MediaPolicy.ca

August 28, 2023

Last week saw another lap around the Meta news throttle oval.

Not a great deal has changed. The new Heritage Minister Pascal St.-Onge invited local Meta spokespersons for a chat and St.-Onge emerged with an upbeat message on breaking the impasse over Bill C-18 and Big Tech payments for news content. Meta did not, sticking to its “repeal the Bill or else” messaging.

As the weeks go by, the government will continue to harvest the news cycle windfall of Meta catching important news sources and public interest information in its news throttle net. Meta’s blackout of wildfire news stories is embarrassing for the company, as are the latest throttles of a Facebook page spotlighting inadequate palliative care and another page belonging to an American online literary journal run by Canadian ex-pats.

In the latter case Meta is learning a new lesson: don’t mess with literary journals. The Globe caught some zinger quotes from page owner Matthew Friedman who described the news throttle “as a form of corporate gunboat diplomacy” because Meta “wants to make an example of Canada. They want to put out this fire before it runs out of control. This is corporate colonialism.”

Facts.

None of this back and forth appears to be changing the battle lines drawn on C-18. However a significant development that must affect the strategic choices of all concerned is the out-of-left-field CRTC announcement that its pre-implementation consultation on Bill C-18 will stretch out a full 18 months until early 2025, when bargaining for news payments will only begin.

Another C-18 development flying under the radar was an academic study published in Switzerland with the support of news publishers. The point of the study can be traced back to the origins of the Australian New Media Bargaining Code as a public remedy to a private Big Tech duopoly in news distribution over Search (Google) and social media (Facebook and Instagram).

These studies are published from time to time, backed either by Big Tech or news publishers, so take them with a grain of salt. Also, they can’t be run on large data sets since those belong to the platforms and they aren’t sharing. Instead these studies are self described experiments. In this recent case 1,573 Swiss respondents looked for information on Google Search but also on a re-engineered mock-up that eliminated news sources.

The Swiss study concludes that news is of value to search engines, it generates advertising for search engines, and —the money shot— a series of industry benchmarks on the sharing of advertising revenue suggests that in a competitive market news publishers ought to get 40% of Google’s ad revenue associated with information searches. The study doesn’t use YouTube’s advertising revenue split as a benchmark, but the Google-owned hosting platform compensates YouTuber creators with 55% of the ad revenue associated with their viewership.

Quick math, that’s $233 million in Google payments to news outlets in a country with 8.5 million population.

You can request a copy of the study here.

***

The strike of editorial and creative staff of Television Ontario is a week old.

The English-language public broadcaster of public programming and educational content is a shadow of its former self after years of funding neglect and layoffs by provincial governments of all stripes. Steve Paikin’s news magazine The Agenda remains its flagship.

Wages have fallen behind the cost of living by about 30% in the last 10 years, accelerated by TVO being caught in the widely cast net of Premier Doug Ford’s public service wage controls (now ruled unconstitutional but under appeal).

Another sticking point is a concession demanded by the management-side: deleting a long standing contract clause that puts a two-year time clock on temporary positions before they become permanent. It’s a clause found in several mature media collective agreements. If removing this clause really is a sticking point (and not just a hostage taken by management because of the strike over wages) it’s probably a sign that TVO doesn’t want to be candid with their political masters about employee headcount.

***

Bell is terminating its 28-year patronage of the Toronto International Film Festival. According to various reports, the funding is worth $5 million per year. Bell’s name and logo will come off of TIFF’s downtown headquarters within the year. This September’s festival will be the last with Bell’s resources just as TIFF has emerged from the Covid crisis and run smack into the Hollywood talent strike.

There is a helpful background piece from Etan Vlessing in the Hollywood Reporter. It would be interesting to know exactly when Bell made this decision (apparently “earlier this year”). Like the mass layoffs it announced in June, Bell’s retreat from TIFF has a touch of political theatre for the benefit of the CRTC and perhaps the rest of us too. Any observer will remark on the trifling amount of money involved for Canada’s largest media company. Maybe Netflix will step in.

There is a conceptual segue here from the TIFF story to the topic of the corporate cross-subsidies we have come to expect (and the CRTC has enforced) in media. I recommend a recent blog post from Mark Goldberg who is a telecommunications consultant with a flair for reminding us of what’s what.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or e-mail howard.law@bell.net to be added to the weekly update; 

or follow @howardalaw on Twitter.

August 19, 2023

Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre’s testy relationship with journalists, and his campaign team’s best efforts to portray it as a grudge match, re-emerged this week. 

