Sunday, May 17, 2020

Who is the real Journalism Doctor?

John Miller curiously quotes 19th Century circus operator P.T. Barnum in support of his contention that newspapers are essential to acquiring news and information these days. Ouch! Has the retired Ryerson University journalism professor not heard of the Internet? In an embarrassing screed posted on his blog The Journalism Doctor and reprinted on rabble.ca as “Ottawa dithers while local newspapers die,” Miller notes that a number of local newspapers have folded or suspended publication since the pandemic hit. As a result, he claims that “tens of thousands of us have been cut off from our only sources of local news.” I’m sorry, but I can’t hold it in any longer. OK BOOMER. And I’m a boomer! But John has been retired for so long that he might actually hail from the Greatest Generation. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Contrary to what Miller claims, there has never been as much news and information available literally at our fingertips. This is especially true when it comes to the big story these days. All of the latest Covid-19 facts and figures can be found with the click of a mouse if you have any search skills, along with all of the health advisories and warnings. You don’t even have to wait for the Pony Express to drop off the latest edition of your local weekly any more. And if official health information isn’t your cup of tea, you can go on Facebook or Twitter and find no shortage of news links, citizen journalism, contrary opinions, and yes, even conspiracy theories. If anything, the problem is too much information, not a lack of it.

I can certainly sympathize with Miller. Like him, I’m an old newspaper journalist. I love newspapers. I fiercely defended both their importance and viability in my 2014 book Greatly Exaggerated: The Myth of the Death of Newspapers. As I have told him, I greatly enjoyed reading his important 1998 book Yesterday’s News: Why Canada’s Daily Newspapers are Failing Us. It was about how Conrad Black was ruining Canada’s press, of which he certainly did a good job. But that is so much Last Century’s News. Things have changed a lot in the ensuing 22 years, in some ways for the better, but in other ways much for the worse. Black got out of the newspaper game at the millennium while the getting was still good. The problem he created went to another level in the following decade, however, and it has reached crisis proportions in the past 10 years. Now that we are on the cusp of a third post-millennium decade, I fear the worst-case scenario may be coming true – non-stop swindling combined with total bamboozlement.

Media ownership in Canada has degenerated into nothing less than a series of scams. The “convergence” scam of newspaper-television cross-ownership that was popular at the millennium imploded within a decade as Canwest Global went bankrupt and the Globe and Mail divorced CTV. The latest scam is called “financialization,” in which debt is weaponized. The former Southam newspaper chain which Black passed along to Canwest was scooped up out of bankruptcy by a consortium of U.S. hedge funds which had bought up its distressed debt at deep discounts on the bond market. They used some of the debt to bid for the company at auction, renamed it Postmedia Network, then kept the rest on its books to ensure they get paid first every month. In short, they are skimming it off the top. There might not be much money in owning newspapers any more, but there is in owning high-interest debt, some of which was taken out at 12.5 percent by a desperate Canwest. This isn’t just happening in Canada. Hedge funds now own seven of the 10 largest U.S. chains, including Gannett, the country’s largest, which two of them fought a bidding war for last year. Apparently the vulture capitalists understand something few others realize – there is still some money to be made in newspapers, which may actually be the way of the future in news since digital media have so far been unable to find a viable business model.

The takeover of our largest chain by Americans was inexplicably allowed by the Harper government despite a supposed 25-percent limit on foreign ownership of newspapers. Then in 2014 Postmedia bought Canada’s second-largest chain, Sun Media, which was inexplicably allowed by the federal Competition Bureau despite it giving the vultures 15 of our 21 largest newspapers, including both dailies in four of our six largest cities. Postmedia promised to preserve newspaper competition in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa, but soon merged the newsrooms of its duopoly dailies there to cut costs in order to keep paying its debt. It has been bleeding both chains dry ever since, all the while demanding government handouts by claiming they are losing money. Quite the contrary, Postmedia Network saw its profits rise slightly in the first six months of its 2019-20 fiscal year, to $26.8 million from $26.4 million in the same period a year earlier, according to the quarterly report it issued last week.

Miller, who isn’t really a doctor (I am. Of journalism, no less.) demonstrates how misinformed he is by claiming that “news media have only two sources of revenue – subscriptions and advertising – and both are in steep decline.” Advertising revenue has certainly drained away, mostly to Facebook and Google. Newspapers worldwide have rearranged their business models to compensate, however, by boosting their circulation revenue. Most are now charging more for hard copies they once sold at a loss to maximize their ad rates. While numbers are not available for Canada, U.S. newspapers increased their print circulation revenue by 12 percent from 2011-17. And while no real hard numbers are available on either side of the border for digital circulation revenue, most newspapers in Canada and the U.S. are now charging for online access by erecting “paywalls” that require a subscription after a few free articles every month. When the Toronto Star erected one in 2018, that brought the total to 65 percent of Canadian newspapers with a paywall, while 77 percent of U.S. newspapers charged for online access.

