canwest
December 8, 2009 - 6:11pm
personally if canwest went the way of the dodo bird it would be no loss to canucks... i am always impressed how the journalists forcanwest act like stooges to bring the bullshit coverage they do... oh, and no doubt they are supporters of harper or the liberals or any other status quo organization that isn't interested in ''''change'''.. they are frightened by the thought of it... i really hope they sink while public news forums like this become much more the norm...
if they have to rely on stupidity and exploitation, they are screwed... and indeed it appears to be the case!
Good post!
Unfortunately, though, there are some things that alternative media have a hard time doing, simply because of lack of resources. Like investigative journalism. It costs a LOT of money to do that kind of story, and for the most part, it's still the mainstream media doing that kind of thing, because alternative media runs on a shoestring, and no one involved can afford to make it their full-time job to chase a story for a month and not get paid a living wage for it.
It's something that's going to have to be resolved somehow, since as you say, huge media conglomorates and daily newspapers are going the way of the dodo.
glenn greenwald, marcy wheeler, and others do a very good job of investigative reporting, but by and large i agree with you.. i don't know if i would call what the mainstream corporate papers do as investigative reporting however..nyt and washington post are pathetic.. globe and mail is slightly better fortunately... i make a distinction between investigative reporting and propaganda... too much propaganda leaves me looking elsewhere... mainstream corp medias days are numbered... organizations like google on the other hand are much more dangerous... i think this is the new way - google and etc and i am not especially happy about that either... canwest lost me a long time ago and every time i happen to be in the vicinity of one of their rags and feel like reading propaganda i check it out... otherwise it is good for firestarter and that is it!!
i would be curious to know of blog writers in canada that have a similar ability to glenn or marcy that i mentioned above... i think blogs are the way of the future in terms of investigative news info...
mondoweiss blog is another example of investigative journalism, albiet with a very clear focus...
a lot of this i could have put in one post... if there is a way to edit ones posts to get rid a post to replace them with one long one, i would be curious to know the trick.. thanks
The best thing that could happen is for Torstar to buy these papers and then fire every single whinger that writes for them.
CanWest newspapers go on block despite CEO Asper's objections
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canwest-newspapers-go-on-block-despite-ceo-aspers-objections/article1424971/
Did anyone catch Judy Rebick, TorStar publisher guy and who was the third dude? on Q today? I heard the ad but missed the show, both times.
Me too. And, I've missed the rebroadcast. CBC radio has video of Q programs though, available on line.
Hear ya go:
http://www.cbc.ca/q/
Did anyone catch Judy Rebick, TorStar publisher guy and who was the third dude? on Q today? I heard the ad but missed the show, both times.
Margaret Wente is a dude?
Sorry, I just assumed that it was another dude 'cause i thought it was another MSM publisher.
The latest news on Canwest is basically that it's a done deal. They are now open to offers from other bidders, but that is just legal cleanup for hefty fees. There was no breakup, as there should have been, there is no returning these newspapers to the communities they used to serve.
What is remarkable is that it all remains intact, more or less, including the contemptible National Post. The NP has never made a profit, but it has served as an effective messenger for the right wing pro Israeli establishment in this country.
So what did this bankruptcy achieve?
Media Vultures Are Coming
http://www.countercurrents.org/baroud070110.htm
"Get ready for a flood of media consolidation deals...this is just the beginning of further concentration of media ownership.."
The Labour movement in Canada should consider buying them.
Media Vultures Are Coming
http://www.countercurrents.org/baroud070110.htm
"Get ready for a flood of media consolidation deals...this is just the beginning of further concentration of media ownership.."
It's hard to imagine a greater media consolidation than already exists on the West Coast where all the major dailies (Van Sun, Provence, Times Colonist) are already owned by Canwest with its Asper driven editorial policies, and NPost feeds.
It's also hard to imagine any change of hands that would move away from the moneyed political right which constitutes Canada's "press freedom".
Yet the Georgia Straight suggests a faint ray of hope (where things can hardly get worse-- one would think).
Canwest Publishing bankruptcy-protection filing could influence B.C. political landscape
By Charlie Smith
....
The Vancouver Sun endorsed the Stockwell Day-led Canadian Alliance in the 2000 federal election. The paper's editorials have also consistently supported Stephen Harper's actions and vehemently opposed the Liberal-NDP coalition to bring him down in late 2008.
