Given that, in poll after poll, Canadians have expressed the view that the CBC/Radio-Canada is a public good that is both desirable and necessary, the solution to the market failure ought to be obvious: it is to provide the money necessary for the CBC. To do that will mean eliminating advertising on all CBC services, and boosting the public subsidies.
The industry undeniably preys on those who are desperate for a way in, and capitalizes on their insecurity with unpaid internships. But the demand doesn't justify the exploitation. The fact that it's a standard practice doesn't mean people have to accept it. Future journalists can, and should, fight back against this standard. This is why I am genuinely pleased by the government's crackdown. It will not solve all of the problems facing prospective journalists like myself, but it is a great way to eliminate one.
Everyone knows the Conservative government is an unabashed supporter of corporations and foreign investors. They have slashed environmental oversight; attacked labour unions; opened the telecommunications sector up to majority foreign ownership; tripled the financial threshold point where the government must do a "net benefit" test of a foreign corporate takeover. Clearly, big business has gotten almost everything it has wanted from Harper's Conservatives. What should we learn from the fact that it still pushes for more? Perhaps a simple truth about capitalism: There is never enough profit.
There is more to be said about Andrew Coyne's suggestion that CBC television ought to be dismantled, and spun off into a constellation of self-supporting cable specialty channels so that viewers could select what they wanted to subscribe to, rather than paying for the public broadcaster as a monolithic institution. In suggesting that CBC become a collection of subscription-based channels, Coyne fails to see that the same market dynamic is at work there as in advertising-supported TV -- i.e. the need to maximize audiences as a way of achieving peak profits.
And now, like the nation of bored teenage babysitters we are, it's time to check in on the Liberal leadership race -- if only to make sure no one's swallowed the scissors. At the National Post, Andrew Coyne also thinks there's much Liberal hay to be made with an aggressively pro-democratic agenda. But in his world, this involves championing the mummified issue that no one ever gets tired of hearing about -- electoral reform.
Here's an age old riddle for you: how many old white guys does it take to editorialize on a subject that has to do solely with a woman's most intimate choice in life? Well, if you're the National Post, then four. The outrage radiating from the old white men commentariat ranges from "well, why can't we have this debate?" to "fetuses are people too, and they have rights just like you and me."
Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, had some tough talk for the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa today. He said that we must "maintain trust and engagement in Canadian elections." As a first time candidate, I have been the target of many ugly tactics used by the army of political operators that make a healthy living doing this.
Deborah Coyne is running for the leadership of the (once) mighty Liberals. The media has been less than supportive, describing her as the illegitimate child of Pierre Trudeau. This is doing little to convince her opponents that her resume reads differently than that of a debutante. Would the same sentiment hold if the candidate was man?
You'd have thought Maclean's would have blazoned the death of Section 13 all over its front cover. With a massive headline along the lines of "SCREW YOU, CENSORS!!!" Or "WE WON!!!" Instead, the cover featured a generic picture of an innocuous youngish woman and an innocuous youngish man grinning maniacally and the silly headline: "The majority of us are singles. So why do we still live in a couples world?"