The Minister of Canadian Heritage has called for a “true redefinition” of the Canadian media industry, which is code for a massive taxpayer funded bailout of the failing fake news media. What does Stefan Molyneux think about being forced to pay for dying propaganda outlets which the free market has already rejected? Source: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20170429015013/https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/28/heritage-minister-calls-for-overhaul-of-news-business.htmlYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
All I've got is a red guitar, three chords, and the truth.
I'm just like a busker in a white room, dedicating myself to truth, to reason, to evidence, to courage, to clarity.
How hard is that to reproduce?
The currency, the gold of what I do, of what you help me do, of what you support that I do.
How hard is that to reproduce?
Focus on the truth.
Commit yourself to the truth.
Respect your audience.
Have courage.
Speak reality.
And so I wake up like every day like, oh God, someone's going to figure out, they're going to replicate my business model.
They're going to just go speak the truth.
Of course, when you think about the mainstream media, I live in Canada, you think about the mainstream media, they got a lot of money, a lot of contacts, a lot of expertise, green screens, and all that kind of stuff.
And I'm always worried that they're going to figure this out.
That they don't need all this overhead.
That they don't need big bloated pink ghetto HR departments.
That they don't need all of this advertising.
I don't advertise.
That they don't need all of this.
All they need is the truth.
The heritage minister in Canada, this is from the Toronto Star, heritage minister in Canada calls for overhaul of news business.
Quick question.
If you had to put, say, your eternal soul and its destination on whether or not Canada's heritage minister is a man or a woman, I wonder which one you would go with.
I'm sure she's somewhere complained about the lack of women in STEM fields, she herself.
It's a heritage minister and her name is Melanie Jolie.
So she made a speech to...
I guess, you know, there was the artist formerly known as Prince.
So there are the typists formerly known as journalists.
So she gave comments in a speech to journalists.
Because the Canadian government, you see...
I'm sorry.
It's just hard not to giggle when you're full of so much relief.
The Canadian government is studying ways to help the struggling media industry buffeted by declines in revenue.
See, here's how you know something truly sinister is going on.
The moment that someone in the government, I dare say, maybe slightly more if it's a woman, the moment that someone in the government speaks in...
Woefully, pathologically altruistic and sympathetic tones about a person, a group, an idea.
You just know they are loading up the cannons of fiat currency to fire massive amounts of resources at it.
See, there are words that come out of the Czech lexicon, they come out of stuff.
Struggling.
It's struggling and being buffeted.
It's helpless.
It's helpless, you know?
Just like somebody falls off, is pushed, no, pushed!
Somebody's pushed off a boat and they don't know how to swim.
They're struggling and they're being buffeted, you know?
So it's not the result of any choices the media industry has made, you see.
It's not the result of any choices the media...
They're just struggling.
You know, it's like this word overwhelmed, which, again, may be a little bit more on the female side.
But the moment that you hear somebody in the government talking about anything and portraying it as a helpless victim of outside forces...
They are loading up the cannon of currency to fire at it.
You know, because buffeted, helpless, acted upon their victims.
We need to help them.
Yeah.
If you've ever displeased the media, you know what kind of victims they are.
Not really victims at all.
So she called for a true redefinition of the Canadian media industry.
The Liberal government, don't you just know, they are studying ways to support the beleaguered news business in the digital age.
See, beleaguered.
It's not like they suck.
It's not like they're vicious.
It's not like they're...
Monolithic in their leftist obsessions.
It's not like they have no diversity in terms of supporting views that are not relentlessly leftist.
It's not like they could possibly have hired anyone from the rebel media.
Just the rebel.media.
Go check them out.
They're great.
And they're part of sort of the pushback against this.
See, they're just beleaguered.
Again, you see, putting them in the category of helpless victims that did nothing to deserve their own fate.
That way...
You get to use the magic word support.
You're supporting someone who's beleaguered.
You're just giving a raincoat to somebody helpless and naked in the rain.
They're good Samaritans, just bludgeoned by circumstances, lying by the road.
Won't you stop and help them, the poor people?
So what are they looking at?
Does it really matter?
Okay, fine, it matters a little bit.
So they want to do tax changes.
They want to create a fund for media projects.
But, you know...
Melanie said, oh, it's too early to say.
What Ottawa's going to do to help Canadian news outlets?
What Ottawa will do to help Canadian news outlets?
See?
What?
Not whether Ottawa should help Canadian news outlets.