Poilievre was challenged by a CBC reporter on why he has revived conspiracy theories about the World Economic Forum during his summer campaign tour. He refused to answer the question and instead demanded the CBC reporter cite the source of the allegations. When she stumbled, he dismissed her questions as “another CBC smear job.” Other news organizations reported on the story, so Poilievre followed up the attack on the public broadcaster in a tweet claiming that “CBC’s news service CP [Canadian Press] wrote a hit piece on me because I dared criticize the World Economic Forum.” (The news agency Canadian Press is owned by three private news organizations, not the CBC).

When the Canadian Press story was carried online by several news sources, with the CP-supplied headline intact on all platforms as is often the case, Conservative MP Andrew Scheer alleged “media collusion.” (See above).

A number of journalists condemned the opportunism. On Canadaland, Jesse Brown’s guest Nora Loreto suggested the press could do better than re-hashing a stale story about Poilievre peddling conspiracy theories and should have focussed on a different angle, perhaps that the Conservative leader’s economic program is likely to be aligned with views expressed by ‘globalist’ participants in the WEF. Or maybe journalists ought to focus on his recent ‘make-over’ bid that includes losing the glasses and struggling into an undersized T-Shirt (on the latter point, recall former leader Erin O’Toole’s 2021 campaign photos).

On the other hand, the conspiracy story is fresh and not stale if it focusses on Poilievre continuing to dip into the well of antisemitic far-right anthems while simultaneously trying to broaden his appeal through the make-over.

***

The wildfire-induced evacuation of the city of Yellowknife is in the news as was a similar tragedy in Fort McMurray in 2016 and Lytton in 2021. 

Updated news journalism about the wildfire’s threat to life and property was not available on Facebook or Instagram because of the Meta news throttle in retaliation against Bill C-18. Unlike Facebook’s Australian news throttle in 2021, this time the social media giant is not blocking official emergency information distributed by government agencies. 

The Liberals were immediately on it, condemning Meta for the news throttle and raising the question why it didn’t temporarily rescind the block on news sites. This touched off another round of the blame-game about whether the federal government or Meta is responsible for the throttle. Expect this to continue indefinitely.

If anything helpful can come out of this argument about assigning responsibility, it would be a discussion of Facebook’s market power over news distribution, something along the lines offered by news sources in this Canadian Press story. (no Mr. Poilievre, not the one owned by CBC, the other one). 

***

The Logic did some good work this week in publishing Martin Patriquin’s investigation of Amazon’s $600,000 donation to the University of Toronto Faculty of Law to influence debate about Canadian competition law reform. The story offers some disturbing revelations about administrative secrecy and torquing the debate in favour of maintaining Canada’s status quo of how it polices the market power of companies like Amazon. As an alumnus, I found it especially upsetting.

(The story is paywalled but if you surrender your e-mail address you can access it, a small price to pay given the quality of the stuff you can read on The Logic).

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or e-mail howard.law@bell.net to be added to the weekly update; 

or follow @howardalaw on Twitter.

August 12, 2023

MediaPolicy asked in a recent post whether Competition Bureau commissioner Matthew Boswell wants to sink his investigatory fangs into the Meta news throttle as tenaciously as he bit into Ed Rogers’ ankle during the Rogers-Shaw merger episode earlier this year.

Clearly admiring my approach, ISED Minister François-Philippe Champagne tweeted his own encouragement. Champagne is Boswell’s governing cabinet minister.

Cue the entirely justified outrage from conservative commentators. Norman Spector tweeted that such blatant interference with the Bureau’s independence ought to result in Champagne’s dismissal from cabinet.

I will second that motion provided its retroactive to September 8, 2014 when Stephen Harper’s Heritage Minister Shelley Glover made public statements forbidding a CRTC “Netflix tax” culture levy while the Commission was in the thick of considering it:

We will not allow any moves to impose new regulations and taxes on Internet video that would create a Netflix and Youtube tax – Heritage Minister Shelley Glover, September 8, 2014

The Commission complied.

Cabinet ministers just can’t seem to resist the catnip of asking for regulatory outcomes they aren’t supposed to influence. You could write a book about it going back decades. The most recent examples include Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez ordering the CRTC to ban Russia Today from cable TV or CRTC Chair Vicky Eatrides’ telepathic connection with cabinet on wholesale Internet pricing and YouTube videos.

Champagne should disavow his tweet.

(Update: A reader contacted me pointing out the Minister has the authority under section 10(1) of the Competition Act to direct the Bureau to investigate. Possibly this mitigates Champagne’s actions but also raises the question of why the Minister didn’t act on his own, prior to the request being made by news agencies).

