Category Archives: Opinion

| Opinion, Radio, TV

Who killed Corus? Assessing blame for the media company’s decline

Corus Entertainment, which owns Global TV, specialty channels like Showcase, YTV, History, W Network, Home and Flavour, and radio stations in Ontario and western Canada, is dying a slow death.

It’s currently awaiting received CRTC approval for a plan that would dilute its stock enough to hand 99% of its equity to its debt holders, which means the Shaw family giving up control of the company to private equity, whose main focus will be the bottom line.

The transaction has become necessary because of Corus’s very heavy debt load. According to its most recent financial report in June, the company has more than a billion dollars in debt, and its total liabilities exceed its total assets by more than 50%. It’s spending more than $10 million a month just on debt interest payments. The proposed deal would cancel $500 million in debt in exchange for 99% equity, which effectively values the company at $505 million.

As recently as 2017, Corus’s market capitalization was over $2 billion. Now, because of the dire financial situation and pending dilution, Corus stock is trading at 3.5 cents and its market cap is $6 million.

While the deal would go a long way to bringing Corus closer to a break-even point, the company will probably continue to struggle going forward unless something dramatic changes.

How did we get here? Who caused this once great company to get to this point? Turns out there’s plenty of blame to go around if you’re trying to find people to point fingers at. Here are my prime suspects:

Continue reading →

| Opinion, Radio

Rogers strikes another big blow to AM talk radio

It was just over three years ago that Bell Media announced it was shutting down a bunch of AM talk radio stations in markets like Vancouver, Calgary and Hamilton.

This week, it’s Rogers’s turn to do the same.

As part of cuts to 230 jobs across the country, Rogers Sports and Media is shutting down the following stations:

  • CKWX 1130 NewsRadio Vancouver
  • CISL Sportsnet 650 Vancouver
  • CFFR 660 NewsRadio Calgary
  • CFAC Sportsnet 960 Calgary
  • CKGL 570 NewsRadio Kitchener
  • CJNI-FM 95.7 NewsRadio Halifax

Rogers tells Broadcast Dialogue that it will return the stations’ licences to the CRTC. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some interest in buying them, particularly the FM station in Halifax (though it does come with a specialty talk licence, so a buyer would need to either change that or propose a talk format). Though Bell and Rogers don’t see much of a future in AM outside Toronto, others might. Akash Broadcasting, for example, bought the station that used to be TSN Radio in Winnipeg and tried to buy an AM station in Calgary from Bell Media. If you’re interested, get in touch with Rogers now before they hand back the licences.

The dozens of people laid off as a result of these closures may struggle to find other jobs. Vancouver’s other sports radio stations, both TSN, switched to other cheaper formats in 2018 and 2021 and were eventually shut down. Radio news people in Vancouver and Calgary could maybe look for jobs at the Corus talk stations in those cities, but Corus isn’t exactly swimming in extra cash these days.

Some media outlets have sprung up to take over some of the slack from these cuts. Stingray started Sports 1440 in Edmonton in the wake of TSN Radio’s shutdown in that city. CHEK TV in Victoria brought in TSN orphans Rick Dhaliwal and Don Taylor after TSN Radio in Vancouver pulled the plug. But no one in radio has infinite money and they can’t hire everyone.

There’s also the question of what happens to sports radio broadcasts where Sportsnet had the rights. The Vancouver Province says Canucks games will remain on a Rogers station, which would mean either Kiss 104.9 or Jack 96.9. But Flames games are up for grabs. Without a sports station in the market, the most logical landing spot would be the remaining commercial talk station, Corus’s CHQR 770. But we’ll see what happens.

Continue reading →

| Opinion, Public transit, West Island

It’s time we start actually consulting during public consultations

A week ago, the STM launched a new bus network for the north end and West Island to better connect routes with the REM and make other changes to boost efficiency. The off-island Presqu’île sector of Exo also made similar changes to better connect travellers with the Anse-à-l’Orme REM station.

