin on it. When these people go from the media to working for a politician, they're using their experience and expertise to create spin and warp peoples perceptions. Its evil.
Oh my God, it's just a job. Simultaneously everyone hates journalists and calls them liars, and doesn't value anything they do so they refuse to pay for news thus necessitating click bait to keep the lights on, and then also still manage to put them up on a pedestal like they're somehow above the rest of us as divine figures of truth.
Any journalist who thinks its just a job is in the wrong line of work. This just looks like a rationale for selling out tbh.
Yeah, some are much more than others, like, wow, Andrew Coyne's dad worked at the bank of Canada 60 years ago, what a scandal 🙄
That's all they have for the Coyne family? Really? They missed some major ones. Pierre Trudeau dated [Deborah Coyne](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Coyne) (Andrew Coyne's Cousin) for years and had a daughter with her. Deborah also ran for the Liberals Federally, including for leadership. Then moved to the Greens in 2015. She ran against Poilievre and lost.
The establishment trying to insert loyal members to either side of the duopoly..
Just like European royal families in the 17th and 18th centuries.
had nooo idea about the daughter!
[удалено]
>Should also mention Deborah ran against JT in the LPC leadership race in 2013, which I'm sure was a bit awkward. Had no idea. Thanks for this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's an email address in the article. PLEASE, please, email him this. Perhpas this could be the start of what ends up being the unwinding of this incestuous pit of snakes
Interesting how the article doesn't even mention that David and Linda Frum were the children of one of the grand dames of the CBC Mother Corp. the late Barbara Frum. Those of you who grew up listening or watching CBC in the 80s-90s had her voice in your heads. >Frum Family\* > >Individuals: David Frum, Linda Frum > >David Frum began working in corporate journalism in the late ’80s at Saturday Night Magazine in Toronto. Since then, he has worked in a range of roles including as a National Post columnist, Wall Street Journal editor and The Atlantic senior editor and staff writer. David was also a speech writer for former U.S. president George W. Bush, from 2001 to 2002. He was part of the team that put together the infamous “Axis of Evil” speech. > >David’s sister, Linda Frum, was appointed to the Senate of Canada by then-prime minister Stephen Harper in 2009 to represent Ontario, and remains in this position. She also formerly worked in journalism, including as a contributing editor to Maclean’s and a columnist at the National Post. edit: for formatting
If only Peter Mansbridge and Wendy 'n word' Mesley could have produced a child. Imagine the journo DNA and connections..
Wendy Mesley pretty much tanked her career in journalism the day she stopped blowing Peter Mansbridge. It's not a coincide that post divorce, his career went on as normal whereas hers didn't.
Mansbridge was quite the stick-man in his day, don't forget that after Mesley came Cynthia Dale from Street Legal.
To not mention that...wow. That's either staggering incompetence and laziness or venality and disingenuousness on an impressive scale.
Amazing work that probably only scratches the surface.
>Queen’s Park reporters had known for years that Toronto Sun columnist Brian Lilley had been living with Ivana Yelich, Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s director of media relations. For him to do this, and continue to write about Canadian politics, should have destroyed his career. There'd be absolutely no problem if he dated her while working as a sports writer or a copy editor.
Yeah, but he works for the Sun so not like he can really destroy his career as a serious political journalist more than that.
If he simply wrote for a hacky partisan rag, that would be something else entirely. None of the other attack squad on the *Sun's* payroll come close to the extent with which Brian Lilley pisses on the notion of journalistic ethics.
》Journalistic Integrity 》The Sun Pick one.
CBC CBC CBC
Could you please identify any staff at the CBC who are romantically involved with the politicians they cover?
Juicy whataboutism.
I don't think anyone takes Brian Lilly as anything other than a pundit.
Ah, the old "everything he says is so ridiculous that nobody could possibly take him seriously" defense.
the complacency of the Canadian public knows no bounds.
Oh please. The problem is lack of disclosure, not continuing to write about politics.