In addition, the Canwest press has run very little critical commentary about the war in Afghanistan, which is opposed by a majority of Canadians. And it has been a cheerleader of the government's public-private parterships in health care, which will undermine Medicare.
Don't kid yourself. Neither the Vancouver Sun nor the Province will make an abrupt left turn under new corporate ownership. But there is a chance that whoever controls the papers in the future will realize the folly of the Asper-Conrad Black approach, which has been to promote the right wingers to the exclusion of almost everyone else.
That just ended up marginalizing the corporate press and reduced its appeal, its influence, and its profitability. A smart capitalist owner will realize this and bring about a more balanced approach, if for no other reason than to benefit the shareholders.
See the complete story here:
http://www.straight.com/article-280275/vancouver/canwest-publishing-bank...
Did anyone catch Judy Rebick, TorStar publisher guy and who was the third dude? on Q today? I heard the ad but missed the show, both times.
John Cruikshank, i think he was. Wente, and Judy. Judy pointed out there was no leftlib voice in the major papers, in Canada; Wente attacked the Star for its bias and it didn't matter anyway-nobody pays attention! Cruickshank pointed out the Star most popular newspaper in the land, to counter Wente's belief it only represented liberal elitist views etc. Blahblahblah.
It's hard to listen to 'Q' or the 'current' etc. Or the 'house' or 'As it happens' etc Ghomeshi (and tremonti for that matter) act as if they are stupid when some bald faced lie is thrown at them. Wente's constant support of harper and his warpiggery, and his scheming against democracy, in one of the biggest papers in nation, is never mentioned, or glossed over. Nudgewank... Judy Rebick stopped Wente from selling the harper brownshirt snake oil, but just barely. Wente came off as reasonable and legitimate (her book is titled 'you can't say that in Canada') but when Israel was mentioned, with the accusation of anti semiticsm laid in any criticism of Israel, which Rebick adeptly brought up; neither of the others tried denied it. A pretty good interview, all told, but why have Wente on anyway? She's harper's gas fart, like Charles adler or john Oakley or mike stafford are (see hate radio, Toronto) and she lies like mike duffy used to do. Btw, a few weeks ago, someone was interviewing lorry goldstein of torsun! Lorri Goldstein, on CBC radio!
Maybe former NDP BC Premier Glen Clark will end up as President of Canada's new newsmedia empire.
CanWest draws four potential bidders
RBC Dominion is running a separate auction of CanWest's newspaper holdings, not including the National Post, which are held in a different subsidiary of the parent firm, and are also under creditor protection. That process began Friday, and the initial round of contacts with bidders is expected to take seven weeks
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canwest-draws-four-pot...
Screw him just like he has been screwing the Canadian public with his right-wing propaganda.
Asper tries to stop fast sale of CanWest papers
http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/canwest/article/749430--asper-...
Group including Jerry Grafstein seeks 3 CanWest papers
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/group-including-jerry-grafstein-seeks-3-canwest-papers/article1434868/
Don't expect 'contrarian' Liberals to tilt papers left
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/dont-expect-contrarian-liberals-to-tilt-papers-left/article1435494/
i had noticed these developments northreport and am curious to see who ends up buying the papers..
Not sure what this deal does for the paper division, but I assume it will eventually affect the TV side.
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=234451...
On the TV side, it will either be a good thing - even the specialties haven't been commissioning much in the last year + - or it could be very very bad. Jim Shaw scares me. He's got a huge agenda when it comes to broadcasting and cable co. relationships and payout.
Yeah, I can't see more tv concentration being a good thing.
Timebandit, this reminds me of another thread that I started, and that Tommy-Paine and I derailed with our local gossip\day dreaming.... that was the one about Rogers dumping City news staff for Jerry Seinfeld.
I've heard that Shaw tv production employment can be harsh.
I would note here that Shaw has expressed interest in London's "A" Channel. They were set to bid on it last year before CTV renewed the licence for a single year - apparently a very rare occurance for the CRTC to grant single year renewals.
It gets complicated. Shaw and other cable corps are battling it out with terrestrial broadcasters over whether they deserve to receive fee for carriage like the specialty and cable channels do - right now, they don't get anything per subscriber, which is why the cable channels are profitable and the big 'uns aren't. It made sense when cable users were in the minority of consumers.
