Canada private media bailout is coming

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
SeekingAPolitic...
Canada private media bailout is coming

$$$$$

Issues Pages: 
SeekingAPolitic...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-media-need-a-100-m...

 

There is a report with in the article.  Rabble is mentioned a couples times in the report :).  I have alot problems just giving finincial support to giant press orgranizations.  And they want to make changes with CBC which I don't like.  This put before the Heritage committee and I spoke with the clerk to committie to as to present a written submission that will point of objectable ideas in report.  If anyone wants to make a written submission to the Hertiage committe let me know and I post the procedure. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The headline should read Industry Insider Seeks Payola from Government.

Quote:

According to PPF president Edward Greenspon, the move would free up $300-million to $400-million that could be “dedicated” to a new Journalism & Democracy Fund, which would be managed independently from the government. The fund would reinvest the money in “digital innovation” and seek to foster “civic-function journalism,” especially local news, investigative journalism and indigenous news operations, the report said.

Quote:

Edward Greenspon (born March 26, 1957) is a Canadian journalist who joined Bloomberg News in January 2014 as Editor-at-Large for Canada after four years as vice president of strategic investments for Star Media Group, a division of Torstar Corp. and publisher of the Toronto Star. Before that, he was the Editor-in-Chief of The Globe and Mail newspaper, based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada for seven years. In 2002, he assumed the position at a turning point in the paper's history, and, during his tenure, he instituted several sectional revamps, launched new web sites and maintained circulation levels. On May 25, 2009, he was replaced by John Stackhouse.[1]

Greenspon is a former managing editor of the Globe's Report on Business Section and was the Globe's Ottawa bureau chief before becoming editor-in-chief. He was the founding editor of globeandmail.com. He is the father of three children: Bailey, Joshua and Jacob.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Greenspon

 

Martin N.

The National now has 8 minutes of commercials surrounding a few celestial pronouncements from Himself. From the little I've heard, it looks like $300-400 mil a year to ensure the Natural Governing Party remains in power. Sunny ways and lazy days eternal.

6079_Smith_W

One thing left out of the radio coverage that I didn't see until I caught the CTV News tonight (something I don't ordinarily do)

Only 15 percent of online advertising goes to Canadian media. The other 85 percent goes to Facebook and Google, who don't get taxed on it.

If the money going back to Canadian media comes from there, I think it is fair, actually, so long as there is a guarantee it is going to wind up paying to hire journalists.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

One thing left out of the radio coverage that I didn't see until I caught the CTV News tonight (something I don't ordinarily do)

Only 15 percent of online advertising goes to Canadian media. The other 85 percent goes to Facebook and Google, who don't get taxed on it.

If the money going back to Canadian media comes from there, I think it is fair, actually, so long as there is a guarantee it is going to wind up paying to hire journalists.

I might like that idea if I get to chose the news media that gets the money. If it is going to the papers that Greenspon worked at I am not interested. 

Sean in Ottawa

There is a new generation of internet spin wizards with a new level of deceit that puts the previous generation of corporatist media hacks to shame. Even the hacks of the previous era had a limit -- they woudl distort and select rather than fabricate out of nothing.

You will see people with a longing for the old liars the more they get aquainted with the new ones.

There was a certainly professionalism to the nastiness of the past. I don't think this is an improvement.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think this Media Watch article is very good.

Quote:

Corporate media whines that others are responsible for its woes. But a big part of the problem is now that Canadians are able to access a great many information sites, many have grown to mistrusts mainstream media.

A public poll carried out for the study showed all media sectors performing poorly. Only 11 per cent of those polled said they totally trusted newspapers.

Greenspon has the nerve to write that Canada needs mainstream media to protect democracy. In reality, mainstream media has a corporate and conservative bias that began with the introduction of neoliberalism in the early 1980s. All but one Canadian daily endorsed the election of Stephen Harper, who headed the most right-wing government in modern times.

He also says the mainstream needs support to help weed out "false news," hinting it comes from places such as Google and Facebook.

