The record (also published by Metroland, a subsidiary of Torstar) has already absorbed the cambridge daily reporter (when they closed down in 2003) so Guelph is not a big problem. 

It's a lot like all the kvetching about the demise of local television.  It's going to happen.  Might as well just learn to live with it.
 

Awwww, thanks Mark.  Irvine's name and the word "sensitivity" can indeed go hand in hand, and I would never have believed it (kidding )

By the way, I was mailed a copy of Nevin Grant's new book.  So my heart is very warm thank you.

Last edited by Jody Thornton (January 25, 2016 11:54 PM)

Sorry to see the Guelph Mercury disappearing but it's a sign of the times for print media these days. Perhaps there's someone in Guelph making a go of it providing local news on a weekly or bi-weekly basis like we have in metro Vancouver with Glacier Media.

I do remember CKOC as a station I listened to in my youth in the late 1970s and early 1980's. The problem in KW was that the station's night pattern would cut off KW for some reason at that time. Many great memories in my youth with this station and old CFTR when they were Top 40. However, it wasn't long at that time to discover alternatives like cfny, Chum FM and Q-107 out of Toronto with no nighttime signal problem and better sound on FM in those days.   

  

Well, you know print media have had websites for many years for folks to get the latest news after it's been released. Newspapers have set up internet paywalls over the past 2 or 3 or so years but I don't think it's created a growth industry for newspapers. We only have to look at Post Media that's a penny stock owned by funds that are hedging rather than investing. Not much of a future for newspapers in this country let alone traditional local TV and radio these days.

Everyone is so much saturated media these days dividing our time, there's no time for us to focus on reading the afternoon newspaper and watching the 6pm newscast these days to catch up at the end of the day.     

    

Fausto, I'm mindful with what your saying, but I'm more concerned with all the journalists that have been fired  and will be fired going forward with advertising money to newspapers paying their salaries drying up slowly but surely much like the stock price story of Postmedia. Although we have many more media choices at our disposal these days, I think Canadians were better informed and saw more compelling alternative opinions 10 or 20 years than they do now in my view.      

The pay-wall is a failure and a typical example of the short sighted, self important mentality of the media. It's like how the film & TV studios want Netflix to stop people from using VPN's ignoring they're paying for the product regardless.  People still want to consume media & news. The failure is that the industry never bothered to figure out how to do it.  They put forth a minimal effort in developing a digital platform (though La Presse apparently does very well).  And the fault lies on their own shoulders.  The world is awash in brilliant technology development.  The industry is full of intelligent, creative young folks who shake up the status quo.  The media industry could have embraced that creativity and said "create something". They did not.  Instead they had to pay their shareholders, etc. 

As for whether or not people are more informed than they were 20 years ago.  I have several answers to this. 

For those who love news:  Yes.  More choices means more news and differing opinions.  Part of what I did for a living was researching people. It's amazing the amount of information that exists if you're willing to go find it (and know how).  It is (finally) starting to change how police investigate crime. 

For average people:  No.  Humans learn what they want to learn & they align their opinions with others around them.  Look at the USA.  Do Trump supporters care his opinions can be debunked?  No.  Same for NDP supporters, Trudeau supporters, Harper supporters, etc.  The reading masses are not objective at all. 

The REAL issue of media being a mile wide and an inch deep is the ability to manipulate the minds of the masses.  There are no filters.  For example, you take tiny example of extremism and blow it up into "normality".  One of the most common abusers of this are strongly religious people.  A "fact" is always fluid, but in the past the media handlers had some sense (and responsibility) in filtering the facts.

And why does this matter?  Well I want to imagine that you've been charged with a heinous crime.  The evidence put forth to the legal teams & to me, your forensics & intelligence analyst, is barely even circumstantial.  But rather than filter it out, we accept it as the truth. No filters or investigation exist to debunk anything. 

**BUT**...one HUGE positive is all this alternative media can/does make those interested question certain things.  I happen to be one of those people.  Case in point......

A couple years ago John Nutall and Amanda Korody were charged with attempted "terrorism" in on a Canada Day celebration in Victoria BC.  Below is a quote from the Globe and Mail

The trial of John Nuttall and Amanda Korody began Monday in B.C. Supreme Court. The couple, described by the Crown as a two-person terror cell, is accused of planting the bombs on July 1, 2013, ahead of Canada Day festivities in the B.C. capital of Victoria. They have pleaded not guilty. 

Only that's not exactly accurate.  The two suspects were charged on March 2nd 2013.  The link below contains a screen shot of the BC Courts Online. I have the full page version and I use this service frequently.  The entry is now scrubbed.  If you're arrested for "knowingly facilitating a terrorist act" by planting bombs ahead of the July 1st celebrations, then how do you get charged on March 2nd?  You don't plant bombs 4 months in advance, do you?  How did they do that?   You can see the screen cap here.  http://gangstersout.blogspot.ca/2014/07/surrey-bomb-fraud-goes-to-trial.html

Yet I side with neither.  I certainly don't support the "sound byte generation" who formulate opinions based on Facebook posts.  But I also don't support big media who are unwilling to waver from the "party line".  You'll never see a Bell outlet or employee question "Let's Talk".  You'll never see them badmouth the decisions made by their masters.  The idea of media IS to question things including their masters.  What you've got now is "Pravda - lite". 

 

Last edited by Hathaway (January 30, 2016 2:25 PM)