The STM’s major overhaul of West Island routes, probably the biggest since 1997 when it created routes like the 207, 217, 218 and 268, or at least 2005 when it launched the 470 express bus to Côte-Vertu, was an opportunity to make a lot of commuters’ lives easier, reducing the number of connections, simplifying routes and getting people from Point A to Point B as fast as possible.

But a week later, West Island and off-island commuters are piling on the complaints, saying the changes have made things worse:

  • Off-island students who took Exo buses to CEGEP Gérald-Godin in Ste-Geneviève and Vanier College or Côte-Vertu, which also serves Vanier College, faced having to make two transfers after the Exo buses were redirected to the REM. Their protests led to a temporary extension of those buses, but only until the end of this week.
  • Off-island residents travelling to anywhere on the western leg of the Orange Line complained that replacing the 40 express bus with buses that go to the REM made their commutes significantly longer. Petitions were started and local MNAs involved. But besides the accommodation mentioned above, no changes were made.
  • Even those who want to go downtown found that the REM did not save any time compared to taking the commuter train.
  • Northern Beaconsfield NIMBYs protested about buses using their streets during rush hour.
  • Many West Island residents complaining in general that a route that used to be a single bus now requires a connection.

Normally, there’s a great way to avoid these problems, one governments love to require: public consultations. You present something to the public, get their thoughts on it, and consider those comments when making a decision.

The STM did this with its bus network overhauls. From 2018 to 2024 it held consultations in various sectors of the city, inviting the public to present their feedback and thoughts about a new bus network. You can even watch the videos of the events (many of which were online because of the pandemic), like this one for Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue/Baie-d’Urfé.

Having attended some of these consultations, I can’t say they were horrible. They did hear from plenty of people, and asked good questions, like which destinations people wanted to access or what links were missed with the previous network. People expressed legitimate concerns that I hope were taken into account.

The problem is that there was no further consultation after the changes were designed. No proposed routes were presented to the public. There was no opportunity for people to comment on new routes, route cancellations or changes. Everything was presented as a fait accompli a few weeks before they took effect, and no further changes were going to be considered.

Without disparaging what I’m sure was a lot of hard work by the employees involved in setting up these initial consultations, I feel like it was more for show than anything else. I don’t think the changes that were made are significantly different from what would have been done without these consultations. And I think the comments made about the changes after they were announced are far more helpful than asking people whether they think it’s important that they can get to school by bus.

Overall, I think the network overhauls by the STM and Exo did more good than bad. According to the STM’s data, more people will save time than will lose time on the new network, though most people won’t see any time savings with the REM. Some corrections can be made in the future by adjusting the new routes to deal with the unforeseen issues that come up.

But the next time a government wants to make changes like this that affect people’s daily lives, it might be a better idea to tell people what you’re going to change before asking them for their thoughts about those changes.

| Opinion, TV

The CRTC puts another patch on its mess of broken policies to keep local TV alive

Is the CRTC biased?

Is it captured by the telecom industry? Is it too inclined to bow to the demands of special interest groups? Is it too consumer-focused? Is it too liberal? Too conservative? Too bureaucratic? Too arbitrary? Too micromanaging?

The answer to all these questions is yes. Or at least very good arguments can be made for each of these, and some very good arguments can be made that on the whole, it tries its best to balance competing interests.

But one way the commission shows bias that really gets me is its deference to the status quo, how it will bend over backwards to keep things the way they are, to keep everyone happy, to resist changes in business models that might threaten industries.

That instinct isn’t all bad. The Canadian broadcasting system needs supports, and a well-regulated system is better than a chaotic one that can’t sustain itself or its many jobs.

But the desperation to prop up failing business models leads to some very inelegant policies that have glaring holes in them. And the way the CRTC subsidizes local television is a prime example of that.

Continue reading →

| Opinion

Hate won’t change people’s politics

This week would be a good one to stop consuming a lot of media.