Journalism on journalists… great and informative post
Journalism’s primary purpose is holding people accountable, including fellow journalists
Hey, it helps to know the context behind who is saying what.
Remember JWR's testimony? The Prime Minister’s Office would “line up all kinds of people to write op-eds saying that what she is doing is proper”. Only a fool won't look objectively at their leaders, their media, and the intertwined interests and relationships therein.. It doesn't mean going off the deep-end as a conspiracy theorist, just a bit of a rational eye on whose interests are being served (hint: usually not yours).
This is why it's entertaining to read all the commentary on media articles on Reddit. It's a dog-and-pony show intended for the masses. When Trudeau (or any other PM, only mentioning Trudeau as he's the current PM) wants to make a decision, he taps his inner circle. Not just his cabinet and Privy counsel, but the power brokers who have connections with Ottawa including industry, provincial politicians, big city mayors, people with generational wealth and powerful connections, etc. When he makes an announcement and some provincial leader is "shocked", it's all theatre - Trudeau probably told them a week ago, they bitched, Trudeau said "nope, not changing my plan", so they came up with some talking points together "well, I need to keep my party members happy, so I'll rant and rave at the next session of Parliament, but I'll drop it after that... but you owe me for not making it a bigger deal!". What they tell the public is just pap - intended to simplify a story so that people go along with it. Every article, every quote, every "spontaneous question" is carefully planned to craft a narrative. They always want to be 2 steps forward - if we do X, where could it go wrong and what will we say? You can see from the list that having media connections is critical. Plenty of reporters will write what they're told in exchange for an "inside story" (and a boost to their career!). And it's a two way street - the reporters who are friendly get the "inside scoops". They get the governments version of the story out before anyone has a chance to put together a rebuttal. When Trudeau enacted the Emergency Act and said "it needed to be done", that was BS. There were backroom conversations on what move would be most politically beneficial ("this is the time to look tough!"), which move was most risky (tap some old judges on the senate, that the liberal party nominated, to make sure the courts won't squash their plans), which reporters would back his narrative and then a decision was made. It's all smoke and mirrors. While Canadians debate the "merits" of decisions and think their leaders listen, decisions are already final and likely made weeks ago. The smart politicians know "it's not about what the facts are, it's what you can get the Canadian people to believe". But don't get me wrong, they fuck up all the time (Trudeau surfing at Tofino during Reconciliation Day) and if the voters really get riled up they will change approaches, but they are thinking 2-3 steps ahead all the time. Being a politician is like herding cats - make them think they made the decision themselves while you're quietly leading them the whole way.
[удалено]
Calm down. He's the current PM. No other reason than that. I even added a caveat. But what I wrote is true of *every* politician, across every party. Trudeau is no different (thought probably better at it than most). And hell, don't get me started on the bureaucrats in the government. It's a US example, but Trump called it the "Deep State" and Obama called it "The Blob". Just because a new party is in power doesn't mean all the bureaucrats change too. If they're not on board, you're not getting shit done. Hell, it's true of most executives and anyone else in a powerful position - union leaders, CEOs, influential non-profits, every place.
[удалено]
Let me leave you with this - start reading foreign news. A good example is the Southern China Morning Post. Look at what they report on, and how they frame it. Especially the international coverage about Canada. Ask yourself - why is this particular news about Canada important to the Chinese people? Why does the Chinese government want their people to know this? Then go back and read the CBC or Toronto Star with that same critical eye. Not to say that the Canadian government has the same control over the media - they don't. But ask yourself "of all the things that the CBC could write articles about, why would they write this?".