Anyway, by taking on Canwest, Shaw is now sitting on both sides of the fence. Add to this the new regs upcoming for Canadian Media Fund, which will be the new Frankenstein monster created by combining the CTF and CMF (which governed non-broadcast media like web), that may allow access to the fund for in-house production and Jim Shaw's contention that as carrier he should have more editorial control over what the channels he carries broadcast... Big potential for an unholy mess.
Yeah, this is really going to help my insomnia...
Yeah, that CACTUS group (featured in some articles on rabble over the last several months) is putting a scare into Rogers, for sure. Rogers mobilized their on the ground people to get testimonials and so forth from community groups as to the quality of Rogers' local programming. I'm not entirely sure I buy into the Cactus argument, but that's another thread.
I'm still not sure about the conventional broadcasters' argument for fee for carriage. The same commercials get played on cable, right? Doesn't this just add to the number of viewers, and therefore should be of net benefit to the conventionals? The problem with the conventional over the air broadcasters seems to be they see Rogers\Shaw\sats making money and they're pissy that their own streams of revenue (created via taking over numerous independant stations back in the good old days) aren't as profitable as they were before.
Yes and no.
When there was less fragmentation and fewer cable subscribers, advertising on the terrestrials was more valuable. Now, with the fragmentation of audience and the fact that advertisers are not worried about reaching the 5% of viewers who don't have cable, the terrestrials are taking a hit. They also spend more money on their commissions - ie: Corner Gas was bigger budget than Kenny vs Spenny, IIRC. Naturally, i think more Canadian commissions are in order, but that's a subject for another day. They also have a lot more overhead, maintaining stations in multiple locations. The argument for fee for carriage has some merit. Not that this argument isn't likely being exaggerated, at least to some degree. Then again, the position of the cable companies is not without its own rhetoric.
So if we can accept that the landscape has changed, it raises the question: Should the cable providers get this content to carry on their service free of charge? Or should they pony up so much per subscriber, just as they would for the cable channels? Isn't that the cost of doing business?
I'm torn on the fee for carriage. I'm not keen to see any sort of levy go straight to consumers, via cable\sats, via a fee for carriage, when it's not entirely clear that the money will be spent on local and\or Canadian content.
I think the conventionals have played their hand wrong in all this. With high prices for cable and satelite why not starting pumping out commericals and so forth saying "We're free!" I think the conventionals still hold a strong position because they are still in control of those signals. I understand that CHCH in Hamilton is now making money after having been dumped by Global and picked up by a porn merchant, Zero TV. News and movies. Put on talk shows, current affairs roundtables, to fill CanCon requirements. Radio stations make money with nothing more than ad revenue, and they have news and CanCon requirements. That's not exactly an apples to apples argument, mind you.
The thing with Rogers in my area is that they're doing programming that the conventionals never did and wouldn't even consider. Taping town councils, to start with. Viewers love watching their local programming. Rogers in London also broadcasts London Knights games, again, very popular. And it is still possible to go to a Rogers TV station, volunteer, and be taught TV production skills.
On the other hand, in the US the local TV stations have power. I can't find the link right now, but the local stations are why Leno was basically pushed off his timeslot, starting the whole Leno\Conan thing. And in the US the cable\sats have done a fee for carriage deal, I believe without gov prodding. And I think in Italy Rupert Murdoch's holdings were recently given the same treatment, while Italian broadcasters were allowed a sweeter deal in terms of being able to play more commericals per hour.
This being the "cost of business" doesn't really spin for me, as a businessperson. The conventionals had a business model and still do, under a regulatory framework. There's plenty of other businesses in Canada that have gone under without gov or anyone to help bail them out (ahem, farmers). That's business. They can't complain about the CRTC and then run to it when the cash flow starts to tighten.
Farmpunk, I live in Saskatchewan. Don't even get me started on farmers and bailouts or subsidies. Seriously. I don't have a problem with it, btw, but don't tell me the government doesn't put money into agriculture. And the conventional broadcasters are not asking for a bailout, or for government to put more money in. They're asking the infrastructure people to pay for what they distribute. This doesn't seem to me that this is an unreasonable request.
The problem is that the regulated system is out of date. That needs to change.