Yes, false news is a problem, but there's also the fact that mainstream media produced stories that are seriously biased. It also ignores whole groups in society.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/media-watch/2017/01/greenspon-report-cor...

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I might like that idea if I get to chose the news media that gets the money. If it is going to the papers that Greenspon worked at I am not interested. 

Yup. I share that concern, especially since their strategy only made the problem worse. But even without their profit-grabbing there is a definite crisis.

For that matter, I wouldn't trust it if it was in the hands of government or some committee either. Nor do I trust the notion that CBC should become a news service so they have even less incentive to do their jobs.

But those advertising numbers don't lie. We are already being ripped off by even bigger corporate thieves.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Solving a theft problem by a bigger thief doesn't usually mean giving the keys to the safe to a thief who used to steal more but has now fallen on hard times. The US corporations who are so prevalent on the internet are doing to us what the big media and cable companies have been doing to us for a very long time. 

6079_Smith_W

Sure. Then tax them on it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sure. Then tax them on it.

Yup figuring out how to tax companies on the internet is really a global problem.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, it is a problem.

But considering the bigger problem is that the only revenue left to media is being sucked up by foreign social media companies which are outside our jurisdiction, there has to be some sort of solution.

 

pookie

HST/GST remittances from non-Canadian businesses is probably coming.  It will cause headaches for some (including Cdns since it is, after all, a consumption tax) but not Google and FB.  They already deal with it in other jurisdictions.

What it won't do is go anywhere other than general revenue as "Shattered Mirror" would have it do.  A dedicated tax to fund the media is a pipe dream. 

6079_Smith_W

If only for the reason that that revenue isn't the only issue - on the problem or solution side - I realize that it isn't as simple as a formal transfer. After all, they also want more cbc funding to offset the m getting out of the ad market, and to become an open news service. Again, not a good idea because it will be less of a reason to have more journalists.

6079_Smith_W

Also when one considers how much of the extra work journalists have been doing is BECAUSE of government, the federal in particular. Consider how much time and expense media have incurred making access to information requests and challenges.

On the one hand the field would probably be more balanced if the lions share of this effort went to small independent media (and some of it should). But there is also the problem of investigative work which requires a lot of time and a lot of money, which only larger media are capable of sustaining.

Now if there was an association of independent media which had the critical mass to take on this kind of work....

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yup figuring out how to tax companies on the internet is really a global problem.

I assume that Facebook (just for example) pays taxes... in the jurisdiction in which its physically located.

But do you mean that they should pay taxes in any country that can access Facebook?  If so, why?  Someone in Australia might be able to access and use Facebook, but it's not as though Facebook is consuming any Australian resources that it needs to pay for.

pookie

Yes the current popular theory that FB and Google don't pay taxes is drivel.

They pay corporate taxes just like any other company, depending on their primary jurisdiction.  Their national subsidiaries here are mostly HR vehicles to push their products - not make them - and they pay the taxes associated with employing people and consuming things on their behalf.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But do you mean that they should pay taxes in any country that can access Facebook?  If so, why?  Someone in Australia might be able to access and use Facebook, but it's not as though Facebook is consuming any Australian resources that it needs to pay for.

I think the issue is that Google and Facebook make their living off advertising, in one form or another. Thus, their product is consumer impressions, which they sell to advertisers. Without the users, they would have no revenue, with the users they make pots of money. If, say, 5% of FB's revenue comes from impressions by consumers in Australia, then it sounds quite reasonable to me that Australia might claim the right to tax that revenue.

6079_Smith_W

http://www.taxfairness.ca/en/news/what-facebook-really-thinks-canada

Quote:

The OECD is recommending that governments tax e-commerce companies. The European Union, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, South Korea, Japan, Switzerland, and South Africa, have modernized tax laws to ensure digital companies pay value added taxes and corporate income taxes on the profits they generate in their country. It's time Canada modernized its tax rules for e-commerce multinationals and leveled the playing field for Canadian businesses who pay their taxes.