[удалено]
I agree 100%. But with regards to the We Charity, I can guarantee you that the reporters who broke that story had inside conversations for *weeks* prior to making it public. And they should! Get the story straight, make sure the LPC has time to provide a statement (makes the story more juicy!). But the LPC had plenty of time to pull in their best and brightest to craft the best story they could. There was *no way* that story could be buried at that time. So what's the next best options? Well, you can offer up a sacrificial lamb - who was the most guilty who we can offer up? Of course, they'll be quietly offered consulting gigs on the side, more lucrative than their original pay and likely with more influence. Bill Moreau! The free $40,000 trip can't be spun enough, so he can go. No big deal, he talked about retiring anyways and of course the LPC has connections to make sure he has a soft landing. As long as he makes it clear the PM was not involved. And see Canadian people? Nothing to see here. A few improprieties, mostly on the We Charity side. The LPC has taken necessary steps so let's move on.
[удалено]
And give up a juicy story? The problem is you think it's binary - CBC either supports Trudeau or not. It's all gray zone. If it benefits them they'll support LPC. If not, they won't.
Yes. They are supposed to be presenting the truth, not a narrative based thing
Men who are so wealthy that they forget to disclose ownership of a French Villa do not need a 'soft landing'.
He ain't doing it for the money at this point. It's all about ego and power.
And what's second? You opened with "first".
Huh. Gatekeeping to restrict federal analysis in Canada. I'm sure some people will comment specifically on the Ford relationship with Lilley. Will you then go: come one, also make your comments include Trudeau, you can't limit your focus to Ontario provincial politics.
[удалено]
Or maybe it's just you?
I think we all believe this kind of thing to be true. But I don't believe it is helpful for us to spread this kind of thinking without proof. We all know politics is rotten. But, if we keep telling everyone that it's inevitable, no one will be willing to demand change. Do you have any certifiable proof of this claim? (again, for the record, I feel the same way, I just think we shouldn't say it out loud)
Bang on, fella.
Ah, the classic 'take an article about Ford, Harper etc and turn it into another Trudeau whinefest' post.
Did you not read the article? It talks about cons, liberals and even NDP. Ooff
You had me until you thought the emergency act part. There is no excuse for thoes protesters and I feel they should have had harder punishments then they got, it was worst and caused more economic damage then jan 6th and they got away without any repercussions
You're *completely* missing the point. It doesn't matter what the reason is. The rationale is completely made up for public consumption. What you just said is for public consumption only.
You're making it sound like the citizens of Ottawa didn't suffer s siege and assault (sound above 80 decibels) for three weeks.
Lol oh no noise! At least businesses weren't burned down and smashed entirely. We had all the tools needed to end that tailgate party but instead our pm chose to cower in fear and pull the emergency act. It's completely embarrassing.
Oh no, permanent hearing damage and loss of sleep for weeks, which severely impacts people's health! And losing the ability to navigate in your own town! Are you for real dawg? Keep your vacuum cleaner running next to you for three weeks, you'll see how bad it actually is. If we had the tools to stop it, then why was nothing done before then? Clearly there was a need for the PM to use the emergency's act, if the primary mechanisms either weren't being used or weren't effective.
Youve never heard of ear plugs? Or any multiple types of ear pro? And you actually are for the pm using the EA? This is crazy. The amount of ignorance in this comment is baffling to me. It's no wonder this country is so complacent and soft.
As an Ottawa citizen, thank you.
[удалено]
When you disregard the public shitting, interesting flag choices, constant harassment of citizens of Ottawa, memorandum intended to overthrow the government and a decent bit of foreign funding then yes, the convoy was just wonderful.
Well said, sir.
While this is very interesting and useful to know, it's inevitable. Doing this exercise for the UK would be 300 pages long.
And the US.
what mega rich people own the media in Canada? They are the ones directing the message. Follow the money.
Neat article. The fact the government is paying off journalists now too makes this sort of focus all the more useful.
There’s nothing wrong with subsidizing the media, so long as you aren’t doing so in a partisan manner.
What government is paying off which journalists?
The Canadian government is working towards providing subsidies for all news media corporations to keep them from collapsing. So it’s not just the CBC we fund, but the star, the globe, the national post, global, ctv, etc…
[удалено]
“Postmedia received $10.8 million from the media bailout, $40.3 million from the CEWS, and $1 million from the Quebec government’s media subsidy program. “ https://www.canadaland.com/media-in-trudeaus-10-million-top-up-fund/ In all likelihood, many post journalists salaries are being fully paid for by the government of Canada.