***

Charlotte Gray has a piece in the Globe spotlighting the dire prospects for publishing Canadian non-fiction. The loser is educating Canadians in the history of our country.

Gray discusses the role of corporate concentration of Canadian book publishing but she could have added, for more context, the disruption and monopolization of book distribution by Amazon. For that you might turn to Chapter 2 of Cory Doctorow and Rebecca Giblin’s recent book, Chokepoint Capitalism.

News in the book and movie worlds overlapped this week when Paramount (owned by ViacomCBS) announced it was selling its book division Simon & Schuster for $2 billion to a private equity firm. The sale coincides with some bad quarterly financial numbers for Paramount, something it shared this week with Disney.

***

The weekend read I am recommending today runs in the same vein as my suggestions from previous weeks: what conservatives are to do about the presence of fascists and near-fascists in their midst. I am only plugging Andrew Coyne’s column today because I finally agree with him on something, an occasion that I mark.

Coyne is responding to Sean Speer’s description of the “definitional fight” between “FreeCons” and “NatCons.” Says Coyne, that’s a contest involving no more than one authentic stream of conservatism:

This dichotomy, it should be said, puts rather a more dignified face on things than is probably warranted. Whatever its intellectual pretensions, national conservatism is essentially an exercise in on-the-fly revisionism, an attempt to put a retroactive cerebral gloss on the bundle of inchoate resentments and grievances that assembled behind the figure of Donald Trump. As such, it seeks to give coherence to a phenomenon that is fundamentally incoherent: Trumpism gone to college.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or e-mail howard.law@bell.net to be added to the weekly update; 

or follow @howardalaw on Twitter.

August 9, 2023

One thing you can say for Competition Bureau Commissioner Matthew Boswell. He likes a big target. He fought the Rogers-Shaw merger to the bitter end, lost in Court, and didn’t apologize for trying.

Now we may see what he might do about foreign owned web giants that are several times the size and market power of Rogers in response to a request from Canadian news organizations —broadcasters, news publishers and the CBC—- asking the Bureau to open an abuse of dominance investigation against Meta for blocking Canadian news on Facebook and Instagram. They want the Bureau to order Meta to stop the throttle.

The request cites Meta’s 70% dominant position in news distribution and digital advertising over social media platforms. Its domination of social media impacts 25% of news organizations’ access to Canadians on all platforms and the advertising revenue that comes with it. Meta’s news throttle will harm many news organizations (who compete with Meta for digital advertising) and possibly put some out of business.

There aren’t a great many competition law experts in Canada: two experts who could hardly be tagged as defenders of Big Tech, Keldon Bester and Vass Bednar, have publicly expressed skepticism about the legal merits of the complaint under the Competition Act as it is currently drafted.

The University of Ottawa’s Jennifer Quaid, whose opinions are to be sought in competition matters, was diplomatic in her comments this morning on CBC radio, acknowledging only that the complaint is well drafted.

There will be some close legal arguments around defining “the market” in which the alleged anti-competitive news throttle has occurred. If the Bureau decides that Meta does possess sufficient market dominance in either news distribution and/or the advertising revenue it generates, the remainder of the legal requirements to prove the news throttle is an anti-competitive practice and harms competitors may fall like dominoes. They did in France in 2020 after Google responded with its own news throttle to a law similar to Bill C-18: the French competition bureau found Google culpable of abusing its dominant market position and ordered an end to the news block.

Google’s position in Canadian news distribution and digital advertising is at least as dominant in Search as Meta is in social, so this new complaint is for Google’s benefit as well.

As I have posted previously, the Big Tech revolt against Bill C-18 is a nine-inning game and we are probably in the middle innings. There will be more parry and thrust before it’s over.

Two weeks ago Meta Canadian spokesperson Rachel Curran told participants at policy event in Québec that the Heritage Minister’s announcement of a regulatory scale for payments under C-18 would not end Meta’s throttle but, in the next breath, stated that she was “super-optimistic” that the federal government might repeal C-18 or amend it in the House of Commons.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or e-mail howard.law@bell.net to be added to the weekly update; 

or follow @howardalaw on Twitter.

August 6, 2023

Last week MediaPolicy posted two columns. 

The first was co-written with Toronto Metropolitan University’s Ivor Shapiro and appeared on the IRPP website. It is a continuation of the policy discussion on a national news strategy that was kicked off in June by Peter Menzies and Konrad von Finckenstein.