There's also a problem with comparing community programming to CanCon content. See, your Rogers community programming has a few employees who more or less direct traffic with a volunteer work force. They don't pay. And there are very few viewers who actually want to watch town council meetings. As for the idea of doing only talk shows and current affairs/magazine shows, well, that's not what's being talked about when we talk CanCon. We're talking about original dramatic or factual programming. Which is what I do for a living, so please do stop proposing to put me out of business.
I'd also like to point out that fee for carriage doesn't need to be passed on to the subscriber, and the CRTC needs to take that into consideration. The cable companies are raking it in, and not putting a lot back into the industry. I still see paying for content as a cost of doing business - to use a farming metaphor, you can't plant a crop without buying the seed.
Haha, you don't need to tell me about gov subsidies to agriculture. Unfortunately, as some of us progressive farmers suggest, the money is not being very well spent in terms of public service.
We agree more than we disagree. I think the CRTC will rule in favour, in one way or another, for the conventionals. It won't really matter to me, because I'm one of the five percent who can't get cable and chooses to forgo a satelite.
I just hope the money will go into a dedicated fund. Otherwise, it'll defeat the stated and well orchestrated "Save Local TV" campaign.
I disagree that Rogers' town council coverage is not well watched. I'd wager to say it's usually the most watched of local programs in places like St Thomas and Woodstock, maybe even London. It matters to concerned local citizens who get a chance to watch their politicians in action. Progressive councillors have a chance to get their word out. I think it's worthwhile but, I bet is also helps Rogers produce cheap regulated content.
And as you know, far from putting people like yourself out of work, properly produced and hosted talk and current affairs programming takes good people. Most of the local (London area) media jobs have been created by Rogers amping up the local programming in news\talk by hiring mostly young professionals and out of work veterans. This hiring of pros is part of the CACTUS problem with Rogers and Shaw - they're trying to compete with the conventionals instead of supporting "community" programming.
Rogers is cheap. With a minimal investment, they could build a wild regional news network. I doubt that'll happen.
It's rough work, dude, and I'm glad you're doing it.
Not sure what this deal does for the paper division, but I assume it will eventually affect the TV side.
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=234451...
The papers go on the block towards the end of this month, I understand. Hope they are broken up...thus ending M'lord Blacks old dreams of neo-con hegemony.
Haha, you don't need to tell me about gov subsidies to agriculture. Unfortunately, as some of us progressive farmers suggest, the money is not being very well spent in terms of public service.
We agree more than we disagree. I think the CRTC will rule in favour, in one way or another, for the conventionals. It won't really matter to me, because I'm one of the five percent who can't get cable and chooses to forgo a satelite.
I just hope the money will go into a dedicated fund. Otherwise, it'll defeat the stated and well orchestrated "Save Local TV" campaign.
I disagree that Rogers' town council coverage is not well watched. I'd wager to say it's usually the most watched of local programs in places like St Thomas and Woodstock, maybe even London. It matters to concerned local citizens who get a chance to watch their politicians in action. Progressive councillors have a chance to get their word out. I think it's worthwhile but, I bet is also helps Rogers produce cheap regulated content.
And as you know, far from putting people like yourself out of work, properly produced and hosted talk and current affairs programming takes good people. Most of the local (London area) media jobs have been created by Rogers amping up the local programming in news\talk by hiring mostly young professionals and out of work veterans. This hiring of pros is part of the CACTUS problem with Rogers and Shaw - they're trying to compete with the conventionals instead of supporting "community" programming.
Rogers is cheap. With a minimal investment, they could build a wild regional news network. I doubt that'll happen.
It's rough work, dude, and I'm glad you're doing it.
I know we agree on more than we disagree on here, hence the wink.
I don't know about Rogers specifically, but typically, across the board, community cable channels have negligible numbers. Most people spend a lot more time watching other kinds of content. The cable companies do it because they have to, and they put as little money into it as possible. That's unlikely to change. It's also in-house, which tends to do very little for producing high-quality Canadian programming.
And don't get me wrong, I do see the value in local talk shows and such, but that's not what I do, and it's not what I want to do. Not by a long shot. The phrase "living death" comes to mind. What I do is create original content, whether factual or not, with the aim of having high production values. It's also CanCon, but it should be able to go anywhere.