Postmedia saw its profits jump by 18 percent in 2017-18 after swapping 41 newspapers with Torstar, Canada’s new second-largest chain, then closing all of its acquisitions to create lucrative new local monopolies. The Competition Bureau finally acted, however, raiding the offices of both chains after leaked documents reportedly included agreements between Postmedia and Torstar not to compete for years in the markets they vacated and even on which employees would be axed. The chains and their executives now face fines of $25 million and prison sentences of 14 years on possible criminal charges of conspiracy and monopoly. Coming hard on the heels of its newsroom mergers, which prompted Parliamentary hearings in 2016-17, you would think the vultures would be flocking rapidly toward the border. Instead they somehow engineered a miraculous reversal of fortune which gifted them with a $595 million government bailout. How this happened is quite the story, which I am currently unraveling for my forthcoming book The Great Canadian Media Swindle.

Suffice it to say that Postmedia could not have done it without a little help from its friends. Industry association News Media Canada, which Postmedia dominates by dint of its ownership share, has run a masterful campaign with the aid of media consultants, journalism academics, and think tanks like the Public Policy Forum. NMC is headed by Winnipeg Free Press publisher Bob Cox, who seems like a nice enough guy and heads one of Canada’s last independent dailies. When you see Bob Cox quoted, however, think about how much less persuasive his arguments would be coming from Paul Godfrey, who until recently was Postmedia CEO.

Miller, who now hangs out his shingle as an expert witness, curiously gives over more than half of his screed to an “email interview” with Cox, which allows him to update the propaganda campaign Canadians have been inundated with for the past few years. It could be summed up as “we need money – give us money.” It certainly worked, to the tune of $595 million. But that is just a start, if Big Media in Canada have anything to say about it. They have their eyes on all that money U.S. digital giants like Facebook and Google are making and want Ottawa to gift them a portion of that, too. The total could add up to billions. For that to happen, however, Big Media will need a lot more help from their friends.

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Starving Canadian media giants – A case of real fake news

This review originally appeared in the September/October issue of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives magazine The Monitor. It was subsequently reprinted in The Tyee.

The Tangled Garden: A Canadian Cultural Manifesto for the Digital Age
Richard Stursberg (with Stephen Armstrong)
James Lorimer & Co., April 2019, $24.95.

When U.S. television stations set up transmitters just across the border in the 1970s to beam their signals into Canadian homes, and then began selling ads here, it started a trade war that lasted a dozen years. To keep the ad dollars at home, Ottawa passed a law that disallowed as an income tax deduction the expense of advertising on a foreign station. The U.S. retaliated by declaring non-deductible the expense of attending conventions in Canada, which put a serious crimp in our hospitality industry. The dispute was only settled with the 1988 Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

Plus they stole my cover design!
History is now repeating itself, as many in Canada want to extend our treatment of broadcast advertising to digital media, to stem the flow of ad dollars to foreign giants like Google and Facebook (the FAANGs), which have been siphoning off revenue from newspapers and television networks worldwide. These same voices also advocate taxing foreign streaming services like Netflix, Apple and Amazon, and forcing them to both transmit and fund Canadian content. The billions of dollars available to be clawed back from the foreign digital giants, they argue, would help finance government subsidies to Canadian media, such as the $595 million promised in the 2019 budget to boost journalism.

Richard Stursberg is one of those voices, and he sets out this argument simply enough for the average Canadian to understand in his new book, The Tangled Garden. In doing so, however, he plays fast and loose with the facts and inflates the threat to Canadian media of the foreign digital giants. Stursberg notes that these U.S. companies have so far avoided paying tax in Canada on their services to Canadians due to Ottawa’s reluctance to regulate the internet as it has broadcasting. (The FAANGs presumably pay income tax in their own countries, however, which in the case of Facebook is very low in Ireland.) That will soon change if Stursberg has anything to say about it.

As a consultant, Stursberg seems to specialize in coming up with ways for Big Media in Canada to wheedle money out of Ottawa. For this he was no doubt prepared by his 25 years in Canadian broadcasting, including six years as head of the CBC’s English services. His book tells how he was hired by Rogers, our second-largest media company after Bell, to write a “paper” a few years ago that floated the idea of using tax credits to aid our country’s supposedly ailing media companies—a direct subsidy without the need for any application process. “If the costs qualified,” notes Stursberg, “the payment was automatic.”

That got the attention of Paul Godfrey, at the time CEO of Postmedia Network, Canada’s largest newspaper chain. (Postmedia publishes 15 of our 22 largest dailies but is somehow 92% owned by U.S. hedge funds.) Godfrey liked Stursberg’s idea about tax credits so much that he invited him to dinner with Postmedia’s board. Together with the likes of David Pecker, then publisher of the National Enquirer, who represented the American vulture capitalists, they decided to pitch the idea to other newspaper publishers and “finance a study on how tax credits might work for them.” In this effort Stursberg enlisted the aid of “media economics expert” Stephen Armstrong, a long-time Ontario civil servant who is also now a consultant.