The contribution from Ivor and myself is to build on the Menzies/KVF idea that the CBC is the foundation of any strategy countering the market failure of news journalism. And the four of us agree that we have to get back to a place where there is a truly “private” private-sector news industry that co-exists with the publicly funded CBC. The question is how to get there and the disagreement I would suggest is what we are willing to risk —given the existential requirement of news journalism in our democracy— to get there.

In practical terms, Ivor and I have added two essential elements to this work-in-progress: prioritizing news gathering in state support for journalism and reinforcing its political legitimacy with far more transparency in its administrative governance. My own pet idea is a constituent assembly that elects a board of directors to oversee the administration of public subsidies and incentives.

The other MediaPolicy post turns back to Bill C-11 with a summary of ‘What Hollywood Wants.’ It’s a review of the Motion Picture Association’s written submissions to the CRTC regarding how the US studios and streamers should contribute to Canadian content under the new legislation.

Related to that post, Johanna Schneller has an analysis piece in the Globe suggesting that lately Hollywood has been making a bad bet on high-budget thrillers. I’m not convinced of that without the full monetization numbers for those movies, especially the foreign box office receipts which are typically two-thirds of the take.

In any event, Schneller isn’t entirely hyperbolic when she says that the Hollywood streaming platforms “are bankrupting their studios to keep up” with each other. Only Netflix makes money and one feels that either cost retrenchment or a culling of the streamer herd is only a matter of time.

***

If you are looking for some good reading, here are some suggestions.

Sean Speer has co-written a brief column with Pierre Poilievre’s communications director Ben Woodfinden describing the political ideology of Canada’s first Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald’s as a hybrid of nineteenth-century conservativism and classical liberalism.

That’s not a contentious point but what is interesting is they latch on to the idea of “state capacity” conservativism which they describe, in its circa 1867 context, as nation building under the shadow of the American juggernaut to the south.

Their line of argument could easily apply to cultural regulation in this modern era —it certainly did in Brian Mulroney’s Conservative Party— though no doubt Speer and Woodfinden would say times are different now. Speer has suggested Bill C-11 is the “hidden agenda” of Quebec cultural nationalists and Woodfinden’s boss wants to repeal it.

More bingeing on Speer, he has an excellent podcast (24 minutes) with David Frum exploring the phenomenon of young conservative men “falling down a far-Right path” or as Frum puts it “young conservatives and the fascist temptation.” (My contemporary, Frum made me chuckle by describing left-wingers of the 1970s and 1980s as “emotional.”)

This follows a Speer column I linked to last week which positions Pierre Poilievre as a libertarian conservative competing for the soul of Canada’s conservative movement with ‘nationalist’ conservatives.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or e-mail howard.law@bell.net to be added to the weekly update; 

or follow @howardalaw on Twitter.

August 4, 2023

Reading CRTC regulatory filings can be an eye-rolling experience. Almost without exception, the written submission from each industry player is self-serving and chock full of cherry picked quotations and wildly overstated arguments. And this is just in their initial submissions. The reply filings commenting on each other’s views are even more fun.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) represents the Hollywood studios and streamers —Netflix, Disney, Paramount, Warner Discovery, NBC Universal et al— collectively, the new 900-pound gorilla in the CRTC regulated system. 

The MPAA’s first bid on regulatory obligations filed in early July went something like this:

• MPAA opposes the Commission’s proposal to levy an ‘initial base contribution,’ in cash, from all foreign and Canadian broadcasters to feed the various television funds that underwrite Canadian TV production. The MPAA wants to limit the streamers’ CanCon obligations entirely to making their own Canadian shows, known in CRTC vocabulary as “Canadian Programming Expenditures” that normally amount to 30% of annual revenue (and translate into a higher percentage of programming budgets). 

• The MPAA proposal means no mandatory cash contributions from Hollywood streamers to news funds, Indigenous content production, or any other media funds that Canadian cable companies (but not TV networks or channels) have always sponsored through a tithe set at five per cent of annual revenue. In fact, the MPAA (and all of the other streamers) are ignoring the Commission’s requirement to table a number.

• The MPAA says that the streamers’ Canadian shows should be certified under a new definition of Canadian content that relies less on the participation of Canadian producers and creative talent and more on Hollywood writers and actors (to wit, the much-touted British model for certifying home-grown video content permits the use of an All-American cast and key creative talent provided the show is ultra-British in its story and setting).