I think the CRTC should give the nod to fee for carriage, but with the caveat that a good chunk of that additional funding goes to local news and another big chunk to beefing up Canadian commissions/licensing.
Tbandit: "I think the CRTC should give the nod to fee for carriage, but with the caveat that a good chunk of that additional funding goes to local news and another big chunk to beefing up Canadian commissions/licensing."
Hear Hear! Consumers don't need to know which end is up, but citizens do!
I'm all for indy style productions in creative programming and non-network news style... well... news. The talking head and meat puppet style of news presentation is part of the reason why people don't watch.
When does the CRTC carriage fee ruling come down?
I find this thread informative so I would like someone to tell me how the debate affects the other channels on cable that are not the networks. For instance what if anything do the various proposals mean to my favourite BC channel the Knowledge Network. I think they have partnered with others to produce some of their programming but they also buy a lot of Canadian and British content. What is the effect on them and the other specialty channels?
As someone who has Shaw I find it interesting that there seems to be more Eastern American network channels included in their standard packages while the Eastern Canadian network channels are mostly add ons.
Really good question about the effects of the dual Cactus and carriage-fee rulings on a channel such as the one you describe.
I have no idea how to answer.
Is the Rogers Telefund, for example, funded by Rogers or funed by the gov through Rogers? Many other broadcasters have similar "independant production" programs. I'm sure CTV does.
My only guess on the Shaw cable cost question, and East coast Cdn vs East coast American.... I would guess there's a direct money reason why this is the case. The US content may cost less to purchase. If they're already showing enough CanCon, perhaps they don't feel a business reason for making more CanCon availible.
I find this thread informative so I would like someone to tell me how the debate affects the other channels on cable that are not the networks. For instance what if anything do the various proposals mean to my favourite BC channel the Knowledge Network. I think they have partnered with others to produce some of their programming but they also buy a lot of Canadian and British content. What is the effect on them and the other specialty channels?
As someone who has Shaw I find it interesting that there seems to be more Eastern American network channels included in their standard packages while the Eastern Canadian network channels are mostly add ons.
The terrestrial channels getting fee for carriage shouldn't have an effect on the cable/specialty channels. I can't see that there will be much different in how Knowledge, for example, programs - these channels have their niche and most of them are profitable based on so much per subscriber via the cable corps.
Partnerships - either shared "windows" or taking "second window" in order to participate in a project will very likely continue. Most of the smaller networks do this. For example, I cobbled together a shared window deal with 3 broadcasters to make a doc last year, all of them cable specialities. It's a way of getting better quality programming for license fees they can afford, depending on the specialty and what resources they have. The more popular the channel, the more resources.
Rogers Telefund is funded by Rogers, not the government. They had to commit to funding production in order for the CRTC to approve them buying up another company or series of companies, IIRC. It's not uncommon to throw in something like that to get CRTC approval when a company absorbs another. Canwest did when they bought Alliance Atlantis. The government funds directly through CTF, CMF (soon to be combined) and Telefilm (feature film). And through labour tax credits.
Cable companies want to pick the channels they think will get the best subscriborship. Jim Shaw has been quite resistant to taking on more Canadian channels, but it's regulated what kind of balance they have to maintain. It can be quite a byzantine negotiation, though.
NDP with criticism, Liberals with none, and no comment from the Cons:
http://www.lfpress.com/money/2010/02/12/12860081.html
This is somewhat related:
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/02/12/bell-television-quebec.html
Couple things of interest. There seems to be better pricing and choice in Quebec. The basic packages all include the major networks. What'll happen when the system goes to totally a la carte? Would people still choose CTV\CBC\Global?
Wouldn't that be a simple solution to the fee for carriage issue? Simply allow customers choice for the conventionals, then funnel the subscriber fees the way Timebandit describes.
Wouldn't that be a simple solution to the fee for carriage issue? Simply allow customers choice for the conventionals, then funnel the subscriber fees the way Timebandit describes.
I've wondered about that myself and I think that Shaw could make a change like that basically overnight. I have many channels but many of them never get watched. I would certainly not need CNN or CBC NN. The documentaries that they run are mostly available from the other sources and their news and business news shows preach nothing but the state ideology of deep integration with the Americans.
One hurdle down, a few more to go for Shaw's partial takeover of Canwest.
I note in this story that control of 11 stations would go to Shaw. What 11?