Stursberg tells a fascinating tale about how our news media ended up with the $595 million they are currently deciding how to divvy up. At the height of their disagreement over how the money should be paid out, he recalls that one publisher told him: “At the end of the day, if the money has to be delivered in a brown paper bag late on Sunday nights in the alley, we’ll take it.” But a few hundred million is chump change in Canada’s cultural economy, which Stursberg estimates is worth $54 billion and employs 650,000. The big bailout bucks will of course go to television because it’s the backbone of Canadian culture.

The Tangled Garden is an unabashed exhortation for the “sleepy” Liberal government (a word Stursberg actually uses in a chapter title) to fire up the tax collection machine to pump more money into Cancon. He counts up all the dollars that would flow back to Ottawa and Canadian media companies by taxing the FAANGs, and it comes to billions annually. Making them pay (and charge) HST on their sales to Canadians would bring in $100 million a year just for starters.

But making digital ads on foreign digital media not tax-deductible should repatriate about $1.3 billion inads sales to domestic media annually. Taxes on ads that don’t migrate back north (to Canadian firms) would run an estimated $590 million a year. Making Netflix and other foreign streaming services contribute 30% of their Canadian revenues to fund Cancon, as the national networks are required to do, would bring in an estimated $438 million next year alone. Stursberg does a very good job of shaking money from trees. No wonder Godfrey likes him.

Aside from the wisdom of trying to repatriate tax and ad revenues from the U.S., with a trade hawk like Donald Trump in the White House, the only problem with Stursberg’s argument is its premise. “If the federal government does not wake from its torpor, the major Canadian media companies are likely to collapse,” he warns. “If this happens, English Canada will be effectively annexed by the United States.”

Stursberg claims that big media companies in Canada have suffered “losses as far as the eye can see” due to declining ad sales. Their financial failure would bring about “the utter collapse of Canadian culture,” he colourfully predicts, leaving us with the “arid and lifeless landscape of an abandoned culture.” The closure of Postmedia, which he claims has lost money every year since 2011, “would mean that there would no longer be any local papers in many of Canada’s largest cities.” It and Torstar, Canada’s second-largest newspaper chain, are losing at least $35 million a year, he claims.

This is so much nonsense, to use a polite word. It is the Big Lie of Canadian media.

The big media companies in Canada are corpulent cash cows that grow fatter by the year, as a glance at the financial statements posted by law on their websites will confirm. Bell made $9.5 billion in profit last year (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) on revenues of $23.5 billion, for a profit margin of 40%. Its media division, which includes the CTV network, made $693 million on revenues of $2.68 billion, which were up slightly from 2017. That’s a profit margin of 26%. (Bell made 42.5% profit margin on its $12.4 billion in landline revenues last year and 42.6% on its $8.4 billion in cell phone revenues.)

Rogers made $6 billion in profit last year, up 9% from 2017, on revenues of $15.1 billion, for a profit margin of almost 40%. Its media division, which includes the Citytv network, made a profit of $196 million last year, up by more than half from 2017, on revenues of $2.2 billion, for a profit margin of 9%. (Rogers made almost 48% on its $3.9 billion in cable revenues last year and almost 45% on its $7.1 billion in cell phone revenues.) Making money at that rate, Rogers can afford to hire a lot more media consultants like Stursberg to sing the blues for them. Come to think of it, a small share of its lush cable revenues, which come largely from monopoly internet service provision, would go a long way toward funding Cancon, but that’s the last thing Rogers wants to hear.

Even the newspaper companies are hardly losing money, as my research has shown. While their revenues have gone down precipitously in recent years, they have been able to keep their heads well above water through painful cost cutting, which is admittedly not good for Canadian journalism. Postmedia made $65.4 million in profit last year, up 18% from 2017, on revenues of $676 million, for a profit margin of 9.7%. Of that amount, however, more than $25 million went to paying down its massive debt, which is held mostly by its hedge fund owners. They kept it on the company’s books strategically as an income source after acquiring the former Southam newspaper chain for pennies on the dollar out of the 2010 bankruptcy of Canwest Global Communications.

Even if Postmedia went bankrupt due to debt, however, its profitable dailies would continue to publish under new ownership. You don’t just close down a business that makes $65 million a year. Torstar made $60.7 million in profit last year on revenues of $615 million, for a profit margin of 9.8%. Its profits went down $13.5 million from 2017, however, perhaps due to the estimated $20 million Torstar spent in developing its failed tablet app.

The chains regularly report enormous net losses, but these are only achieved after deducting huge “paper” losses that estimate the reduced value of their businesses. Postmedia is often cited as losing $352 million in its 2015-16 fiscal year, but that was only after deducting $367 million in asset impairment and the extraordinary $42 million expense of severing staff. On an operating basis, it actually earned $82 million that year, of which $72 million went to paying down its debt.

One thing you won’t find referenced in The Tangled Garden is critical research done by real media economists, such as Dwayne Winseck of Carleton University, whose Canadian Media Concentration Research Project tracks the ever-increasing consolidation of our media and the enormous profits they make. When you examine the facts and ignore the corporate propaganda, Stursberg’s garden turns out to be not just tangled, but overgrown with weeds.

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Why Are Newspapers Still Here?



