I do not want anyone to lose their job, but I find this infuriating. Governments should not be funding news, period. Even if they have no say in what gets to air, the preception is always there that that input influences coverage, in order to get the funding to continue. 

It's just not good for what should be hopefully unbiased journalism and it makes me wonder about what I see, hear and read. 

I get that news rooms are under siege these days and we complain here all the time about layoffs. But as author Michael Geist points out the benefit is simply not worth the risk of their independence.  

"There are already serious concerns about the impact of government media policy on the independence of the major print outlets. Extending the tax credit to broadcasters means that more than a third of the labour costs for news operations at Bell, Corus, and Rogers, the people producing the on-air reporting, including the political coverage, would effectively have a portion of their salaries paid through government tax policy."

Don't get me wrong - I want local news to survive.

But not at the cost of its soul. 

paterson1 wrote:

All kinds of companies and industries get tax credits and incentives from the government.  So I don't really see the big issue here. 

The issue is those others aren't asked to cover those some governments - and not always from a flattering perspective. Can you really trust the coverage if the people who helped pay for it contribute a large part of the salaries to the reporters? As noted, even if there is no interference or special consideration, the suspicion is always there. 

It's the same reason a judge with even a hint of a conflict of interest in a court case will recuse him or herself from the proceedings so there won't be any question about the independence of a final ruling. Why should broadcasters be exempt from the same principle?

paterson1 wrote:

If the newsrooms at Bell, Rogers, Corus, Quebecor and independents are influenced by a tax credit and not doing their job properly and fairly, it shows they weren't much of a news organization in the first place.

Ask Tina Yasdani how it worked out for her. 

paterson1 wrote:

Are these companies also being bought off by their advertisers?  Do Leon's and the Brick or Tim Horton's influence what newsrooms at private broadcasters cover on the evening news?  With all of the hundreds of millions advertisers spend with private radio and TV, are they directing broadcasters how to run their news operations or what to program? 

It's not even close to being the same thing. Advertisers buy time on a station for a 60 or 30 sec. spot. They don't pay the reporters who might cover a scandal if those companies do something questionable. And if there was any hint of an issue, they would pull their spots until things were resolved. The government they cover is always on, and reporters are paid to be objective, not beholden, even from a distance. 

Regardless of whether there's any influence or not, I don't want government money going to local news organization. It's bad enough the amount we have to give to the CBC, with no say from taxpayers. If someone were paying part of your salary, would you be more or less likely to criticize them if the need arose knowing your job may depend on it? I think the answer is obvious. 

paterson1 wrote:

Like I said earlier, if a news operation can be so foolish and influenced so easily by a tax credit, they can't be much of a news organization. 

If we're talking Rogers and Bell, money is all they care about, even over employees. I wouldn't put anything past them if their financing is threatened. And government will always have far more influence than a Leon's or a Tim Horton's - by virtue of licensing these guys in the first place, if nothing else. 

paterson1 wrote:

Earlier we heard that Bell Media is losing $40 million a year on their news operation. What would be your solution then?  Parent company BCE/Bell Canada Enterprises currently has about $25 billion in debt.

I'm sorry if these mega-billion dollar companies can't figure out their finances to make news work. Clearly, they've calculated that it isn't worth as much to them as their phone or Internet divisions. That's fine. But why should anyone else have to pay for their wrongheaded decisions? It's one reason I refuse to do business with either of them. 

There was a time when news was not expected to make a profit but was done as part of the privilege of having a licence. Those days are, sadly, gone. But with the value of these companies, they can afford this if they want to. They obviously don't want to. Why then, should anyone else have to shell out to keep them going? What other business gets subsidized by another separate company and/or taxpayers? It's unconscionable.