The End of the Virtual Land of the Free

[OldSolduer]

Do you really get your news from those sources?

Honest question. I tend to have favourites and or just use the URLs.

heavens no.

For the most part newspaper and CTV news. I never watch CNN or Fox. CBC isn’t bad but I
Think it’s time the purse strings were pulled in

 

[QV]

That's fair.

So, honest question: When the CPC was in power, was the CBC still a "govt mouthpiece" because it was govt-funded, or anti-govt bc it was left wing?

Harper reduced CBC's funding and Trudeau promised to re-instate those hundreds of millions. Harper paid for that with very bad press during the campaign in 2015. So to answer your question, yes the CBC is at the moment a government mouthpiece but more accurately should be called a LPC mouthpiece.

 

[Furniture]

I'm curious as to why folks have this hatred towards the CBC, but I don't see (or haven't noticed) Brits hating the BBC or Aussies hating the ABC with equal or more vigour.

If anything, those two are even more govt-funded - they have no commercials so 100% of the funds must come from somewhere.

I suspect it's the quite blatant left leaning bias of the CBC, combined with the fact that a fair number of Canadians don't lean that way and hate seeing their tax money fund people who pretty openly distain them. I could be wrong though...

It's probably the generation I belong to but I go to news sites to get news, not social media. Granted, I do it online. I've always wondered why people thought that other sites 're-broadcasting' information for profit, that they obtained free, was fair to people who created the content in the first place. Do people who believe 'mainstream media' has a nefarious agenda honestly believe that social media does not? That is somehow pure as the driven snow? You want to see media bias, read archived newspapers from a century or more ago.

The thing is, the media leaned into using social media to generate clicks(ad revenue) for their sites, and now wants social media to pay for the privilege of generating traffic for the media.

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the tech companies are not working to their own benefit, but that doesn't mean you need to like the legacy media either. They made their bed, they can lie in it.

 

[lenaitch]

I suspect it's the quite blatant left leaning bias of the CBC, combined with the fact that a fair number of Canadians don't lean that way and hate seeing their tax money fund people who pretty openly distain them. I could be wrong though...


The thing is, the media leaned into using social media to generate clicks(ad revenue) for their sites, and now wants social media to pay for the privilege of generating traffic for the media.

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the tech companies are not working to their own benefit, but that doesn't mean you need to like the legacy media either. They made their bed, they can lie in it.

Fair point. I think in the earlier days everyone jumped onto social media like it was the Holy Grail, only to find later that they chose poorly. If a legacy media is trying to get people onto their own site and generate ad revenue, fair enough. They're the ones to have to pay for the journalists, videographers, etc. Facebook or whoever poaching the same articles for free just strikes me as wrong. If there is some legal issue with the content, the social media platforms will be the first to say they aren't the content creators.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If I want news, I go to that news company website. Not Google or Facebook.

I ditched Google some time ago and only use Facebook to steal and repost memes.

 

[CBH99]

Fair point. I think in the earlier days everyone jumped onto social media like it was the Holy Grail, only to find later that they chose poorly. If a legacy media is trying to get people onto their own site and generate ad revenue, fair enough. They're the ones to have to pay for the journalists, videographers, etc. Facebook or whoever poaching the same articles for free just strikes me as wrong. If there is some legal issue with the content, the social media platforms will be the first to say they aren't the content creators.

I think it's a two way street though...

On the one hand, it is legacy media writing the articles (and any associated photos/video) - and I agree that if social media just reposts those same articles & generates money from doing so, that is unfair.

However, social media brings the number of views of an article to an entirely new level, and directs global traffic to the legacy media's site (if linked) that wouldnt otherwise be known out of a certain area or country.


One analyst I read an opinion from shortly after the Online News Act was passed, was that he WANTED his articles to get posted on the big social media sites. The number of clicks they received would skyrocket compared to those that didn't, and advertisers gained interest.



So I agree on the one hand it seems unfair, but on the other hand having that content on social media benefits both the social media sites AND the legacy sites who's articles get linked.