As for the CRTC process, the MPAA and all foreign online undertakings participating for the first time in Canadian regulatory hearings object to the Commission determining an ‘initial base contribution’ before moving on in a second phase of hearings to consider Canadian programming expenditures and a review of the definition of Canadian content. The MPAA says the CRTC is putting the cart before the horse and this is prejudicial to the streamers’ regulatory presentations.

There certainly are common sense reasons for the CRTC to have considered all three big regulatory pieces at the same time, but it appears Chair Vicky Eatrides is eager to get some US money into Canadian media funds quickly and that in the long term a sustainable flow of cash contributions has to come from broadcasting undertakings whose business models are on the rise (the US streamers) and in decline (Canadian legacy broadcasters).

The MPAA is so disgruntled by Eatrides’ approach that it is already threatening court action if it doesn’t like the outcome of the hearings: it cites a rather weak administrative law argument about procedural fairness.

And all of this was before MPAA Canadian director Wendy Noss got a peek at rival submissions filed simultaneously by Canadian broadcasters. Two weeks later, her reply submissions to the CRTC filed are so ferocious you imagine you can see the veins bulging in her forehead.

The Canadian broadcasters, as this space has observed previously, want to lower their regulatory obligations to sponsor media funds and make Canadian shows while raising matching obligations on the US streamers from zero to parity with Canadian competitors. They fix this ‘meet you in the middle’ figure at 20 % of annual revenues and provide a handy bar graph demonstrating that the entire CanCon system will be flush with cash from both foreign and domestic broadcasters.

Bell proposal for a harmonized 20% CanCon contribution from US streamers & Canadian broadcasters.

But there is a twist to this harmonization. The Canadian broadcasters want the US streamers to contribute their 20% entirely in cash contributions (before even discussing programming expenditures on their own Canadian shows).

Cue the vein popping and some truly provocative arguments from the MPAA.

The first pitch Noss makes on behalf of Hollywood is that when Bill C-11 says that US streamers must contribute ‘equitably’ to Canadian content, it really means ‘contribute less than Canadian competitors.’ 

This is bunk of the highest order but, to summarize, she has misconstrued the notorious section 3(1)(f) of the new Broadcasting Act that grants US streamers some yet to be defined flexibility in using American talent as authority for the proposition that Hollywood’s overall level of contributions should be less than Canadian contributions. 

Then there is her slap down of the Canadian Media Producers Association which had the temerity to tell the CRTC that under the new regime independent Canadian producers should retain intellectual property in the ‘CanCon’ shows they make and then license to broadcasters and streamers.

The control of long-term commercial exploitation of Canadian shows is important to the CMPA whose members earn a lot of money making shows for the US audience on a ‘turn-key’ contract arrangement with the streamers but want to keep growing the base of their original business, which is making Canadian shows for the Canadian market.

Noss cuffs the CMPA around for being ungrateful for the Hollywood patronage and then, in the coup de grâce, claims that Hollywood already makes ‘more genuine’ Canadian content than Canadian producers:

43. We note that while many members of the CMPA have benefitted from the contributions that have been made over the years by foreign streaming services and studios, the CMPA now argues that the Commission’s new contribution framework must distinguish between the domestic production industry and foreign service production based on a theory of cultural and competition policy versus industrial policy. We believe this theory is without merit. If a production is advancing the broadcasting policy objectives of the Act — with respect to use of Canadian creative and human resources; the telling of Canadian stories; displaying Canadian talent; encouraging the development and export of Canadian programs globally; serving the needs and interests of all Canadians; reflecting and being responsive to the preferences and interests of various audiences (among others) — we fail to see how that production is not advancing cultural policy. As set out in the individual submissions filed by Disney, Netflix and Paramount, oftentimes so-called “service productions” tell more genuinely Canadian stories that showcase Canadian storytellers, talent, culture and geography than domestic “Canadian content.” 

Ouch. Can’t wait for the return volley.

***

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or e-mail howard.law@bell.net to be added to the weekly update; 

or follow @howardalaw on Twitter.

By Howard Law and Ivor Shapiro

July 31, 2023

The path toward a consensus strategy to bolster news journalism took a few new twists in Canada’s smoke-filled early weeks of summer, 2023.  

The federal parliament passed the Online News Act, a.k.a. Bill C-18, and its chief targets, Meta and Google, promised news-throttling countermeasures. Bell Media, owner of the country’s biggest private TV network, cut 340 jobs and then asked the CRTC for relief from all license conditions for local news.  Meanwhile, the two biggest online journalism companies in Canada – Postmedia and NordStar – announced merger negotiations (only three years after their “swap and close” deal shuttered 44 local publications) and then halted talks citing, amongst other things, “regulatory and financial uncertainty.”. 