Introduction to a panel held at the Association for Education in Journalism 
and Mass Communication convention on Thursday,
August 8 in Hall B of the Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel

Spoiler alert – it’s very simple. Newspapers are still here because they still make money. Not as much as they used to make. They used to make an obscene amount of money. Now they are having to cut costs as fast as they can just to keep their heads above water. But newspapers are inherently profitable thanks to some economic features such as vertical integration, elasticity of demand, and economies of scale. So while they have slimmed down considerably, they are still publishing profitably despite what you may have heard elsewhere. This is a line of research I have been pursuing for almost a decade, first in this country, then in the U.S., and now in the UK, where I am working frantically to finish a book on the subject.

Meanwhile digital media, which have been widely touted to replace print media, have struggled to find a profitable business model. If they don’t, how can they replace print media, especially if the latter are actually making money? Caught in the middle, of course, is journalism, especially local news coverage, which is what gets cut back most, to the detriment of democracy. It’s a conundrum that policymakers are confronting differently in different countries. Here the apparent solution is to throw money at media, as subsidies worth almost $600 million (about $450 million U.S.) were announced in the last federal budget. This country’s news media are now fighting over how to divvy up the loot, and it looks like most of it will go to old media – newspapers – to prop them up. And in Canada that unfortunately means most of the money will be going to New Jersey hedge funds. It’s a long story.

Let’s start at the beginning. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the so-called Newspaper Crisis. After the long-publishing Rocky Mountain News folded and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer went online-only in the depths of a global recession in early 2009, predictions ran rampant that dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of newspapers would soon fold. Michael Wolff predicted that: “About 18 months from now, 80 percent of newspapers will be gone.” USA Today predicted that: “At least one city – possibly San Francisco, Miami, Minneapolis or Cleveland – likely will soon lose its last daily newspaper.” Time magazine warned on its website: “It’s possible that eight of the nation’s 50 largest daily newspapers could cease publication in the next 18 months.” In the UK, whose newspaper industry I have been studying most recently, media analyst Claire Enders predicted to a Parliamentary committee in 2009 that up to half of the country’s 1,300 local and regional newspapers would close within five years. “Many titles are already running at losses and are being sustained by the good graces of their owners,” she testified, “and that may not last.”

Of course, 18 months passed and far from 80 percent of American newspapers were gone. None of the nation’s 50 largest daily newspapers had ceased publication. San Francisco, Miami, Minneapolis and Cleveland still had a daily newspaper. They still do. After Denver and Seattle, the contagion was confined to Tucson and Honolulu. The recession gradually eased, but more importantly newspapers proved incredibly resilient, able to cut their costs almost as fast as their revenues fell frighteningly by a third and then by half and now by even more. Unfortunately, they were only able to cut costs so quickly by throwing journalists overboard, so while the outlook may have brightened somewhat for newspapers, it only darkened for journalism. None of what I am saying should be taken to mean that newspaper journalism is thriving. Quite the opposite. I am only saying that newspapers as businesses are hanging in there and should for the foreseeable future.

In the UK, five years passed and only about 100 newspapers had closed instead of the 650 Claire Enders predicted. Most of those were free sheets which had proliferated in the 1980s to soak up all the ad revenue, what we would call “shoppers.” The only paid regional daily to close was the Liverpool Post, which was a second-place newspaper. In this country, only one daily folded during the recession of 2008-09, in Halifax. It was immediately resurrected, incidentally, as a free commuter tabloid, Halifax Metro.

This year also marks the fifth anniversary of my book Greatly Exaggerated: The Myth of the Death of Newspapers, which examined the finances of publicly-traded newspaper companies in the U.S. and Canada going back to 2006, before the recession began. It found that none had suffered an annual loss on an operating basis over an eight-year period and that most were posting double-digit profit margins, with some in the 20-percent range. Of course, they were doing so on greatly reduced revenues as classified advertising mostly disappeared and digital advertising came nowhere near making up the difference. Newspaper profits were a fraction of what they were before the print advertising bubble burst in 2004. At the height of the boom, operating profits were routinely above 20 percent, with some in the 30-percent range, as monopoly newspapers could even approach 40-50 percent return on revenue. That is, they could keep 40-50 cents in profit for every dollar that came in the door as revenue. The dailies that folded had all been second-place afternoon newspapers, which in a declining industry proved to be an endangered species indeed. Newspapers aren’t dying so much as newspaper competition is dying. The monopolies that remain are still mostly profitable.

Unfortunately, much confusion has been caused in the public mind by the multi-million-dollar losses often declared by newspaper chains, which tend to grab the headlines. These are “extraordinary” losses only on paper, as under the accounting rules companies are required to regularly revisit the value of their business. If it goes down, as it invariably did for newspapers due to their declining revenues and earnings, that loss has to come off the books somehow. It did so, under the accounting rules, through the annual profit and loss statement as an extraordinary loss. On an operating basis – money coming in the door minus money going out the door – newspapers still have their heads well above water. That should be true indefinitely, as they have proven to be quite scalable enterprises that can be made larger or smaller as necessary. It is important to remember that newspapers began as small businesses, often one-person operations. On their present trajectory they are at worst on track to return to that status.