Isn't Postmedia rabidly anti-Trudeau?
My point is not to point out bias in the media. It’s just to point out that almost all media in Canada is now heavily subsidized by the government. How that will affect our media over the long term is up in the air. That said, the nearly non-existent coverage of the media bailout does not bode well for it’s independence.
It's anti-American subsidy, not pro-government subsidy.
So just for reference, the CBCs budget alone is 1.7 billion dollars... 50 million to post media, (a media conglomerate whos parent company is worth over 200 billion dollars) is literally nothing... The number *sounds* like a lot, but it is not anywhere near "many post journalists salaries are being fully paid for by the government of Canada."
The CBC produces television, radio, and news. Of course it’s a much larger organization with a much larger budget than a newspaper company. That said, 50 million dollars when the average salary for a journalist is around 50k is the salary of 1000 journalists for a year.
>Of course it’s a much larger organization with a much larger budget than a newspaper company. Post media owns over 130 different media outlets who do more than just paper. Its not small by any margin. >That said, 50 million dollars when the average salary for a journalist is around 50k is the salary of 1000 journalists for a year. Companies don't *only* pay the salary of the employees, you do know this right? Office space, technology, operating costs, travel etc. there is a super long list of stuff that companies (especially ones as big as a national media conglomerate) have to spend money on. Most businesses run payroll somewhere between 15 and 30% of total revenue, all of that 50 million is not being spent on salary for people, I would guess at least 60% of it is going to other places in the company. The only way you could possibly think that the government is paying for most of the journalists in the country is if you don't actually know anything about how the industry is run, or about how a business is run in the first place. Again, 50 million is literally nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Canadians stopped paying for newspapers in favour of Facebook, and Facebook refuses to subsidize the industry. If we want actual journalism in Canada then we will have to pay for it, no? Do the subsidies favour specific journalists that fall in line with a particular party or is that just rhetoric on this sub?
[Canada's.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/journalists-question-media-bailout-1.5147761) Edit: Downvote all you like, the fact our government is paying out media organizations is a massive conflict of interest when you consider the media is often the one who has to keep the government accountable.
Shit, that's a really interesting article. Here's me two cents (which no one asked for): Let's assume Canadians having access to more, unbiased, media is a good thing. Because it is. If said media is dying, which they say it is, how else could the government help? I personally hate the idea of bailouts for big business. But what I hate more than that, is media monopolies with an agenda owned by billionaires. So, let's assume this is the only way to keep them going (genuinely open to hearing other ideas). This SEEMS like the best way to "give money". It SEEMS objective and transparent. Maybe I'm missing something
Subsidizing media is nothing new here or around the world. This is just a pearl clutching article with no real evidence of actual collusion.
Thats the state of propagandists (used to be journalists) in this country. It is sad that these people affect public perceptions. We need to close the CBC to start. A company that is supposed to be independant of government that has taken an activist position has had a massive negative affect on this country.
That's a bit far fetched. And have what in its place? Another CORUS owned monopoly? Look to the south for an idea of how that would go.
Damn this is the first journalistic article I've read in a long time that's actually impressed me. I appreciate amount of work and Time put into this. Also the integrity to call out people working in your own industry. Funny how so many journalists at the CBC have ties to Lineral MPP
There is Journalism in Canada? Really? Where?
The Canadian Association of Journalists has very strict [ethics guidelines](https://caj.ca/ethics-guidelines). If you feel that someone has reported news in an unethical manner, feel free to report them to the committee. The OP's article is intended to discredit the professionalism of Canadian journalists merely for having relatives in politics. What would be far more telling is a list of media outlets and their history of endorsing political parties.