Like many, I was glued to the internet and TV on Tuesday night to watch the results of the U.S. presidential election. I watched as states that were expected to be easily blue took a while to call, and swing states all turned red. I knew of the effect of the “red mirage” where ballots from larger cities or from mail-ins took longer to count, leaving open the possibility that the races would get closer. But then that didn’t happen, or didn’t happen enough, and eventually the math got to the point where, one after another, those critical states were called and the result of the election could be declared.

Once the suspense was over, I stopped watching TV. On social media, particularly platforms like TikTok, I first saw a lot of videos of people being shocked, or sad, or angry, or happy. Then I started seeing people offering their analysis of why Kamala Harris lost the election.

She wasn’t aggressive enough against the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza. She didn’t do enough to court Jewish voters. She was too tied to the Biden administration. She didn’t spend enough time defending the Biden administration. She was too far to the left, alienating centrist voters. She was too centrist, alienating her base. She wasn’t a good communicator. She focused too much on abortion. Blah, blah, blah. All sorts of theories, very little evidence behind them other than gut feelings.

About the only thing everyone seemed to agree on is that she and her campaign failed. It doesn’t matter if she got 47.5% of votes when the other guy got 50.8% of votes.

In a sense, of course, they’re right. He won. She lost. But what bothers me is that we’re focused on 130,000 votes in Pennsylvania, 80,000 in Michigan and 30,000 in Wisconsin, instead of asking questions about the other 150 million or so votes. We’ve become so consumed by the horse race mentality that we ignore the big picture.

On the day after the election, one common sentiment I saw from people I don’t know is that yes, it is perfectly acceptable to paint more than 70 million Americans as racist, sexist, transphobic, horrible people for voting the way they did. It is perfectly acceptable to hate those people.

And in a free country, you are allowed to dislike people for their political views. You can dismiss them or ignore them or call them names.

But you’re not going to change anyone’s mind by hating them. And you’re not going to win elections if you can’t change minds. And you’re not going to change the world if you can’t win elections.

Continue reading →

| Media, Opinion

The Supreme Court, “person with a vagina” and knee-jerk outrage culture

Did the Supreme Court of Canada ban the use of the word “woman” because it’s gotten too woke?

Reading the coverage of a recent decision, you might be justified in thinking that’s the case. It’s not, of course. A simple reading of the decision would confirm that by any reasonable analysis. But even when presented with the facts, the people who cranked the outrage machine insist they’re right.

Which is a bit concerning because they’re all people who work or have worked as journalists for mainstream media.

The decision in question is called R. v. Kruk, and dated March 8 (coincidentally, International Women’s Day). But the outrage circus started March 13 when the National Post published its daily opinion newsletter from Tristin Hopper, titled “Supreme Court decision opts for ‘person with a vagina’ over ‘woman'”. It starts as follows:

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a recent sexual assault case that it was “problematic” for a lower court judge to refer to the alleged victim as a “woman,” implying that the more appropriate term should have been “person with a vagina.”

In a decision published Friday, Justice Sheilah Martin wrote that a trial judge’s use of the word “a woman” may “have been unfortunate and engendered confusion.”

Martin does not specify why the word “woman” is confusing, but the next passage in her decision refers to the complainant as a “person with a vagina.” Notably, not one person in the entire case is identified as transgender, and the complainant is referred to throughout as a “she.”

Right-wing and clickbait social media accounts and websites and even news media pounced on Hopper’s interpretation of the decision, as did Journal de Montréal columnist Richard Martineau, who wrote in a column published the next day that “Il n’y a plus de femmes au Canada!” (There’s no more women in Canada!)

Martineau repeats the two key points of Hopper’s analysis, that the Supreme Court ruled a lower court’s use of the word “woman” was problematic, and that the Supreme Court says judgments should instead say “person with a vagina.”

Martineau’s column, in turn, prompted Martine Biron, Quebec’s minister responsible for the status of women, to present an emergency motion in the National Assembly condemning the Supreme Court’s words. Co-signed by Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, Liberal MNA André Morin and independent (formerly Liberal) MNA Marie-Claude Nichols, it passed unanimously.

There’s just one problem. That stuff about the Supreme Court finding a problem with the word “woman”, and saying courts should use “person with a vagina” instead? It’s not true.