Into this conflagration of reminders of Canadian journalism’s sustainability crisis came an ambitious proposal for a national news strategy from respected conservative voices Konrad von Finckenstein and Peter Menzies, published June 7^th by the Macdonald Laurier Institute…

Please continue reading in English or French at Policy Options, the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

July 31, 2023

The American equivalent of Canada’s Online News Act Bill C-18 has been stalled in US Congress for two years and a new Bill, the “Community News and Small Business Support Act,” has been tabled in the House of Representatives.

The C-18 type legislation, Senator Amy Klobuchar’s Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, almost made it into law last year, fell off the order table, and was relaunched in the Senate Judiciary Committee in June.

However this new House effort, goes in a different direction from C-18 styled legislation and instead is a do-over of another unsuccessful Congressional Bill from 2021 . It relies on two major tools. The first is an advertiser subsidy: small businesses would get significant reimbursements for patronizing newspapers. The second is a federal wage subsidy for journalists (sound familiar?). It is co-sponsored in the House by a Democrat and Republican.

One should never be a pessimist, but getting a Bill like that past Kevin McCarthy, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the Republican caucus in the House seems challenging.

Bringing this back to Canada, this page noted in June that Konrad von Finckenstein and Peter Menzies have proposed a news journalism strategy. It was recently reviewed by the University of Calgary’s Gregory Taylor. Today there is a continuation of the policy discussion posted by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, co-written by Ivor Shapiro, Senior Fellow at TMU’s Centre for Free Expression, and myself.

We are hoping the discussion continues, not so much as a back and forth argument but as something more like a chain-novel.

***

Another Canadian media policy in the news is our Digital Services Tax that is scheduled to be implemented at the end of the year. The three per cent corporate revenue tax on digital media companies is part of a drawn out international effort to do something about Big Tech’s notorious offshore tax avoidance.

France and the UK have already implemented their DSTs. Canada and other countries agreed not to implement their DSTs so long as the Biden White House was trying to get the aforementioned McCarthy and Greene to play ball and replace the DST with a different tax regime that sees the Californian Big Tech companies pay corporate taxes in the jurisdictions their services are used, in proportion to local consumption.

The agreed upon deadline of December 31, 2023 is approaching and the US administration got most other countries but not Canada to waive the deadline and wait to see what happens in a deadlocked US Congress in 2024, reliably reported as an election year.

When Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said no to a Canadian extension, the US ambassador to Canada dutifully threatened trade sanctions against Canada without specifying how the DST —which the US agreed is the default to their legislative inaction—is a trade violation. Some months ago Michael Geist published a blog making the same claim about trade law by quoting chapters of the CUSMA trade deal without saying how they applied.

The Globe and Mail editorial page chimed in this past weekend saying Canada should take no legislative action against Big Tech without global co-operation because we can’t take the retaliation. In characterizing Canadian policy efforts, the Globe suggests that the Online Streaming Act Bill C-11 and the Online News Act C-18 “force tech companies to compensate Canadian media for disrupting their business models,” statements that are arguably wrong (C-18) and clearly incorrect (C-11).

Instead the Globe says we should pursue data privacy legislation (we are, it could be more ambitious) and put more teeth in our Competition Act so that our regulator is as well equipped as its American federal and state counterparts that are waging a decade-long court battle against Big Tech market power (while doing nothing in US Congress).

The Conservatives, who made the DST the centrepiece of their election policy as an alternative to Bill C-11, have no comment.

***

The recent shuffle in the Trudeau cabinet resulted in Pablo Rodriguez rotated out of Heritage and replaced by Pascale St.-Onge.

The waggish Paul Wells had this to say:

Pablo Rodriguez to Transport would seem to be yet another case of ministerial burnout on all those Web Giant-Killer bills that have become the torment of a succession of Heritage ministers. Pascale St.-Onge replaces him on the censorship ‘n’ subsidies beat, ringing a new variation on the eternal question: Why do they call it Canadian Heritage if only ministers from Quebec are allowed to do the job?

The “censorship ‘n’ subsidies” tag is a bit of a giveaway Paul, but I laughed.

On the other hand, Geist had this to say: “Pascale St.-Onge, the new Heritage Minister, was a lobbyist in the culture sector before her election to the House of Commons and is likely to welcome the big tech battle.”

Well if she’s a “lobbyist” she is in good company, although in fact she was an advocate representing Québécois journalists and media workers, having worked at La Presse for fifteen years and another ten at the FNC union. That probably makes her the most policy-wise Heritage Minister to ever assume the role.