Much confusion has also been caused in the public mind by declining circulation, which is often pointed to as a harbinger of newspaper doom. This ignores the counter-intuitive fact that most newspapers lose money on circulation sales. They of course make it back and more from advertising. Cutting back on circulation has thus been a way for newspapers to cut costs, as it is increasingly expensive to truck copies farther and wider to readers of diminishing interest to their advertisers. At the same time, they have asked their readers to pay closer to the actual cost of producing a hard copy of the newspaper, often doubling or even tripling subscription rates, as Iris has found. Given the well-proven elasticity of demand for newspapers, many more readers than not were willing to pay more. Much more. The truth is that newspapers now have more readers than ever thanks to the Internet. It’s just that most are reading it for free, and that has to stop if newspapers are to survive.

Sunday, August 4, 2019

Greatly Exaggerated in Canada

A paper presented to the Canadian Communication 
Association conference, Vancouver, June 1-5, 2019

Abstract
The newspaper industry in Canada is portrayed as being in “crisis” by research which has exaggerated its financial decline and apparently inflated the extent of publication closures. Publishers have been campaigning for government assistance since the Internet has taken most of their advertising revenues. The two largest newspaper chains are under investigation by the federal Competition Bureau on possible criminal charges of conspiracy and monopoly after trading 41 newspapers between them and closing 37 of them. The country’s largest chain is 98 percent owned by U.S. hedge funds and must send much of its dwindling profits south to pay the interest on the company’s massive debt, most of which the vulture capitalists also hold. Parliamentary hearings on local media recommended government assistance in 2017, after which the newspaper industry bid for a billion-dollar bailout, which was quickly rejected. Over the ensuing year, however, pressure grew on Ottawa to assist the country’s news media financially. Dire warnings have been issued from industry and researchers of the consequences to the country’s news media of government inaction. Inflated estimates were given of the number of newspapers that have already perished. Finally, Ottawa announced in late 2018 a $595 million package of tax credits and other subsidies. Yet the chains are still comfortably profitable, with operating margins of about 10 percent return on revenue. Most of the newspaper closures have resulted from questionable and possibly criminal dealings between their owners that have reduced or eliminated competition. This paper examines the “crisis” in the Canadian newspaper industry and compares the dire warnings of impending doom and the inflated estimates of newspaper closures with publicly available data. It concludes that a campaign for government assistance has been conducted by or on behalf of newspaper chains. Insights into this campaign of disinformation have potentially important public policy implications for the proposed $595 million program of federal government assistance.
Keywords: newspapers, mass media in Canada, media economics

The late U.S. media scholar Ben Bagdikian saw a long-running disinformation campaign he called the “myth of newspaper poverty” obscuring what was instead their considerable profitability. “American publishers have always felt obligated to pretend that they are an auxiliary of the Little Sisters of the Poor,” he wrote in a 1973 article for the Columbia Journalism Review. “This was always amusing, but now that so many papers are owned by publicly traded companies which have to disclose their finances it is taking on the air of slapstick.” Publicly, noted Bagdikian, publishers complained about rising costs. “Privately most have had a different kind of problem: how to get rid of profits.” 
In an almost unprecedented move for newspapers, the Harris papers in Kansas, Iowa, and California actually reduced advertising rates, though their circulation trends didn’t force them to; otherwise their profits would have been beyond [anti-inflation] limits designated by the Government.[1]
A recession in the early 1970s, he noted, prompted publishers to complain of financial hardship in order to justify cutbacks in hiring. “This is mostly hogwash,” claimed Bagdikian. “American daily newspapers are one of the most profitable of all major industries in the United States. And they were during the 1970-71-72 ‘Great Recession.’” Data on newspaper profits were hard to come by, noted Bagdikian, because “of all industries, newspaper publishing is the most obsessed by financial secrecy.” Increased ownership of newspapers by publicly-traded companies, however, had opened a window into the hitherto secretive world of newspaper finances. A typical metropolitan daily with a circulation of 250,000 was very profitable, noted Bagdikian, even in the depths of a recession. “In 1970 such papers showed a pre-tax profit of 23.5 per cent. In 1971 it was 23.2 per cent. The 1972 figures had not been completed at this writing, but authorities agree that 1972 will be better than 1971.”[2]
The poverty myth was used to best advantage by publishers, noted Bagdikian, in campaigning for passage of the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970, which exempted partnerships between formerly competing dailies from anti-trust laws on the basis that newspapers were a “natural monopoly.” Local newspaper competition was in the midst of an historic extinction, but the survivors would prove more profitable than ever, especially the government-sanctioned duopolies, which had the added benefit of helping to keep any new competitors out. Far from being unprofitable, according to Bagdikian, newspaper owners instead faced the problem of what to do with their overflowing coffers. Reinvesting as much as possible in acquisitions became the preferred method of dealing with excess profits, which according to Bagdikian was “fueling an already frantic race to acquire communications properties.”
Some independent publishers no longer attend the annual ANPA [American Newspaper Publishers Association] meeting because they must spend all their time resisting the embraces of the big chain paper-buyers. One small publisher said he felt “like a virgin stumbling into a stag party.”[3]
Bagdikian’s suspicions had been aroused a few years earlier after a Senate committee in
Canada forced media companies to open their books. The three-volume report of the Senate Sub-committee on Mass Media described what it found as “astonishing.” Media owners were making enormous profits. From 1958 to 1967, before-tax profits at Canadian newspapers ranged from 23.4 percent to 30.5 percent. After taxes, they were 12.3-17.5 percent, compared to 9.2-10.4 percent in other manufacturing and retailing industries. “Owning a newspaper, in other words, can be almost twice as profitable as owning a paper-box factory or a department store,” observed the report.[4] The secrecy surrounding their financial success, the Senate committee declared, was delicious in its hypocrisy. “An industry that is supposed to abhor secrets is sitting on one of the best-kept, least-discussed secrets, one of the hottest scoops, in the entire field of Canadian business – their own balance sheets.”[5] Pointing out that chain ownership of Canada’s daily newspapers had grown to 45 percent in 1970 from 25 percent in 1958, the Senate report urged government action to stem the rising tide of newspaper ownership concentration, but none was taken.