You know, separation of news and state, a little bit more important in this increasingly secular age in the West than the separation of church and state.
What will Ottawa do to help Canadian news outlets?
Of course, Ottawa being a giant status apparatus, We'll do absolutely nothing to expect anything in return.
No conformity will occur.
No objectivity will be dropped.
Nothing whatsoever.
You see, here at the Toronto Star, the Toronto Star has gone through a lot of pain recently.
Ten years ago, they had hundreds and hundreds of reporters.
Now they're down to like 170, 175.
A lot of loss.
Now, here you see the beginning of the corruption.
Well, the corruption's been going on for a long time, but the beginning of the corruption.
Because here you have a Canadian newspaper that is reporting that, well, Ottawa will do something to help.
Not whether Ottawa should or shouldn't.
Not whether they want to...
Maintain or sustain even the veneer of objective independent journalism.
So it goes on to say, Canadian news outlets which have seen huge drops in profits and also job cuts in recent years.
Seen!
You see how you're being programmed?
The propaganda.
Ah, it's like, it's so relentless.
It's so relentless.
It's like this, they're just slowly easing up a little spider silk injection of brain-dissolving goo while you nap.
I feel a little tug.
Oh, ah yes, let's have the government fund the news industry because that way the news industry could be completely objective about government.
I'm sorry.
Man.
So here, the Toronto Star.
Is now saying, well of course the government's going to do something to help us.
You see?
Even when the potential for money is dangled in front of the news, they lose their objectivity.
And also, the word seen is passive.
I saw an accident.
Well, that's passive.
You're not responsible for it.
You just saw it.
As opposed to, I was driving drunk while texting.
Right?
Different.
You must portray Canadian news outlets as helpless little leaves blown in the giant stormy winds of other people's meanness in that way.
You're just helping and you're supporting them.
Those poor, helpless Canadian news outlets just never done a mean thing in their lives.
Of course, one option is to let them fail and release that talent to less controllable areas.
You know, like, say, the internet, videos, podcasting, whatever you want to name it.
You know, maybe you could let them be like Bill O'Reilly, who apparently has come out of Fox News with $25 million to start his podcast.
Sorry.
All right.
So you could let them fail, of course, right?
But then what would happen is the media, the people in the media, the people who have talent in the mainstream media, sorry, the one person left who may have talent in the mainstream media, they would actually move to a less controllable medium like the Internet.
And therefore, the government wouldn't be able to use them as propaganda mouthpieces for the general population, relentlessly pushing down leftist agendas through their throats.
Anyway, so Melanie went on to say, the government action must include players in the media industry as well as corporate titans such as Google and Facebook, which gobble up huge portions of digital ad spending.
They just gobble it up.
It's not that Google and Facebook are providing better services to their customers.
See, it's not a competition for ears, eyeballs, mindsets, attention, and so on.
They're just...
It's a Pac-Man game, you see?
These giant guys, they're just gobbling up this revenue, and they're just watching it happen.
They're helpless, they're being buffeted, they can't do anything.
It's not like they've made any choices over the past ten years that have been, say, bad.
So it's not like there should be any consequences.
You know, when I was a kid, maybe it's because I'm a...
I was a white boy.
But when I was a kid, if I failed to study for a test, I wasn't, you know, helplessly traumatized by the other kids just gobbling up all the marks.
And I was just beleaguered and helpless and overwhelmed and needed help.
I didn't study.
You failed.
Well, see, this is back in this sort of quaint oldie time, you know, where people hand-cranked cameras and hand-dialed phones, and there was such a thing as consequences for misdeeds.
Well, that was then, and this is now.
So there was a report published in January, this is according to the Toronto Star, on the withering media sector.
So again, withering.
It's passive.
You know, if the plant is withering because it didn't get rained, you can't blame the plant.
It's just withering.
They're so helpless, you see.
They're so victimized.
Things are just happening and there's nothing they can do.
Because giant...
other corporations...
Yeah, right.
So, the woman, the heritage minister, says she expects to present some of the government's proposals for Canadian media later this year.
And she said, It's hard to imagine what our democracy would look like without the vigilance of journalists, she told an audience at the annual Canadian Association of Journalists conference.
So, Mel, listen.
If you think it's hard to imagine what Canada would look like without the vigilance of journalists...