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/02/19/canwest-goldman-asper-catalyst....
Haha, a slightly more Shaw-centric article. Still, no word on the 11 local stations after a quick google search.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?&src=n02121...
Would that not be the specialties that the Aspers again hungered after? For the modern, lifestyle focused family? (What to eat, drink, thiink...etc.)
It looks like the Aspers are being forced out of the television business since their last minute bid for Canwest's on-air assets has been rejected. I wouldn't rule out Shaw coming to some sort of joint ownership deal with Goldman Sachs for the specialty channels but I can't imagine Shaw would agree to the Aspers being at the table.
Now all that's left to dispose of is their newspaper assets which the Asper family hasn't shown a particular interest in holding on to . Just hope Jerry Grafstein and and Raymond Heard don't succeed in their attempt to acquire the National Post, Ottawa Citizen and Montreal Gazette since they are politically inidistinguishable from the Aspers, at least on foreign policy.
GV, my read is that Shaw gains some specialty channels ("lucrative" in the second link) in the deal, plus control over those 11 local stations. By "local station" I assume what's meant is a localized older station that is owned currently under the CanWest\Global badge and will now fall under Shaw control.
I'm not sure what stations are currently Canwest properties. CHCH in Hamilton was a Canwest station before being sold for a pittance. And CHEK, I believe, in Victoria was purchased by the employees of the station.
It'll be interesting to see what Shaw does with these stations... assuming this latest proposal is approved. As has been speculated, I would bet Shaw will attempt to cut costs related to those stations - ie, newsgathering, staff - because they can, and the bottom line is everything. Or it's possible, but not likely, that Shaw will maintain or boost the content of the local stations.
It seems odd to have a cable company buying over the air broadcasters. Right now the two are obviously at odds, and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters recently decided to cease operations over this cable vs conventional split. I can't see Shaw investing into over the air when its background and mentality is in cable and pay for view operations. I mean, look at what Rogers did to its CityTV networks.... laying off a thousand mainly content people.
Apparently this move also allows Shaw to expand its wireless business, too.
Hopefully Timebandit will chime in. I'm not as familiar with Shaw as I am with Rogers.
Offhand, I expect they're after the specialty channels that were originally Alliance Atlantis holdings. I'll have to look into it, though. I travelled home from Berlin yesterday and have been out of touch with the news, etc. for a day and a half.
Shaw says if they buy, they'll refuse to do the payout that would normally be expected (ie: the Rogers Fund discussed upthread). CRTC is in for a fun ride with this negotiation.
No deadlines on babble, Timebandit. I am curious to hear what you think.
Sorry, Mycroft, we cross posted and I just read your post.
Nice call on the Goldman links. I believe that Shaw and Goldmans will own certain speciality channels. That's just...
And the newspaper division is interesting, too. Who's going to buy these papers? I haven't the foggiest idea the economic implications of trying to buy a newspaper, let alone several. The political implications are fairly easy to guess.
It gets odd, because the CBC is now partners with the NP. There has to be a revenue sharing agreement. Is that agreement part of any National Post sale?
The CRTC and its mandate in the webworld is a big subject unto itself. What a brain twister some of this "new" media stuff must be for the CRTC to navigate.
quote: "And the newspaper division is interesting, too. Who's going to buy these papers? I haven't the foggiest idea the economic implications of trying to buy a newspaper, let alone several. The political implications are fairly easy to guess."
How's this for a wild guess at "the political implications" Business interests buy a newspaper(s) and the editorial page daily becomes the $ contribution that they may no longer make to the party (con/lib) of their choice under the Elections Act. The paper would not even have to break even as a business venture. Just a thought.
Farmpunk: "I mean, look at what Rogers did to its CityTV networks.... laying off a thousand mainly content people."
I think if you check you'll find that the number was around 60 at the Citytv stations. Rogers cut their workforce overall by about a 1000 positions.
As for CHEK-TV, it is 25% owned by the employees with the rest held by local investors. CHEK just repatriated their technical facilities from Canwest, which had been stripped from the operation several years ago.
Good clarification.
Good clarification.
Canadian Business mag (owned by Rogers) had a good article on the Shaw\Canwest deal. Jim Shaw doesn't sound like he's terribly interested in CanCon.
One point the writer brought up in the article: will Canwest's support of Save Local TV and the carriage fee discussion now change?