Thing is, the current business activities form already includes declaring websites which you use to generate revenue.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Thus, their product is consumer impressions, which they sell to advertisers. Without the users, they would have no revenue, with the users they make pots of money. If, say, 5% of FB's revenue comes from impressions by consumers in Australia, then it sounds quite reasonable to me that Australia might claim the right to tax that revenue.

That's just bizarre.

If I, a Canadian, watch a web video with an ad for some Bulgarian car dealership, YouTube (let's say) should have to pay Bulgaria some munnee because I watched their ad, and might go to Sofia to buy my next car?

Here's a thought:  what if any country that resents YT or FB or IG or whoever for offering "their" people advertisements just goes ahead and bans YT or FB or IG?

Also, last I heard, the taxes we pay support our schools, and our roads, and our fire departments and suchlike.  Are we going to provide schools and roads and fire services to internet companies in other countries?  Or else what are their taxes paying for, besides our desire for more tax revenues?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Bizarre is in the eye of the beholder. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, and your arguments seem bizarre.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Also, you may have noticed that you do not see ads on internet sites for Bulgarian car dealerships, you see them for TD Canada Trust or Kellie Leitch. All the ads sold by these big internet companies are geographically targetted, not just by country, but also by much finer divisions.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

And one more thing. In your hypothetical, the tax revenue would go to Canada, not Bulgaria, because the eyeballs involved (yours) were Canadian. Bad deal for the Bulgarian car dealer, but that's not Canada's problem.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It seems perfectly reasonable to me

Can you tell us why a foreign country, whose website features adversisements, should pay taxes in Canada if Canadians look at that website?

Is it for fire services?  Health care?  Their Canadian pension?

What are they paying for, Michael?

Don't say "Canadian eyeballs" -- those are completely voluntary.  The internet is like the moon now -- we can all look at it.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Well, here's the deal. The transaction that earns the money for FB is the viewing of an ad, by a Canadian, in Canada. If you were to ask Canadians in a poll "Do you think it would be fair for Facebook to pay part of the revenue it earns by showing you ads to the Canadian government, to pay for healthcare and other services?" I'm betting that a pretty big majority would answer "yes". You may disagree, and it would be interesting to see an actual poll on this question.

Theoretically, the government could shut off FB if they refused to pay such a tax. It would no doubt be political suicide to do so, but in the hypothetical case of total solidarity by Canadian consumers, I'm quite sure that FB would be willing to pay some rate to continue showing ads in Canada. Optimizing profit would demand it.

Sean in Ottawa

@ Mr MacGoo

If the Bulgarian company is seen here with Bulgarian ads from Bulgarian companies that were destined for Bulgarian viewers then no tax. If they sell ads here for Canadians by Canadian companies competing with other Candian companies in this market, then they are a multinational with a precence here and can pay tax here. Michael is right -- your argument is bizarre.

Just the same as if the Bulgarians send a car to Canada -- even if they are overseas to build it they will pay tax on its sales here and will have a presence here to sell it. Advertising is a service. If sold in this country we have the right to tax it just the same as every other good or service sold here. When it is competing with Canadian businesses, getting money from Canadian business, using Canadian publicly and privately funded internet infrastructure, providing content to Canadian viewers it can be justifiably taxed.

Now we can tax the internet access or we can tax the sale of advertising for these products. We can set a tax at any rate we like -- by activity or type so long as it does not discriminate against individual companies. I think we can tax a share of the ad revenue without any problem at all in terms of moral authority.

6079_Smith_W

I just went on FB and the first ad is one for a car dealership in the city I happen to be visiting.

So no, it isn't "Bulgaria". And in many ways it is an offer as good if not better than what a lot of online Canadian media can offer.

And it isn't just advertising:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/07/12/time-to-tax-and-re...

 

LB Cultured Thought

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I just went on FB and the first ad is one for a car dealership in the city I happen to be visiting.

So no, it isn't "Bulgaria". And in many ways it is an offer as good if not better than what a lot of online Canadian media can offer.

And it isn't just advertising:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/07/12/time-to-tax-and-re...

