An interview on the crisis in Canadian media - and the path back to public trust - with Sue Gardner, former head of the Wikimedia Foundation and former CBC executive
1. CBC lost its mass viewership when it lost Hockey Night in Canada;
2. There is no diversity of thought at CBC because all power centres have at their heart a university educated 'professional', and universities are the indoctrination centres for the elite;
3. The only way the elite can mostly control the narrative is through legacy or establishment media, so the killing of upstarts through C18 is the one, two punch (funding media and killing upstarts) intended by the government/corporate/university/NGO/charity crowd.
Rest easy people, everything is going according to plan.
I’m not sure that I found this interview particularly enlightening. Ms. Gardner seemed to shy away from responding to the question that Tara asked about whether or not it is important to have diversity of thought represented in the media . I don’t live in Toronto, so I’m not familiar with the “ annex” perspective. However, in my opinion, Ms. Gardner’s suggestion that diversity of thought may be strengthened by having more local news coverage would not necessarily be effective. I’ve stopped reading or viewing much of the local news in my community . Often the goal of local reporting seems to be to create a news “worthy” situation by stoking the fires of division among community members. Local reporters often seem choose to write as social activists, rather than focussing on reporting the news truthfully, accurately and from a variety of perspectives.
While I enjoy most of Ms Henley’s interviews, this one didn’t inspire me. The Annex Voice is real but I disagree with the description of the homes being bought for a dollar and rebuilt. It is one of the most expensive neighbourhoods in the city and its residents are a mesh between academia and media. I also disagree with the idea that journalist are mostly progressive minded. There are loads of centrist journalists, but the MSM, especially the CBC, won’t hire them. And finally, I disagree with the notion that the reason that viewership and readership is down is because there are alternative sources on the internet. The reason is because the MSM/CBC lie. I was an avid loyal listener of CBC radio and would not have sought alternative sources (including Lean Out) had I not personally experienced the lies told my CBC etc. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. Hence my quest for more truthful sources.
Some very good insights, and some things that cause me concerns. Firstly, I have a concern about Wikimedia because of its association with Wikipedia. Wikipedia has obvious bias. It is useful when talking about geography and other settled issues, but not so much when dealing with controversy as it smears people who are not part of establishment perspective.
Trust absolutely needs to rebuilt, and it will be rebuilt by having local media who are reflective of the local community. For trust to be rebuilt, there also needs to a separation of Media and State, and Media and business similar to the separation of Church and state. Mechanisms for accountability are also required as correctives need to applied when individual reporters get it wrong, so they are under pressure to get it right. Most often reporters get it wrong when narratives are pursued instead of truth. They also get it wrong when they worry about Overton Windows instead of truth.
We need to be concerned with how to fund the gathering of accurate information, and not on the platform used to deliver the accurate information as that is a moving target. Gathering accurate information is a process, and not a destination. We need to "test the spirits" to see what is true. Truth is what holds up over time while being challenged. This means that we have to have many different organizations gathering information independently, and not just a few sources of truth.
How do we pay for this? Not sure, but what I do know is I don't want people who have a stake in particular outcomes having control over funding.
"The Annex Voice". So accurate and so-revealiing (including of one's self). And I know precisely both what it means and who it describes. I will add it to my lexicon. Along with limousine liberal.,
That was another super duper (for the annex-voiced boomers out there) episode. To balance the discourse though I do think an invite should be extended to one of those News Media Canada advocates/ lobbyists so we can hear the calculus of the side that supported c-18.
Clay Shirky's blog post, Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable, has been stuck in my head for years. Aside from the call for experimentation, there is this part, which still resonates:
"If you want to know why newspapers are in such trouble, the most salient fact is this: Printing presses are terrifically expensive to set up and to run. This bit of economics ... limits competition while creating positive returns to scale for the press owner, a happy pair of economic effects that feed on each other.
...
"For a long time, ... print journalism has been intertwined with these economics. The expense of printing created an environment where Wal-Mart was willing to subsidize the Baghdad bureau. This wasn’t because of any deep link between advertising and reporting, nor was it about any real desire on the part of Wal-Mart to have their marketing budget go to international correspondents. It was just an accident. Advertisers had little choice other than to have their money used that way, since they didn’t really have any other vehicle for display ads.
...
"The competition-deflecting effects of printing cost got destroyed by the internet, where everyone pays for the infrastructure, and then everyone gets to use it. And when Wal-Mart, and the local Maytag dealer, and the law firm hiring a secretary, and that kid down the block selling his bike, were all able to use that infrastructure to get out of their old relationship with the publisher, they did. They’d never really signed up to fund the Baghdad bureau anyway."
Too bad there was no real description of what exactly C-18 is, but let me highlight just one quote from this interview:
"Who benefits from Google and Facebook pointing people to news publisher websites? News publishers, right? That is why they vigorously compete to rank highly in Google search results. They have their own Facebook pages, where they are sharing their own news stuff. When people go to their websites, it makes them money because those people click on ads and those people are available to be turned into subscribers."
Who benefits? That is indeed the big question. And, for the life of me, I can't see how she can say that it's the journalists who are benefitting. The fact that journalism is dying an agonizing death while the Tech Giants have grown exponentially really ought to unambiguously answer the question of who benefits.
Good interview. Couple of comments.