Bagdikian’s landmark 1983 book The Media Monopoly exposed what he called the “best kept secret in American newspapering” – its profitability. [6] The growth of newspaper chains, Bagdikian pointed out, had led to the industry being dominated by only 14 companies. Newspaper chains, broadcasting networks, and other media conglomerates were buying up media outlets at a rapid rate because of the industry’s peculiar economics, which created an almost irresistible urge to merge. By then, the situation was even more dire in Canada, where only three companies published 58 percent of all English-language dailies. The closure in 1980 of the long-publishing Ottawa Journal and Winnipeg Tribune by competing chains, which gave each one another lucrative local monopoly, prompted a Royal Commission on Newspapers which recommended limits on how chain ownership. None were enacted, however, and by 1999 Canada came to have one of the highest levels of press ownership concentration in the world, with the top five chains owning 93.2 percent of the country’s daily newspapers.[7]

From poverty myth to death myth

Fast forward 20 years and the poverty myth has become a death myth. The Canadian newspaper industry of 2019 is in apparent crisis. Publishers have been campaigning hard for government assistance after a disastrous ownership experiment at the millennium left the country’s news media devastated. The two largest newspaper chains are under investigation by the federal Competition Bureau on possible criminal charges of conspiracy and monopoly after trading 41 newspapers between them in 2017 and immediately closing almost all of them. The country’s largest chain is 98 percent owned by U.S. hedge funds and must send the majority of its dwindling profits south to pay the interest on the company’s massive debt, most of which the vulture capitalists also hold. Postmedia Network publishes 15 of the country’s 21 largest dailies after buying most of the second-largest chain in 2014. The takeover was approved by the Competition Bureau after Postmedia promised not to merge the duplicate dailies it thus owned in Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Vancouver, but it merged their newsrooms nonetheless in late 2015. A newly-elected Liberal government soon convened Parliamentary hearings on local media, which sat for sixteen months and recommended government assistance in mid-2017. The newspaper industry quickly bid for a billion-dollar bailout, which was just as quickly rejected. Over the ensuing year, however, pressure grew on Ottawa to assist the country’s news media financially. Dire warnings were issued from industry and academics of the consequences to the country’s news media of government inaction.

Inflated estimates were given of the number of newspapers that have already perished. Finally, Ottawa announced in late 2018 a $595 million package of tax credits and other subsidies. Yet the chains are still comfortably profitable, with operating margins of about 10 percent return on revenue. Most of the newspaper closures have resulted from questionable and possibly criminal dealings between their owners that have reduced or eliminated competition.