St.-Onge wasn’t in the job a day before she signalled the government is going to stay the course on C-18. The full Facebook news throttle is rumoured to take place imminently.

 ***

The CRTC keeps posting the blizzard of legal filings in its public proceeding to implement Bill C-11. The US streamers are miffed that CRTC Chair Vicky Eatrides chose, in their view, to put the horse before the cart by starting off with a consideration of a ‘basic initial contribution’ from the streamers into the various television and radio subsidy funds that legacy broadcasters currently finance.

The streamers, surprise, don’t want to pay anything (and collectively refused to submit a proposed contribution) on the grounds that the Commission should first decide if it is going to amend the 40-year definition of a ‘Canadian’ video program. That’s because the Hollywood streamers prefer to deliver their support for Canadian programming entirely as programs available on their own platforms —preferably with new CanCon rules more favourable to them— instead of sharing part of their contribution in a common pool of subsidies.

On the music side of the industry, the Globe reported that Spotify is repeating its previous warnings to the Commission that too much regulatory interference with their distribution model in the name of discoverability of Canadian songs might turn off consumers to the point that they resort to VPNs or pirated music.

Spotify probably doesn’t have to worry. Eatrides’ public notice of consultation already grants the streamers the opportunity to self-design their efforts to promote Canadian content, see paragraphs 77-81 of the Notice.

***

Here’s a recommended read, The Hub’s Sean Speer on which way the Canadian conservative movement might jump: “The conservative consensus is over. The consequences for the Canadian Right will be profound.”

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or e-mail howard.law@bell.net to be added to the weekly update; 

or follow @howardalaw on Twitter.

July 23, 2023

As the grudge match between Canada and California continues this summer, some opponents of Bill C-18 explicitly call for the natural death of Canadian mainstream news outlets while others at least have a proposal.

Taylor Owen and Supriya Dwivedi added their voices to the debate this weekend, calling for the government to cap Google’s liability for compensating news outlets, pay Meta’s share for them, and then “sunset” Bill C-18. They have other suggestions to provide public support for news and competition investigations against Big Tech’s advertising monopolies.

For our part, MediaPolicy.ca remains in the ‘fight on’ camp. We are going to have to settle once and for all whether we are governed by Ottawa or Silicon Valley. There is a pipeline of more media and data regulation of the Big Tech footprint in our country. Bills C-18 and C-11 are just the beginning. The government will be tabling an Online Harms Bill in the fall which, even though it promises to rely heavily upon social media platforms regulating themselves, will be yet another encounter between Canada and California. Then there is AI. And the Digital Services Tax. And perhaps real controls on the scraping of personal data. 

We seem to be in the summer lull of the Big Tech C-18 news throttle, although that could change very quickly with the recall of Parliament in September. While it is possible Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez is close to a deal with Google, its spokesperson wasn’t very encouraging in a recent Washington Post article that provided an update to American readers.

***

While some may wish a natural death for privately owned mainstream media, others wish the same for the CBC. 

This is not a reference to Pierre Poilievre and his promise to defund the public broadcaster. It is a reference to Andrew Coyne continuing to call for ‘refunding’ —as mendacious a term as you will find— the CBC by eliminating the Parliamentary grant and imposing a paid subscription model. 

The next question would be how the pay-for-content CBC differed from any other news outlet and why aren’t we privatizing it.

A recent Angus Reid opinion poll drew attention for its conclusions on the wince-inducing levels of support for defunding the CBC.

While not minimizing the results, they ought to be benchmarked against an almost identical poll from Mainstreet in September 2022. Over the intervening nine months there has been a noticeable move from the ‘Agree’ column to ‘Disagree’ with defunding:

The high level of ‘defund’ support from Conservative Party-leaning respondents did not change much, except that the “don’t know” replies were fewer. Possible conclusion: repeat messaging from Conservative HQ is effective in securing donor and voter base support for this wedge issue.

The NDP-leaning respondents did not change much either, presumably because the CBC is a sacrament to those voters so they were always strongly opposed to defunding.

The Liberal-leaning results shifted. There are less “don’t knows” and perceptible movement of ‘defunding supporters’ to ‘defunding opponents.’

On the assumption that there is nothing the CBC has done in the last nine months to change public opinion on defunding, it is possible the reason for change among Liberal-leaning respondents is that they now see the CBC as a Conservative wedge issue and are responding in kind. 

Then there are the Bloc-leaning respondents and this is where the action is. There is a very noticeable move from defunding-support to defunding-opposition. The overall Québec results show a similar shift.