If you want to find out what it would look like, my suggestion would be to create a giant slush fund by which you use then to pay journalists in Canada to fund and support their activities, and then you'll find out exactly what the media looks like without vigilant journalists speaking truth to power and reining in the science of power and corruption of the state, because he who pays the piper calls the tune.
You don't bite the hand that feeds you, so if you want to make them, you know, like John Kerry with rich women or Emmanuel Macron with old women, if you just want to make them a poodle feeding out of your hand, dependent on you, unable to make it in the wild, in the market, in freedom, just start giving them lots of money.
And they will adapt like salmon in a strong current, all pointing the same direction.
That's how you break any residual independence in the Canadian media.
Just pay them with money forced out of other people's wallets at the point of a gun.
See, it's not like Canadian media has made any bad decisions at all.
It's just helpless.
See, people just generally lost being interested in news.
They just, you know, they just lost being interested in news, which is why shows like myself and the Rebel Media and other places are growing like crazy.
I'm in Canada.
I deliver news and analysis, thoughts, philosophy, reason, evidence, and conversations.
It's been growing like crazy.
40% a year.
That's sustained.
Sustained.
The Rebel Media blew past me.
They started way after me.
They've blown past me in subscribers just a month or two ago.
Fantastic.
Good for them.
It's a wide open playing field.
There's lots of cross-pollination opportunities I don't view.
You know, if you're in an industry which has no competition, it's because your industry is terrible or dying or sucks.
Because smarter people don't want to have anything to do with you.
You always want to be in an industry where there's lots of growing competition.
Fantastic.
Fantastic.
So, yeah.
Massive kudos to the Rebel Media and other places.
So, here's the problem.
Well, as if there's only one.
Here are some of the problems.
So, I did a video recently.
This is important!
How rarely do I use what used to be known in TADM programming as the Bang!
But I said this is important because it's about the Pareto distribution.
In a company of 10,000 people, it's 100 people who produce half the wealth, half the output.
Jordan Peterson has talked about this as well, the sort of death spiral that happens.
In companies when an industry is dying as a whole and the news industry isn't dying at all.
People are more desperate, more thirsty for news and clear analysis and rational conversation and good evidence and source documents and expertise.
They're hungrier for it now than ever before.
So people's desire for information is much higher.
So if you're in the information business and people's thirst and access to information is growing like crazy, You can take a crap and read the news.
I never have, but I've heard.
I think I saw a marriage with children, but that happened once.
Anyway, so this giant information delivery mechanism called the internet, if you're not able to make money by delivering information to people, you're really bad at your job.
So what's happened is, when a company or industry begins to flounder, founder, flounder, founder, both, when the founders begin to flounder, What happens is when the company or the business starts to do badly, the smart people get out.
Now, if it's a growing industry, but a bad business, they'll go to some other business in the industry, right?
But if the whole industry, like the mainstream media as it stands, if the whole industry is dying, they'll jump elsewhere.
They'll go to the web, they'll go write books, they'll go do something else, go to speeches or whatever.
So...
What's happening is, in the mainstream media, the smart people left a long time ago.
The smart people, the people who had options, the people who had charisma, the people who had speaking abilities, the people who had conversational abilities, who could hold eye contact with human beings without secretly wanting to drown their children in ink, those people left and went elsewhere and are doing other things, better things.
So this is what happens when you have an organization of 10,000 people that starts to run on hard times.
The future doesn't look good.
The people who leave are the most competent.
So if the top 100 people leave in that organization...
Yahoo!
Then what happens is 100 people leave out of 10,000.
You've got 9,900 left, but your productivity, your output has just dropped by half.
The quality of whatever you're doing has just dropped by half.
And that means that it does even worse, and then the next most competent people leave.
And then maybe you've cut your employee base in half, and people think, well, you're only producing half as much.
No, no, no.
You're producing like 1% as much, or what you produce is 1% as good because all the talented people have left.
And this is what's happening.
Who's left?
In the mainstream media.
I mean, who wakes up and says, Ah, you know this newfangled car thing?
That's just a fad.
Horses and buggies.
Now that's the future.
And plastics.
So, the only people who are left in the mainstream media are generally incompetent people.
Of course.
So many better opportunities elsewhere as a dying industry.
So of course, you know, maybe they're cut by half, but the quality of their output is...
And of course, when you have less competent people, then you get more ideological people.
You get more people into nonsense like pseudo-diversity, right?
Like diversity of races and ethnicities and of genders, but no diversity of opinion.
We'll hire everyone who's on the left.