1. CBC lost its mass viewership when it lost Hockey Night in Canada;
2. There is no diversity of thought at CBC because all power centres have at their heart a university educated 'professional', and universities are the indoctrination centres for the elite;
3. The only way the elite can mostly control the narrative is through legacy or establishment media, so the killing of upstarts through C18 is the one, two punch (funding media and killing upstarts) intended by the government/corporate/university/NGO/charity crowd.
Rest easy people, everything is going according to plan.
I’m not sure that I found this interview particularly enlightening. Ms. Gardner seemed to shy away from responding to the question that Tara asked about whether or not it is important to have diversity of thought represented in the media . I don’t live in Toronto, so I’m not familiar with the “ annex” perspective. However, in my opinion, Ms. Gardner’s suggestion that diversity of thought may be strengthened by having more local news coverage would not necessarily be effective. I’ve stopped reading or viewing much of the local news in my community . Often the goal of local reporting seems to be to create a news “worthy” situation by stoking the fires of division among community members. Local reporters often seem choose to write as social activists, rather than focussing on reporting the news truthfully, accurately and from a variety of perspectives.
While I enjoy most of Ms Henley’s interviews, this one didn’t inspire me. The Annex Voice is real but I disagree with the description of the homes being bought for a dollar and rebuilt. It is one of the most expensive neighbourhoods in the city and its residents are a mesh between academia and media. I also disagree with the idea that journalist are mostly progressive minded. There are loads of centrist journalists, but the MSM, especially the CBC, won’t hire them. And finally, I disagree with the notion that the reason that viewership and readership is down is because there are alternative sources on the internet. The reason is because the MSM/CBC lie. I was an avid loyal listener of CBC radio and would not have sought alternative sources (including Lean Out) had I not personally experienced the lies told my CBC etc. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. Hence my quest for more truthful sources.
The reason there is less trust in our institution is because they are untrustworthy.
With all the news sources available to the average Joe, he has become quite adept in sniffing out bullshit.
Some very good insights, and some things that cause me concerns. Firstly, I have a concern about Wikimedia because of its association with Wikipedia. Wikipedia has obvious bias. It is useful when talking about geography and other settled issues, but not so much when dealing with controversy as it smears people who are not part of establishment perspective.
Trust absolutely needs to rebuilt, and it will be rebuilt by having local media who are reflective of the local community. For trust to be rebuilt, there also needs to a separation of Media and State, and Media and business similar to the separation of Church and state. Mechanisms for accountability are also required as correctives need to applied when individual reporters get it wrong, so they are under pressure to get it right. Most often reporters get it wrong when narratives are pursued instead of truth. They also get it wrong when they worry about Overton Windows instead of truth.
We need to be concerned with how to fund the gathering of accurate information, and not on the platform used to deliver the accurate information as that is a moving target. Gathering accurate information is a process, and not a destination. We need to "test the spirits" to see what is true. Truth is what holds up over time while being challenged. This means that we have to have many different organizations gathering information independently, and not just a few sources of truth.
How do we pay for this? Not sure, but what I do know is I don't want people who have a stake in particular outcomes having control over funding.
"The Annex Voice". So accurate and so-revealiing (including of one's self). And I know precisely both what it means and who it describes. I will add it to my lexicon. Along with limousine liberal.,
That was another super duper (for the annex-voiced boomers out there) episode. To balance the discourse though I do think an invite should be extended to one of those News Media Canada advocates/ lobbyists so we can hear the calculus of the side that supported c-18.
Clay Shirky's blog post, Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable, has been stuck in my head for years. Aside from the call for experimentation, there is this part, which still resonates:
"If you want to know why newspapers are in such trouble, the most salient fact is this: Printing presses are terrifically expensive to set up and to run. This bit of economics ... limits competition while creating positive returns to scale for the press owner, a happy pair of economic effects that feed on each other.
...
"For a long time, ... print journalism has been intertwined with these economics. The expense of printing created an environment where Wal-Mart was willing to subsidize the Baghdad bureau. This wasn’t because of any deep link between advertising and reporting, nor was it about any real desire on the part of Wal-Mart to have their marketing budget go to international correspondents. It was just an accident. Advertisers had little choice other than to have their money used that way, since they didn’t really have any other vehicle for display ads.
...
"The competition-deflecting effects of printing cost got destroyed by the internet, where everyone pays for the infrastructure, and then everyone gets to use it. And when Wal-Mart, and the local Maytag dealer, and the law firm hiring a secretary, and that kid down the block selling his bike, were all able to use that infrastructure to get out of their old relationship with the publisher, they did. They’d never really signed up to fund the Baghdad bureau anyway."
Too bad there was no real description of what exactly C-18 is, but let me highlight just one quote from this interview:
"Who benefits from Google and Facebook pointing people to news publisher websites? News publishers, right? That is why they vigorously compete to rank highly in Google search results. They have their own Facebook pages, where they are sharing their own news stuff. When people go to their websites, it makes them money because those people click on ads and those people are available to be turned into subscribers."
Who benefits? That is indeed the big question. And, for the life of me, I can't see how she can say that it's the journalists who are benefitting. The fact that journalism is dying an agonizing death while the Tech Giants have grown exponentially really ought to unambiguously answer the question of who benefits.
Th C18 Bill is similar to a parasite looking for a new host.