I say No. I suspect it doesn't matter to Shaw Inc at this point. Having a foothold in both worlds protects them from these type of battles in the future. Either way, I doubt cable rates will be going down.
Things get sticky in the Shaw deal. Watch out - Goldman Sachs tends to get it's own way:
http://www.lfpress.com/money/2010/03/10/13175796.html
CRTC fee for carriage decision comes down this afternoon.
Buck has been passed to the Federal Court of Appeals.
Yep, the CRTC ducks out.
I laughed out loud when I read the CRTC decision on their website this afternoon. The first scene that ran through my mind was the two sides sitting down to negotiate. It's CTV\CBC vs cable-sats at this point, right? That leaves Shaw winning no matter what (pending confirmation of the sale). Am I reading things wrong?
I'm going to have to read the decision again. I thought I noticed a local to local negotiating clause....?
What do you think, Timebandit?
I only had an email update from Playback magazine this aft -- haven't had time to read much on it yet. The blond guy's shooting overseas, so the office and the wild girls are up to me to manage...
I don't know about Canwest... They're not bought just yet, and I'm unclear on whether they will weigh in or not. I did notice that Rogers had a reaction, but didn't see mention of Shaw. Will look closer later on.
As It Happens had a CBC upper mangement type on tonight. He, representing the Ceeb's position apparently, was very against the decision. He suggested this could be the death of public broadcasting. I got to the interview late during an exchange about the CBC withholding its signal from the cable\sats.
Anyhow, lots to shake out on this.
Back on topic. Goldman Sachs, essentially, is challenging the sale of most of Canwest to Shaw. Otherwise, from what I understand, it's a done deal.
CRTC has taken CBC out of the picture - as a public broadcaster, choosing to give up their low-on-the-dial status or pull their programming goes against their mandate, so they cannot take advantage of fee for carriage. Which sucks, because they pay as much (or slightly more sometimes) for their programming as the other networks.
Yeah, GS is challenging Shaw, and that's going to make it a drawn-out process, but might actually keep Shaw quiet about fee for carriage until that all shakes out. Specualtively on my part, though. I could be wrong and frequently am. ;)
Canwest sells newspapers to creditor group for $1.1B
"Canwest Global Communications said Monday it has approved the sale of its newspapers to a group led by National Post president Paul Godfrey in a deal worth $1.1 billion.
"Canwest owns and operates daily newspapers across Canada, as well as more than 20 community newspapers, online operations and other publications. The buyer of Canwest Limited Partnership is a group of the insolvent company's creditors, who are paying $950 million in cash as part of the deal.
"Godfrey is the former CEO of Sun Media ... "
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/10/canwest-newspapers-sold.html#ixzz0nZqtYsRV
And Godfrey told CBC radio this morning that 2009 was the best year ever of the 11 years in which National Post lost money (It came closest to breaking even) . He's counting on electronic publishing and having to charge less for ads on a medium that does not have to buy paper and ink or pay delivery people.
In a way, it's fitting that Godfrey should buy the Global papers. In the current economic climate, newspapers may become like second-tier pro sports franchises. The owners will be wealthy men who don't mind absorbing reasonable yearly losses in return for the opportunity of playing Steinbrenner, meddling with decisions best left to professionals, and cutting a dashing figure at cocktail parties. ('Cause let's face it, the publisher of a free suburban weekly is a more glamorous figure than the writer of any blog.) And those of us who still believe in newspapers will be on our knees every morning praying that they may live long and prosper. As a Ti-Cats fan, I'm familiar with the process.
At least Godfrey appears to think that papers still have a place on the media scene and isn't, at least for public consumption, treating them as assets to be stripped. I'm not saying I'd sponsor the old reptile at the Teeterville Legion, but I'm willing to give him a chance. Shame it's only snap-jawed old badgers of reaction like him and Murdoch who will still give print a fair shake.
Folks whose newsrooms also turn out editorials on behalf of the corporate world are most likely to find sustainable corporate funding.
To clarify, Paul Godfrey, who hasn't run a newspaper in some 16 years, is fronting a group made up of the folks who were the bondholders of the old company. Godfrey might have a token amount invested but it is the distress funds that have the power. This group's intent is to flip it as soon as possible. With $1.1 billion in debt this company still has serious issues to overcome.