And so when you end up with less intelligent people in the industry, you get more propaganda, more ideology and so on.
And that can't compete with the true clarity of thought available in other outlets like this one.
So she went on to say, what the disruptions require is a true redefinition of our business practices.
Our?
Mel, you're in the government.
What's the our?
Does she think she's part of the mainstream media?
Is there this weird blur?
Our business practices?
No, they're a business.
You're the government.
They, nominally, have to compete in the free market for eyeballs.
You're the government.
You have the guns.
You compel people to do.
You're an agency of violence, of force, of coercion.
So what's this we?
Chloroform a woman, throw her in the back of your windowless van and then drive off saying, hey, we're going on a date.
There's a we here.
No, one of you there is voluntarily.
One of you is there by compulsion.
So she said that the role of government is to be a, quote, catalyst for change.
Oh my God.
Is there a single progressive cliche that these people don't just...
The bag, it's like a bag of hell-sense Scrabble pieces.
Here we go.
Boom!
Off they go.
Ah.
Now, the role of government is...
It's an agency of violence in society.
It's an agency of force in society.
It is the only agency in society or any group of people in society legally required to initiate the use of force against others.
So, no, no, no, honey.
You're not a catalyst for change.
Sorry.
Not a catalyst for change.
You know what you are?
You're a kind of mouthpiece for a coercive institution.
So let's not get this catalyst change thing mistaken with the fact that you're talking about initiating the use of force to strip money from people and give it to your favorite friends in the media.
You know, this is all this syrupy non-words, like this relentless Jell-O propaganda.
You've got to be alert to it.
So according to the Star Parliamentary Committee has explored these questions for several months.
And they're going to make recommendations on how to respond to changes in the media landscape.
The changes include the ascendancy of digital platforms such as Google and Facebook.
See, you know, this is an example of how there really aren't that many competent people, I would argue, left at the Star.
Because this point has already been made.
And now it's being made again.
Because I guess you've got a word count to get to and you don't want to point out how utterly immoral and corrupting all of this is.
So Google and Facebook, which aggregate and publish news for millions of users and the collapse of newspapers and private broadcasters in smaller markets.
Ah yes, the local newspaper.
How else are you going to find out what's on sale at the local grocery store?
Can't possibly find out any other way for that, like say the internet or email.
Can't ever happen.
Collapse!
Just collapse.
Collapse.
See, there are people who are struck by illnesses that they had no cause, and like 30% of health ailments are not lifestyle related.
But, you know, if you are a smoker, a chain smoker for 30 or 40 years, and then you get sick, get lung cancer, well, it didn't just happen to you.
You did it to yourself, right?
So again, you've got to portray these people as helpless victims and so on.
And the thing is, too, Anybody with any pride would be offended by this, but incompetent people love being portrayed as victims because it allows them to manipulate money out of others.
And you know that there's incompetent people and a lot of women left in the mainstream media because all of this extending reach and help for helplessness and blah, blah, blah is all being extended.
Like, I was in the tech boom when it collapsed.
Actually, I got out right before it collapsed in the 90s, the early 2000s.
And when the tech boom collapsed, did coders run to the government?
Did the government put together a minister of, you know, composed of somebody who looked like Martin Starr and Freaks and Geeks?
Did they put together a big giant, oh, we've got to go and help these coders.
We've got to help this tech industry.
No, because it was guys.
Disposable, expendable.
Oh no, we might not have enough money to fund HR. None of the government.
The government will help.
Female in-group preference.
In late January, the Audible-based Public Policy Forum released a report on the ailing industry.
It's just ailing.
Something just happened to it.
It's ailing.
It's not their fault.
The weather changed on them.
In almost a decade, ad revenues for community and daily newspapers in Canada dropped from $3.8 billion to $2.3 billion, while private broadcasters also saw declines.
Now, you can't ever point out that some people are succeeding in this area.
Again, the aforementioned Rebel Media, myself and other people and so on.
The alternatives to the mainstream media are doing fantastically.
Because you have to say it's some broad-based malaise that people are struggling with.
They're doing their very best.
They're being as innovative and as creative and as entrepreneurial as humanly possible.
But just can't get ahead.
But they can only point out the people who are failing in the industry, not the people who are succeeding enormously in the delivery of information to people.
And what's interesting is they're talking about Facebook and Google, but for the most part, Facebook and Google simply aggregate and deliver news to people.
So they're not the media in a sense.
They're a delivery mechanism, right?
They're not the pizza.
