Wonderful news about Postmedia

It's over, and 9/11 has been used basically to end freedom of the press if it ever really existed at all which somehow I doubt it ever did.

The perfect epitaph for establishment journalism

'If MI5 warns that this is not in the public interest who am I to disbelieve them?', says the former editor of The Independent

The perfect epitaph for establishment journalism

'If MI5 warns that this is not in the public interest who am I to disbelieve them?', says the former editor of The Independent

  Some journalists view this as an inviolable decree that may not be questioned or defied Photograph: Alamy

Like many people, I've spent years writing and speaking about the lethal power-subservient pathologies plaguing establishment journalism in the west. But this morning, I feel a bit like all of that was wasted time and energy, because this new column by career British journalist Chris Blackhurst - an executive with and, until a few months ago, the editor of the UK daily calling itself "The Independent" - contains a headline that says everything that needs to be said about the sickly state of establishment journalism:

In other words, if the government tells me I shouldn't publish something, who am I as a journalist to disobey? Put that on the tombstone of western establishment journalism. It perfectly encapsulates the death spiral of large journalistic outlets.

Lest you think that the headline does not fairly represent the content of the column, Blackhurst, in explaining why he would never have allowed his newspaper to publish any of the documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, actually wrote:

If the security services insist something is contrary to the public interest, and might harm their operations, who am I (despite my grounding from Watergate onwards) to disbelieve them?"

Most people, let alone journalists, would be far too embarrassed to admit they harbor such subservient, obsequious sentiments. It's one thing to accord some deference or presumption of good will to political officials, but the desire to demonstrate some minimal human dignity, by itself, would preclude most people from publicly confessing that they have willingly sacrificed all of their independent judgment and autonomy to the superior, secret decrees of those who wield the greatest power. Chris Blackhurst has obviously liberated himself from these inhibitions, though not entirely, as he infuses insincere caveats like this into his paean to the virtues of obedience: "I'm cynical about officialdom, having seen too many cover-ups and appalling injustices carried out in our name." One would think that most journalists (particularly those who edit a newspaper called "The Independent") would want to maintain at least a pretense of independent thought and thus refrain from acknowledging such cringe-inducing things about themselves.

Still, what Blackhurst is revealing here is indeed a predominant mindset among many in the media class. Journalists should not disobey the dictates of those in power. Once national security state officials decree that what they are doing should be kept concealed from the public - once they pound their mighty "SECRET" stamp onto their behavior - it is the supreme duty of all citizens, including journalists, to honor that and never utter in public what they have done. Indeed, it is not only morally wrong, but criminal, to defy these dictates. After all, "who am I to disbelieve them?"

That this mentality condemns - and would render outlawed - most of the worthwhile investigative journalism over the last several decades never seems to occur to good journalistic servants like Blackhurst. National security state officials also decreed that it would "not be in the public interest" to report on the Pentagon Papers, or the My Lai massacre, or the network of CIA black sites in which detainees were tortured, or the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, or the documents negating claims of Iraqi WMDs, or a whole litany of waste, corruption and illegality that once bore the "top secret" label. Indeed, one of the best reporters in the UK, Duncan Campbell, works for Blackhurst's newspaper, and he was arrested and prosecuted by the UK government in the 1970s for the "crime" of disclosing the existence of the GCHQ. When Blackhurst sees Campbell in the hallways, does he ask him: "who are you to have decided on your own to disclose that which UK officials had told you should remain concealed?"

The NSA reporting enabled by Snowden's whistleblowing has triggered a worldwide debate over internet freedom and privacy, reform movements in numerous national legislatures, multiple whistleblowing prizes for Snowden, and the first-ever recognition of just how pervasive and invasive is the system of suspicionless surveillance being built by the US and the UK. It does not surprise me that authoritarian factions, including (especially) establishment journalists, prefer that none of this reporting and debate happened and that we all instead remained blissfully ignorant about it. But it does still surprise me when people calling themselves "journalists" openly admit to thinking this way. But when they do so, they do us a service, as it lays so vividly bare just how wide the gap is between the claimed function of establishment journalists and the actual role they fulfill.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/independent-epitaph...