(I also have about as much expertise in this arena as a guy who stayed at a Holiday Inn last night...)

 

[Brad Sallows]

A fundamental feature of the World Wide Web is that any content put up without a paywall or some kind of authentication block is freely available to anyone to peruse (even if they just stumble across it by "cold-calling" IP addresses and/or domain names and other parts of pathnames) and to bring to the attention of anyone else via links; no-one who provides a link is obligated to pay for it. Likewise, anyone is permitted to contract with ad services to exchange ad placements for revenue. This applies to all web content publishers. These two things are independent of each other.

There is no particular principle for treating news media and social media web sites as exceptions from Joe Blow's Blog.

Unless social media publishers are scraping paywalled content and providing it to their readers in clear, I can not make out what principle supports the demands of news media publishers. All I can see is a lobby group having trouble making ends meet which somehow successfully lobbied politicians into trying to create some sort of rent-collecting scheme.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

That's fair.

So, honest question: When the CPC was in power, was the CBC still a "govt mouthpiece" because it was govt-funded, or anti-govt bc it was left wing?

It receives $billions in funding annually and has had its funding envelope dramatically increased by the current GoC.

It's a mouthpiece for the LPC

CBC vs. CPC: when bias isn’t just perceived anymore

Musings

warrenkinsella.com

 

[dapaterson]

Billions annually? Last figure I can find is $1.24B

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Billions annually? Last figure I can find is $1.24B

Yes, $1.24b is over a billion dollars, so $billions annually.

 

[Remius]

Yes, $1.24b is over a billion dollars, so $billions annually.

Pretty sure that isn’t how it works…

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Pretty sure that isn’t how it works…

How does it work precisely?

 

[Remius]

How does it work precisely?

I went and took a look actually since I questioned myself after posting.

Americans (American English) tend to use it then way you postulated it. « More than »

My upbringing in school was adverse to American English. Billions would be assumed to be multiple Billions and not a billion +1 dollar.

Learned something new.

 

[RangerRay]

So not sure what to make of this. A few days ago, I got a notification from Facebook that they will no longer allow Canadian news. Ok, I get why. A few days later, my newsfeed is flooded with Globe and Mail posts. I have a subscription to the Globe, but my newsfeed has never been flooded by them like it is now. I thought Facebook wasn’t allowing Canadian news sites post? Anyone else notice anything similar?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

So not sure what to make of this. A few days ago, I got a notification from Facebook that they will no longer allow Canadian news. Ok, I get why. A few days later, my newsfeed is flooded with Globe and Mail posts. I have a subscription to the Globe, but my newsfeed has never been flooded by them like it is now. I thought Facebook wasn’t allowing Canadian news sites post? Anyone else notice anything similar?

Yes it's due to C18. I don't use google anymore, use a different browser where I get all the news I want.

 

[RangerRay]

Yes it's due to C18. I don't use google anymore, use a different browser where I get all the news I want.

Yeah I just figured I wouldn’t see any Globe articles on Facebook anymore, instead of getting flooded.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Yeah I just figured I wouldn’t see any Globe articles on Facebook anymore, instead of getting flooded.

I always suspected this was the real point of this bill.

"Digital Gerrymandering"

 

[Furniture]

Yeah I just figured I wouldn’t see any Globe articles on Facebook anymore, instead of getting flooded.

When I read the notification from FB it said that over the next few weeks there wouldn't be new links on the platform. Maybe the G&M is spamming people to make it seem like FB is doing them dirty, and not like their side tried to do FB dirty and lost.

 

[RangerRay]

I always suspected this was the real point of this bill.

"Digital Gerrymandering"

I figured the point was to turn the country into a digital news desert and prop up the remaining legacy media companies with government lucre.

Still not sure why I am seeing more Globe articles than ever when they were supposed to be not permitted.

 

[FJAG]

I've never actually used either Google or Facebook for news feed. I go directly to the news providers site, CNN, BBC , CBC, NationalPost, even Fox. My guess is C18 won't effect my news browsing habit at all.

We'll see.