They're the car the pizza comes in.
And so saying that mainstream media in Canada or anywhere can't compete with Facebook and Google.
Well, of course you can.
Because you're not even in the same business space.
Does the person writing this article not know that Facebook and Google are not the same as the mainstream media?
Do they care?
No!
Because they might not have to change.
They might not have to diversify.
They might not have to be creative.
They might not have to get out of the echo chamber of leftist bigotry.
If they can get their hands on that stinking, steamy, golden pile of government-filthy lucre, the pieces of silver that at least we understand Judas took to betray.
See, they're ailing.
They're ailing.
It's not an illness.
They've made bad decisions.
They have been incompetent.
They've driven away competent people.
And they're failing as a result.
Sorry, maybe it's just a man thing, but if I make really, really bad decisions and people stop supporting this show at freedominradio.com slash donate, guess whose fault it is?
Mine!
They're just victims, you see?
They're in the information and news delivery business at a time when everybody wants more and more information and massive numbers of other people are wildly succeeding.
But you see, it's not their fault at all.
It recommended several ways the government could support robust Canadian journalism.
See if it was robust, people would like it.
You know, it's funny because there's been this demonetization on YouTube for a lot of people reliant on ads.
Paul Joseph Watson, over 900,000 subscribers, making like 20 odd bucks a day.
I mean, and he gets paid elsewhere.
I mean, is everyone running to the government and saying, you've got to support us!
A little thing called pride, competence.
Anyway, so they say, how are we going to support Canadian journalism?
You could apply sales tax to the sales of digital descriptions of foreign media outlets, such as the New York Times website.
So you could tax the competition.
So taxes drive down business opportunities.
Taxes drive down business opportunities.
Isn't that interesting?
You'd think that might be something the left would talk about a little bit more, but they only like it when it protects themselves.
The establishment of an arm's length fund that would support digital news innovation, civic journalism, local news and indigenous reporting.
See, it's an arm's length fund.
So that's fine, you see.
Absolutely, completely and totally fine.
Because it is an arm's length fund.
So this arm's length fund that in no way would ever corrupt The mainstream media in reporting about governments and government programs and taxation.
Oh, where do you even start?
Hey, do you feel like $400 million a year from government taxation, government money?
Now you can objectively report on taxation.
Of course, if you're dependent on tax money, you can't possibly be objective about taxation and whether it's good or bad or whether it should be raised or lowered.
If the mainstream media is dependent on tax revenue, they're going to be positive about taxation all the time.
It's natural.
This is why there's no single mother association for the reduction of the national debt.
I mean, it's bought and paid for.
So this fund starts with $100 million from the Canadian government and then runs on $400 million.
And they say, where's this going to come from?
Well, a digital subscription tax revenue.
So, yeah, if you want to consume your stuff digitally, they're going to tax you for it, which is going to raise the price of what you can consume.
It's also going to be very bad for the environment.
The mainstream media is terrible for the environment because it uses so much ink and print and delivery and so on.
It's ridiculously bad for the environment.
But what does that matter?
They're left to see one tax money, so screw the trees!
Screw the trees with a corkscrew.
So it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
They also say a 10% tax on advertisements purchased from digital platforms that don't spend enough money on news reporting in Canada.
So people who want to learn about stuff, well, that stuff has to be taxed, which is going to raise the price of those subscriptions.
So Canadians have to be taxed We're good to go.
Well, you've just confessed that you're terrible at what you do, and you have no plans to get any better, CBC. You're actually just going to get worse.
And you see, they don't spend enough money on news reporting in Canada.
What is enough money?
Makes no sense.
You tell me the objective definition of what is enough money to spend on news reporting in Canada.
Ah.
So, this woman, the heritage minister, said Friday that the report's recommendations are being considered, but would not say which ones, if any, the government may act on.
Now, just for those of you who don't understand the supersonic dog whistles of government power, this is what she's saying.
She's saying, hey media!
Feel like lobbying me?
Feel like coming over and kissing the ring?
Because we haven't really decided what we're going to do.
We're going to dangle this $400 million in front of you, but you better beg, you better roll over, you better perform some tricks, you better deliver us some votes, you better toe the line, or you're not getting the blood money ripped out of taxpayers' wallets at the point of a gun.
Now, Shirley did emphasize, however, oh, this is the best part.
You see, it's really important.
That the media maintain independence.
Now actually in the article, the word independence is in quotes, which is actually quite telling and probably about the only accurate thing that's in the article as a whole.