Friday, October 12, 2018

Newspaper chains demand ransom from Ottawa

Canada’s largest newspaper chains seem locked in a bizarre standoff with the federal government, demanding financial assistance while killing off community newspapers as if they were hostages. A major round of executions came almost a year ago, when Postmedia Network and Torstar Corp. traded 41 mostly Ontario titles and closed 37 of them. The occasion of “Newspaper Week” saw Torstar chair John Honderich author a column on Tuesday that resembled nothing less than a ransom note. 
Under the headline “Where is Ottawa’s help for Canada’s newspapers?,” it listed 25 defunct dailies and 112 closed community newspapers for a total of 137 titles that have ceased publication in the past decade. Honderich wanted to know where the money is that Ottawa promised in February’s budget to assist Canadian journalism. “One or two exploratory talks have been held but there has yet to be even a request for proposals,” he groused. “Maybe next year, we are told.” 
On closer inspection, however, Honderich’s list of dead papers doesn’t pass the laugh test. It includes more than a dozen titles Torstar killed off after its swap last year with Postmedia, and almost two dozen more it sent back the other way to be euthanized. Executives of both companies swore up and down they had no idea the other planned to close the newspapers they traded, but their denials were never convincing. The Competition Bureau soon came knocking with search warrants issued as part of its investigation on rare criminal charges of conspiracy. Documents submitted to the Ontario Superior Court to obtain the search warrants detailed a written agreement dubbed “Project Lebron” after the basketball star. In them, Postmedia and Torstar reportedly agreed not to compete for years in the markets they vacated and even on the almost 300 workers who would get the axe. The companies and their executives are now facing the possibility of charges that could bring $25 million in fines and 14 years in prison.
Two dozen more community newspapers on Honderich’s list were B.C. titles closed or merged this decade by Black Press or Glacier Media. The provincial chains provided the template for Postmedia and Torstar by trading almost three dozen titles between them from 2010-14, then closing most of them to eliminate local competition. Of the 13 paid circulation dailies lost in Canada from 2010-16, nine were killed by Glacier or Black Press (no relation to Conrad). Their dealings somehow avoided the Competition Bureau’s notice, perhaps due to them being out of mind way out on the west coast. This no doubt emboldened Postmedia and Torstar, who may still be able to use the regulatory inaction as a precedent to allow their collusive closures.
Honderich’s list of defunct dailies also includes a number of freebies that once littered our porches and transit stations unbidden, such as the Peace Arch Daily News in tiny tourist town White Rock, B.C., which briefly circulated 3,700 copies from Tuesdays to Fridays before retreating to twice weekly publication in 2014. Nine were commuter dailies which proliferated a dozen years ago under the successful model pioneered worldwide by Swedish company Metro International. Metro editions sprang up from coast to coast in Canada in partnership with Torstar, which recently rebranded the survivors StarMetro. Quebecor responded by launching 24 Hours papers in numerous cities and now-defunct Canwest countered with its short-lived but hilariously titled Dose. The model has been in retreat everywhere since the bursting of the print advertising bubble a decade ago left room for only one in each market. Last year Torstar traded Metro Ottawa and Metro Winnipeg to Postmedia and got back 24 Hours Toronto and 24 Hours Vancouver, all of which were closed. Yet according to Honderich we are supposed to lament their passing, along with those of 24 Hours Calgary, 24 Hours Edmonton, Metro London, Metro Regina and Metro Saskatoon, as some great loss to democracy. Puh-lease.

Honderich’s count of 112 closed community newspapers at least comes with names, unlike others who have come up with inflated totals by using the questionable research method of “crowdsourcing.” It almost seems like an industry campaign to railroad Ottawa into a bailout. But for those who have studied Canada’s newspaper industry intently, a bad odor emerges. “This is such a distortion of facts that it isn’t funny,” blogged Ontario author Alexandra Kitty in response to Honderich’s list. A former community newspaper journalist and author of the brilliant new book When Journalism Was a Thing, which is a compendium of corporate crimes against the craft, Kitty knows from personal experience that most of the defunct small-town newspapers hardly churned out quality journalism.
The stories in those local newspapers were happy, happy soft news junk. It is not as if local papers were in the habit of uncovering real items. They covered photo ops of local corrupt politicians. They never bothered pointing out the open affairs they were having and how they rewarded their mistresses with patronage appointments, for instance.
But what Honderich and others who inflate the magnitude of Canada’s newspaper shakeout ignore is that not only do they close, but in the normal course of events they start up as well. The annual count kept scrupulously by the Canadian Community Newspaper Association shows there were only 10 fewer titles last year than there were in 2011, before which it counted only its member titles. The total fluctuated considerably in between, however, as community newspapers tend to come and go. 
                 Community newspapers in Canada


Titles
Circulation
(weekly)
2017
1,032
18,802,329
2016
1,060
19,454,115
2015
1,083
20,973,352
2014
1,040
20,577,994
2013
1,019
19,612,930
2012
1,029
19,736,168
2011
1,042
19,312,842
At least, they tend to come and go unless you allow corporate collusion and non-compete agreements. Then they only go away, along with competition.

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Media change denial is not like climate change denial

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen provocatively assails those he calls “media change deniers” by comparing us to the natural scientists who, despite overwhelming evidence, refuse to go along with the consensus on global warming. The insulting inference is that those of us who take a contrary view from the mainstream of media researchers are similarly – as the illustration which accompanied his polemic on the NiemanLab website reinforces – deaf, dumb and blind. NiemanLab has refused to run my reply, which is why I post it here. The gist of Nielsen’s argument is that those who swim against the current should refrain from making assertions without data to support their positions. By doing so, he asserts, they are “doubling down on arguments that are directly contradicted by a growing consensus in the best available peer-reviewed scientific research.” He then adds parenthetically: “Don’t get me started on whether print ‘has a future’ or the notion that linear scheduled television is doing just fine.”

If you can't sufficiently insult dissenters with words, try using pictures like this
As I have done no research on linear scheduled television, I will focus in answering Professor Nielsen on whether print has a future. I submit that he needs to get out from under his own filter bubble and consider data-based, peer-reviewed research of which he is either unaware or perhaps simply ignores because it contradicts his cocksure consensus. I would argue that considering different types of data is important in researching a question in order to get different perspectives and thus a better grasp on it.