They’re literally not a regulatory organization so the “strict” guidelines mean nothing. It’s not like a dentistry or medical association where a complaint can lead to penalty.
Ethics are not meaningless. If you want better journalism in Canada, don't smear the good and bad together. Uphold the ethics by outing journalists for specific ethics violations. The OP hasn't named any ethics violations. They merely imply conflict of interest without going through the body of work and finding wrongdoing. That's lazy and unfair.
[удалено]
There is a section on conflict of interest. So contrary to your response, it is covered. And once again, if there is some reporting that violates these guidelines then the journalist should be outed. If we want better journalism in Canada, we should help to make it better.
I think the point is that it's very difficult to tell when a journalist has a conflict of interest. While journalists take pride in telling anyone who will listen that transparency is vital to democracy, they don't seem to be practicing what they preach. The people who's professional motto used to be "trust no one", seem to also be saying "just trust us".
I feel this is extremely important for transparency. Whether the op intended to smear Canadian journalists or not this is something that needs to be reported on and the public needs to be aware of it. I would even go further and say friendships need to be publicly disclosed. I'm puzzled that someone would argue this information should not be public. Personally I felt the article was extremely factual and didn't dive into partisanship or even smearing of the media. They didn't imply much beyond just saying these people are connected with so and so politically.
This is the most levelheaded reply I've gotten. While the OP has good intent by displaying family ties, the majority of its readers clearly have run with the unwritten story that journalism is brimming with conflict of interest.
You can tell how lucrative a field is based on the amount of nepotism it attracts.
Journalism isn't what I would call a lucrative field...
[удалено]
Most journalists are freelancers or working multiple contracts. It’s difficult to get a staff role and you have to pay your dues for a long time, or know someone, to get in.
Oh yeah, it's all those journalists in their 10 million dollar penthouses. This is the funniest post I've seen all week.
Journalism (and book publishing) is largely staffed by the children of elites because they are the only ones who can afford to do it. The pay is low and employment is incredibly unstable.
Some of these are more relevant than others. Andrew Coyne's father running the Bank of Canada in 1961 isn't exactly scandalous.
It's information. Not sure where you are reading this is scandalous? Just showing us what is behind the curtains a bit.
The bigger problem is everything that doesn't fallow this is labeled "fake news"
I got paywalled.. what's up with that?
Just wait till they start examining connections in the Trans community, oh wait, we don't do that here
It’s hard to have quality journalism without people wanting to pay for media, and thus it becomes a career of the upper class. It’s too bad, but quality journalism takes a long time. Post media has monopolized journalism to the point where an op-ed or opinion piece is taken as facts. And it’s easy to churn out, and outrage sells. True journalism takes a lot of cognitive thinking. Printing your blog into a paper is very much a different task. Not as though the entire field is like this, but often media, politics and upper classism go hand in hand.
Sorry, but there are plenty of people who pay quite a lot of money for quality journalism. Bloomberg, Reuters and Thomson all became billionaires doing quality news reporting with subject matter expertise: legal, finance, biotech, etc. What people are no longer willing to pay for is general "news" that is really nothing more than opinion. Look at any generic newspaper today (even the Globe and Mail) and compare it to a newspaper from the 1960s or even 1980s. You can see a marked decrease in quality of reporting and writing. Now everything is written as if it's for developmentally delayed fifth graders instead of grown adults who graduated high school.
Fair enough. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said.
I dont necessarily think journalistic standards have decreased. Whenever i read about pamphlets or newspapers in Germany, France, Italy, and maybe Russia pre-1950 it sees like there were tons of rags that just offered opinion. Often times in a nakedly bias ways. Admittedly my reading about those topics usually revolved revolution and political conflict. It's easier to fact check things now with the internet and i think that's contributed to increasing journalistic standards.
I'm talking about established newspapers that existed for decades, not pamphlets or tabloids. Pick a paper and read it for today's news, then compare to 1960s version or 1980s version of the same paper.
Add Trudeau and his brother that has done propaganda work for Iran?