 

So I just read that article from California. I assume the star will now be paying California sales and income taxes?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

LB Cultured Thought wrote:

So I just read that article from California. I assume the star will now be paying California sales and income taxes?

If any substantial portion of the Star's advertising revenue came from California views, there would be a case for this, but since such revenue is almost certainly negligible, the matter is moot.

If government can tax the ad revenue of tv stations and networks, there is no reason in principle why it shouldn't be able to tax the same ads, delivered to the same consumers over tcp/ip.

mmphosis

The "bail out" has been in effect for decades.  The CBC, the corporate so-called public broadcaster adveristing and all, a hulking skeleton of what might have been investigative journalism in the distant past -- most of what I see on CBC news is "analysis" which are opinion pieces by right-leaning pro-busyness writers, or "news" copied from corporatist news sources (with no comments allowed.)  On the private-side is the buyout of practically all news sources to push out journalists and to put in place advertising in the form of so-called news to push the corporatist agenda -- propoganda, manufactured "news", and the dead corporatist mediascape.

The "bail out" is that the internet is run by a few large monoliths that are given everything on a silver platter.  We pay astronomically high prices for dog-slow parted out copper. Public internet infrastructure could be full fiber-speed internet without caps, without restrictions, without filters, without speed limits and it would cost very little to free for Canadian citizens.

Trudeau promised to defund the huge give away to the dying fossil fuel industry.  I don't see that promise happening anytime soon, he may have "mispoke" all of the promises he made to get the Liberals back in to power.  The sinking corporate-media-ships need to be dismantled.  I would like to see, at the very least, some funding for arts, culture, and investigative journalism going directly to arists and journalists.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If they sell ads here for Canadians by Canadian companies competing with other Candian companies in this market, then they are a multinational with a precence here and can pay tax here. Michael is right -- your argument is bizarre.

Perhaps I misunderstood.  Certainly Facebook Canada should (and I assume does) pay taxes in Canada.

I'm not sure why the article we're talking about said this:

article wrote:
The OECD is recommending that governments tax e-commerce companies.

I read that as taxing companies that do not have a Canadian physical presence.

pookie

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But do you mean that they should pay taxes in any country that can access Facebook?  If so, why?  Someone in Australia might be able to access and use Facebook, but it's not as though Facebook is consuming any Australian resources that it needs to pay for.

I think the issue is that Google and Facebook make their living off advertising, in one form or another. Thus, their product is consumer impressions, which they sell to advertisers. Without the users, they would have no revenue, with the users they make pots of money. If, say, 5% of FB's revenue comes from impressions by consumers in Australia, then it sounds quite reasonable to me that Australia might claim the right to tax that revenue.

I think that is fine as long as everyone understands the tax consequences of considering earned income in the digital space to be defined based on the location of the user.  I don't pretend to, but I suspect it is neither that straightforward nor that easy.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I don't pretend to, but I suspect it is neither that straightforward nor that easy.

At any rate, I would hope that rabble.ca has a slush fund somewhere for when Australia demands taxes in payment for any Australian eyes that may have read their pages, or glimpsed at their ads.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I don't pretend to, but I suspect it is neither that straightforward nor that easy.

At any rate, I would hope that rabble.ca has a slush fund somewhere for when Australia demands taxes in payment for any Australian eyes that may have read their pages, or glimpsed at their ads.

rabble.ca should be so lucky as to have ad revenue that anybody would bother chasing, let alone Australia.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

pookie wrote:

I think that is fine as long as everyone understands the tax consequences of considering earned income in the digital space to be defined based on the location of the user.  I don't pretend to, but I suspect it is neither that straightforward nor that easy.

I agree that such a tax would be complicated to implement, but I think it is within the state of the art both technically and legally.

6079_Smith_W

It would be an issue if an Australian company decided to advertise to customers in Australia. And then only if that amount of advertising was significant enough for their government to bother with it.

If you are making money in a country for a service you provide in that country you should be taxed on it.

 

bekayne

No bailout coming.