Take the future of print. The overwhelming consensus, of course, is that print is dying. Even supposedly skeptical scholars assume as much simply from reading headlines that tell of falling newspaper circulations, multi-million-dollar corporate losses, mass layoffs of journalists, and even the bankruptcy of numerous newspaper chains. Failing to understand how the newspaper business works, and having no inkling of the arcane rules of accounting, they neglect to look under the hood to diagnose what is really going on. That is what I did for my 2014 book Greatly Exaggerated: The Myth of the Death of Newspapers, (PDF) which was based on data published that same year in the peer-reviewed and A-ranked Newspaper Research Journal. (PDF) I’ve had lots of reviews written of my books, but never before one of a journal article I had written. The European Journalism Observatory took note of this one, but perhaps that didn’t register in the hallowed halls of Oxford, where Nielsen is Director of Research for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. I even took them a copy of my book the last time I was in town, but I guess it somehow fell through the cracks.

I looked at the financial statements of all publicly-traded newspaper companies in the U.S. and Canada from 2006-2013, a period during which print advertising revenues fell by 62 percent in the former and 36 percent in the latter. (They have continued to fall.) Using the standard profitability measure of EBITDA – earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization – I found that despite this shock to their business model, none of the chains suffered an annual loss in any year during this period. Most were still making double-digit profit margins in 2013. Some had profits as high as 20 percent. It turns out those multi-million dollar losses the headlines reported were mostly on paper, as under standard accounting rules companies may deduct from their operating profits the reduced value of their business as an “extraordinary” loss. The newspaper chains that went bankrupt were actually among the most profitable. They only went broke because their owners took on too much debt in making acquisitions before the advertising bubble burst and they were unable to service that debt with reduced revenues. Their newspapers, being profitable, continued publishing throughout and emerged on the other side under new ownership. Unfortunately they often went to cagy hedge funds which had bought up their distressed debt for pennies on the dollar and are now squeezing them for everything they’re worth.

Their shrinking circulations and the mass layoff of journalists are newspapers’ way of coping with reduced advertising revenues. Newspapers counter-intuitively lose money on every copy sold, so printing more and trucking them farther and wider now makes little sense. They more than make up the difference, of course, by selling advertising, for which there remains sufficient demand to keep their core business well above water. Most of their needed cost cutting, unfortunately, has involved throwing journalists overboard. This is undeniably bad, but the “adapt or die” meme that emerged a decade ago after a few second-place dailies folded has seen newspapers stubbornly survive. Most have sought more revenues from readers by boosting their cover prices and erecting paywalls that require payment for digital access.

More recently I have focused on UK newspaper companies with similar but more varied results. Some titles, such as the venerable Times, lost money for years before bringing in the paywall, which has put them in the black. At the Guardian, they simply asked readers to send them money while keeping online content free. Millions of pounds have since poured in, all but assuring its future. Other researchers have found rich datasets that corroborate my findings, such as Keith Herndon in a forthcoming Newspaper Research Journal article and Miriam van der Burg in her recent dissertation on the Belgian newspaper industry. Iris Chyi and Ori Tenenboim of the University of Texas recently found that the 25 largest U.S. dailies more than doubled their subscription prices on average between 2008 and 2016, with the price increases accelerating after 2012.

The French have a saying: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, which translates as “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” Media are undeniably changing. It would be folly to claim otherwise. The question is how radically the media landscape will change, ie. whether the future will be online only or if print and broadcasting will endure. Empirical evidence is mounting to support the latter conclusion, at least as far as print is concerned, however unpalatable that may be to digital usurpers like Nielsen. For him to better foresee the future will require him to broaden his perspective.

Sunday, April 2, 2017

A letter to the Globe and Mail (not published)


Re When local news outlets shutter due to cuts, we all lose (April 1):

Elizabeth Renzetti quotes as follows from the Public Policy Forum’s recent report The Shattered Mirror. “Since 2010, there have been 225 weekly and 27 daily newspapers lost to closure or merger.” This does not accord with my research or with data gathered by Newspapers Canada, which show that the number of non-daily newspapers actually rose by 18 from 2011 to 2016. The number of paid daily newspapers, which I study closely, has fallen by eight since 2010. Six of those closures or mergers were by two B.C. chains that have been buying, selling, and even trading newspapers back and forth, then often closing them to reduce competition. The recently-closed Surrey Leader is the 20th newspaper lost since 2010 as a result of these dealings by Glacier Media and Black Press. The federal Competition Bureau seems not to have noticed.

Marc Edge, Ph.D.
University of Malta

UPDATE:

Stead, Sylvia SStead@globeandmail.com

Mon, 3 Apr 2017, 19:59
to me
Hello Dr. Edge:

The reference is attributed to the Shattered Mirror report https://shatteredmirror.ca/wp-content/uploads/theShatteredMirror.pdf

Unfortunately Ms. Renzetti is currently on book leave, but I believe the figure is correct in that it came from this report. Perhaps their method of counting differs from yours.
Sylvia Stead
Public Editor