Here is a more fulsome snapshot of the two polls:

***

Paul Wells has a follow up report on the crisis at Canada’s only retail book-store chain, Indigo. It won’t cheer you up. He calls for unspecified federal government intervention on the basis that Ottawa is responsible for creating the situation several years ago by permitting Indigo to swallow Chapters.

***

Finally, the recommended read for the week is a video. The Zeds may have TikTok, but we boomers have William Shatner. Beam me up.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or e-mail howard.law@bell.net to be added to the weekly update; 

or follow @howardalaw on Twitter.

Photo: Alos Wonaschuetz

July 16, 2023

The silver lining in the cloud hanging over the future of news journalism in Canada is that we get a lot of public opinion polls. This week Angus Reid published two.

The first was about Bill C-18. The headline finding was that nearly half of Canadians, heavily concentrated among Conservative supporters, want the government to cave in to Meta and Google in the face of news throttling on their platforms. MediaPolicy.ca wrote about that here. 

A second and self commissioned poll lead with a finding that a majority of Canadians don’t want government to ‘fund newsrooms.’ The timing of the poll seemed strange: federal aid to newsroom —-the QCJO program, readership tax credits and relaxed rules on charitable donations to journalism—- dates back to 2019 and has not been in the news.

The question was blunt and without nuance about the word ‘funding’ and asked respondents to choose between two policy extremes even if they did not completely agree: government funding of newsrooms or none at all.

The poll moved on to measure continued support or ‘defunding’ the CBC:

As you can see the poll results were, once more, heavily skewed by voter preferences. 

The pollster then made this editorial supposition: perhaps the apparent contradiction between support for publicly funded CBC newsrooms and opposition to government aid to private sector newsrooms is because respondents admire the CBC’s non-news programming in sports and entertainment or because of the public broadcaster’s ‘broad mandate.’

Upon reflection, perhaps the pollster is aware of this graphic:

***

The Canadian government’s contest of wills with Meta and Facebook continues.

At the beginning of the week, Heritage Canada issued a statement of the federal cabinet’s intention to pass a regulation under the Online News Act providing Google and Facebook the opportunity to obtain a regulatory exemption under section 11 of the Act by committing a minimum amount of funding in deals with a minimum number of news outlets. 

This suggests Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has either made a deal with Google, or is headed towards one by filling in the blanks for ‘minimum’ with actual numbers. The ‘exemption’ in C-18 was designed by Parliamentarians to push the platforms and news outlets to voluntarily negotiated deals and avoid mandatory arbitration. The CRTC makes the judgement call on exemptions based on a long list of criteria set down by MPs in the Bill. 

By enacting a cabinet regulation pinning down the most crucial variables in the exemption process in advance,  the government is ceding what the platforms have said publicly is their greatest concern, limited liability for payments to news outlets. 

We will see now if the platforms ever wanted a deal at all in Canada. Pro tip: Meta doesn’t.

In the meantime, the Big Tech threats continue with two new ones this week. Google let it be known that they are not going to release their search engine AI tool in Canada because of “regulatory uncertainty.”

Next, the Google filing to the CRTC at the outset of the Bill C-11 implementation process threatens an unspecified CUSMA trade complaint if it doesn’t like what it sees at the end of the process for its YouTube platform:

14. These submissions are further made without prejudice to the application of the USMCA to any conditions of service that affect issues of Canadian market access and entry of non-Canadian services established by the Commission for online undertakings.

***

Meanwhile, Hollywood is on fire. 

Not literally of course, but the actors’ union SAG-AFTRA has joined the Writers Guild of America on strike. The issues include money, diminishing work, and contract language protecting against job replacement by AI tools. The speculation is that the strike will last for months and heavily impact TV and film production. 

On a parallel track, and perhaps intersecting with the strike, is the ongoing market shake-out among the streamers. MediaPolicy linked to a story about that three weeks ago: this week there is an in-depth analysis in the Wall Street Journal about the financial predicament of one of Hollywood’s Titans, Disney.

***

On the artificial intelligence front, Associated Press reached an agreement with Open AI to grant the large language model developer OpenAI access to its news archive. Something to watch.

***

The best read of the week for me was posted by New York Times columnist David French, “Who Truly Threatens the Church?” At one level, it’s about the creeping fascism of the Christian nationalist movement in the US. But it’s more introspective, and more elevating, than that.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or e-mail howard.law@bell.net to be added to the weekly update; 

or follow @howardalaw on Twitter.