Continue reading →

| Media, Opinion

10 ways the government can help the news industry without just giving them money

It’s hard times in the journalism industry, and the government wants to help.

The first part of that sentence isn’t really arguable. News outlets that haven’t shut down completely have significantly downsized, and though there are new sources of news these days, they don’t have anywhere near the kinds of resources that newspapers, magazines and television and radio stations used to have. As a result, many stories go unreported or underreported, and society is poorer for it.

Governments are aware of this and have put forward ways to help. Some make sense and are fairly uncontroversial, like tax credits for news subscriptions or allowing news outlets to receive charitable donations. Others have been spectacular failures, like Bill C-18. Most have been somewhere in between, consisting of direct or indirect funding to those organizations who qualify based on criteria set by bureaucrats at (hopefully) an arm’s length from the political machine.

Deciding who is and isn’t a journalist, and deciding how much money they should get, creates a lot of problems. It could lead to a slippery slope where some CRTC-like body starts micromanaging journalism and infringing (in fact or in practice) on our rights to free expression.

But handing out money isn’t the only thing that could help the news industry these days. Here are 10 suggestions from me on things the government can do that would make things better that don’t include direct handouts.

Continue reading →

| Media, Opinion, Technology

What is the basis for forcing big tech to pay for news?

Bill C-18, the Online News Act, aka “An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada,” has been passed by the House of Commons and Senate and signed into law.

Now, finally, after desperate demands from Canada’s news media, big tech companies like Meta (Facebook) and Alphabet (Google) will be required to compensate them for use of their news content.

Except, no.

Instead, Meta has already announced that it will choose to block access to Canadian news content on its platforms (including Facebook and Instagram), as it said it would do when the bill was working its way through the legislature. Google has done the same after failed talks with the government. Both have already begun tests of how they would accomplish this, though it’s not entirely clear how they will implement such blocking when they go ahead with it.

On top of that, both have announced that they will end existing programs that help fund news media, including a Facebook deal with The Canadian Press and the Google News Showcase.

This clearly is not what the government or the news media want. Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez says the government needs to “stand up for Canadians against tech giants,” while just about every media outlet has issued a statement accusing Meta and Google of censorship.

But while politicians are pointing fingers at each other, perhaps it’s well past time to ask a very simple question:

Why does this law exist, exactly?

In other words, what problem is it trying to solve?

Continue reading →

| Opinion, TV

Your guide to the new CanCon dramas of 2023

Canadian content. Depending on your views about the broadcasting industry, it’s either an important public policy to ensure Canada has its distinct culture and its citizens consume it, it’s a nationalist protection of cultural sector jobs to prevent talent from moving to Hollywood, or it’s a waste of taxpayer money for poor-quality TV shows that no one wants to watch.

Or maybe a combination of all the above.

This winter and spring saw a bigger than usual crop of new English Canadian scripted series on TV, and with a mix of curiosity and patriotic obligation, I decided to sample each of them.

While funding has always been a challenge for homegrown Canadian TV, discoverability has been an increasingly large one as well. You’re no longer limited to a handful of channels on TV, and even most people with TVs don’t watch a lot of their shows live. Without discoverability, a fantastic Canadian series could be lost to history because no one gave it a chance.

Canadian TV networks are trying. CBC has been pushing its series during Hockey Night in Canada, while CTV has aired endless commercials for its series during more popular programs.

They could do better, though. CTV and Citytv have their series behind online paywalls, requiring TV subscribers to sign in even though CTV and Citytv themselves are available free over the air. And if your TV provider doesn’t have deals with those networks (like, say, Videotron), then you can’t sign in to get access to these series. You’ll either have to wait for reruns or hope they show up on Netflix some day.

Anyway, to help give these series a discoverability boost, I watched a few episodes of each and provide a quick review. Some probably aren’t your cup of tea, and that’s okay, but if some sound interesting to you, and you have access, maybe give them a shot.