Who do you think you are kidding?

Go back to sleep and please stop boring us with your nonsense.

Mórríghain wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Given the opening posts I thought it was about Post Media's supposed financial problems. But we don't mind allowing you a little thread drift into cheerleading for the status quo in our MSM. 

I could see how you might come to that conclusion despite the original post's opening remark, "The wonderful news is that they lost 153.8 million dollars last year, and are now being forced to sell their assets. Hopefully they will soon be gone." This comment could be paraphrased as, "Ding dong, the witch may soon be dead".

You will allow me a little leeway, how nice. As to cheerleading the status quo, perhaps. I believe diversity in news media means having left wing and right wing voices, and tis a good thing. You may believe that all of Canada's news media is conservative just like the right claims our news media is controlled by the left, save their darling Sun News. I don't live in a black and white world so I don't believe our media is all one or the other, nor should it ever be.

Mórríghain

Do you know who the enemy of the people are in Canada?

You got it, Canada's mainstream press.

Postmedia and union talks break down over contracting out of printing

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/11/26/Postmedia-Union-Talks/

The reason there will no public outcry is that most, not all, but most journalists are just looking for their next pay cheque, so rather than do some serious investigative reporting are they just report how and what they are told by their bosses.

Follow the Money, Part 4 -- Who owns the National Post?

It's no secret that Postmedia Network, publisher of theNational Post, Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal,Vancouver Sun and other major Canadian dailies, is hemorrhaging money.

For the year ending August 2013, the company lost $154 million. And the bleeding continues. In the six months since, the company has lost an additional $37 million. Revenue from the company's traditional mainstay, print advertising, has tanked.

What isn't as well known is that during this downward spiral, Silver Point Capital, an American hedge fund, bought a 19 per cent stake in the company.

It joins Postmedia's largest shareholder, Golden Tree Asset Management, another American hedge fund. Golden Tree acquired its holding in Postmedia from the ashes of CanWest Global Communications, before the media company filed for creditor protection in 2009. The debt owed to Golden Tree was turned into shares in Postmedia on CanWest's reorganization. Golden Tree boosted its holding in the company from 35 to 39 per cent after Silver Point bought its stake. That gives the two American companies 58 per cent ownership of Postmedia.

If you're wondering how a Canadian newspaper chain can be owned by foreign interests, especially by interests with little background in the news business, you're not alone. Postmedia must be designated as a Canadian publisher of Canadian newspapers under Section 19(1) of the Income Tax Act, or else its advertisers can't deduct from their profits the cost of their newspaper ads as a business expense. Under foreign ownership, Postmedia's advertising revenue would vanish.

Section 19(1) is a 60-year-old policy designed to ensure Canadian newspapers are owned by Canadians. But Postmedia CEO Paul Godfrey and clever corporate lawyers figured a way around it.

The Income Tax Act defines a Canadian publisher as one in which 75 per cent of its shares are owned or controlled by Canadians. But since the two hedge funds own nearly 60 per cent of the shares, the company fails this test.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/donald-gutstein/2014/04/follow-money-par...

They are all basically garbage publications shoving right-wing propaganda down their reader's throats every chance they get. And their daily 24/7 dirty work is very effective as Canada, including Quebec, is a right-wing society.

Postmedia to outsource printing of The Gazette

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Postmedia+outsource+printing+Gaz...

Postmedia could soon own almost every English newspaper in Canada.

What could possibly go wrong? 

http://www.thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2014/10/06/Postmedia-could-own-every...

As Postmedia Withers, Is a Newspaper-less Vancouver Imminent?

Reinvention, even survival, of local dailies seems less likely with each quarterly report.

http://m.thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2015/02/03/Vancouver-Without-Newspapers/?...