It's important that the media maintain, quote, independence from the government.
The government's going to be paying you $400 million to prop up terrible leftist newsy propaganda that people don't want to consume.
But don't worry, even though the government's going to be firing $400 million in your general direction, you're going to be completely independent from the government and you're going to be able to report politically completely independent.
And should this topic come up, don't worry, the media's going to be Able to objectively report on the source of $400 million that they've adapted to feed on.
Sorry, what I mean is giant jugulars from the taxpayers that they have become undead in order to chew on.
So, you've got to maintain your, quote, independence from the government and that any solutions don't just address the current downturn in profits, but set the stage for a successful industry in the years to come.
Oh, man.
See, it's just a downturn in profits.
It's just a downturn.
They didn't make any decisions.
Anyway, I understand.
They're not like relentlessly lefty propaganda that has alienated the majority of Canadians who are thirsty for something that's not lefty propaganda, hence me, the rebel media.
Just a downturn in profits.
It's, you know, just stuff happened.
Maybe some more diversity, guys.
Maybe hire some more women.
Oh, I've got it.
Maybe unionize more because that's going to give you the kind of flexibility to adapt to in changing circumstances.
And again, a lot of it is going to be propping up these unions because it's a lefty government and unions contribute to the left all throughout the Western world.
So it's just making sure union people get their jobs so you get this forced transfer of union dues to...
Anyway, you understand.
So this is really quite fascinating and this is part of the hubris that to me is truly jaw-dropping when it comes to government ministers or just government or leftists or people who believe in government programs as a whole.
So this woman says that these solutions don't just address the current downturn in profits but set the stage for a successful industry in the years to come.
So she must know Exactly.
How to make a successful industry out of the mainstream media for years to come.
So what on earth is she doing in government?
You know, there's way more money, way more influence to be had by actually going to start a newspaper.
You know?
If you go and start a newspaper...
Then, with all of your expertise about how to build a successful media empire for years in the future, why on earth are you wasting your time as a heritage minister when you could be Rupert Murdoch?
You could have a giant media empire by which you could influence decisions all around the world and you could make hundreds of millions of dollars and you could have power and influence on your wildest dreams.
If you're that smart and you can make it all work, what are you doing in government?
Oh, that's right.
You don't.
You don't.
The remnants of intellectual detritus left feeding at the, well, aiming to feed at the blood-soaked trough of government coercion money, well, they don't either.
They don't either.
And once more, the competent are drained to feed the incompetent.
The popular, the successful are drained to feed the unpopular and the unsuccessful.
They don't call this what it is really.
It is parasitism.
It is attaching yourself to the state as a very open propaganda arm, rather than a subtle propaganda arm, which is what has been hitherto.
And I will tell you this.
Even though this is going to cost me money as a taxpayer, even though it is going to prop up an industry that is directly opposed, I believe, to truth, reason, and evidence, even though a lot of reporters Well, technically and statistically are sociopaths who enjoy destroying people's lives and, you know, feed on the living with ink blood that they drain from the future.
Even though all of this is true, I absolutely, completely and totally applaud and salute this decision and this process.
I hope...
I hope it's more than $400 million.
I'll pay the tax bill.
I'll write the check.
I hope it's more than $400 million that the government ends up firing at the remnants of integrity left over from the leftist takeover of the mainstream media.
I hope it's more money.
I hope they just move straight into Parliament.
I hope that they set up shop in the actual offices of the ministers.
I hope that they become an open, propaganda arm of the Canadian government.
I just think it's wonderful.
Because it used to be That when stuff came out from the mainstream media, you know, you kind of had to do a lot of work to research it, to find the counterfacts and so on.
Now, with this kind of conflict of interest, so much in the open, with the government nationalizing fundamentally the fundamental economics of the mainstream media, with them creating the profits that is necessary for them to survive.
And profits is a pretty ugly word when you're talking about fascist redirection of propaganda, blood money, but...
I love it.
I think it's wonderful.
Because any last shreds of even the illusion of integrity, of independence, of objectivity, of rationality, will be gone.
Will be gone.
It used to be a lot of work to rebut the mainstream media.
Now that they're open government parasitical vampire hacks.
Who want to screw Canadians, take money from them by force to feed their own vanity and their own incompetence.
I think it's delightful and it's delicious.
It used to be that it was pretty hard and time-consuming to rebut a mainstream media article.