Continue reading →

| Media, Opinion

Five years after La Presse, seven more French-language newspapers go online-only

Are we witnessing, finally, the death of the newspaper?

I don’t necessarily mean it in a bad way. Most of the time when you hear about a newspaper or magazine going “online-only” it’s a cost-cutting measure that signals the publication’s impending death (no matter how much they claim otherwise).

But as the business model for print media changes, the balance appears to be tipping to the point where it makes more and more sense to go online-only even if you still employ dozens or even hundreds of professionals doing daily journalism.

La Presse publisher Guy Crevier explained the math to me 10 years ago, before that publication decided to make the big leap. Publishing a print edition comes with a lot of overhead costs. The pages have to be designed, both in terms of news content and advertising. The newspaper needs to be printed, either at your own plant or by a third party. The newspaper then needs to be distributed through a network of delivery people who need to work before sunrise every day the paper publishes. And you need a subscriptions department to manage print subscriptions and deal with all the issues that come up.

What’s more, many of those costs don’t scale linearly. As print subscribers and print ad revenue dwindle, it costs more per subscriber to produce. And subscribers will tolerate price increases only so much.

In January 2016, La Presse took the first step toward weaning itself from its identity as a newspaper by cutting down to one print issue a week. Two years later, it abandoned print entirely.

Other once-daily newspapers have also taken that first step in going weekly, like Métro. Some, like Saltwire and Postmedia publications, have taken a more gradual approach, dropping Monday editions.

More newspapers dropping the paper part

On Wednesday, the Coopérative nationale de l’information indépendante (CN2i) announced its six newspapers — Le Soleil in Quebec City, Le Droit in Ottawa-Gatineau, La Tribune in Sherbrooke, Le Nouvelliste in Trois-Rivières, Le Quotidien in Saguenay and La Voix de l’Est in Granby — would cease producing print editions at the end of the year. The six newspapers had all dropped down to weekly publication at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, mere weeks after they had been sold to employee cooperatives out of the ashes of Groupe Capitales Médias. (This month the group announced its cooperatives would merge into one to cut down on overhead.)

The CN2i sugarcoated the announcement with news about a new website and mobile app, saying this was the plan all along. They expect to drop 100 print-centric jobs but will do what they can to encourage voluntary departures and otherwise minimize layoffs.

A week ago, Quebecor’s 24 Heures, which was born as a free commuter daily in 2001, announced it too would cease publishing in print. A note to readers was not quite as upbeat as the one from CN2i, talking about grieving but still promising to be active online and social media.

How long before more take the plunge? Maybe not that long.

Quebecor’s Journal de Montréal and Journal de Québec took pride in proclaiming that they would remain print newspapers when La Presse transitioned away from print. But even they eventually had to face the music, and announced in December that they would no longer be publishing in print on Sundays.

The Montreal Gazette, my employer, has also stuck to print editions, partly because its print readership skews older, but even then it dropped Monday print editions.

Le Devoir has also stuck to print editions, in part to separate itself from La Presse. But I would not be surprised if they too eventually decide print isn’t worth it anymore (especially because they’re printed by Quebecor and at the whims of the business decisions of Quebecor’s printing plants).

Will it work?

A decade after the launch of La Presse+, which the publication quickly dubbed its flagship product, things seem to be going well. In its latest annual report, it reported a surplus, which it is using to build a reserve fund. And while the nonprofit is accepting donations from readers, it would still have had a surplus even without those donations. It says 80% of its revenue still comes from advertising.

That’s not to say the iPad app is a runaway success. La Presse has put more effort into its website and mobile apps, understanding that it can’t push everyone toward tablets. And the Toronto Star’s StarTouch project, based on La Presse+, was a spectacular and expensive failure.

But this is proof there’s hope out there for what were once daily subscription newspapers. If they are willing to invest and innovate, and stop trying to prop up the old business model by cutting expenses until they whittle themselves into nothing, they might be able to come out of this.

Unfortunately, for a lot of publications, the focus isn’t so much on innovation as it is on finding magical solutions like getting Facebook and Google to give them a bunch of money.