John Groves @jfgroves Canadian #journalism in a nutshell. Care to explain this rather transparent bias @globalnewsto?
hmmm...
#mediaCoupd'état
Canadian journalism in a nutshell
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
John Groves @jfgroves Canadian #journalism in a nutshell. Care to explain this rather transparent bias @globalnewsto?
hmmm...
#mediaCoupd'état
. . . for free.
Doing some actual reporting would implode the industry. If we paid as much attention to this as we did to OJ Simpson investigations we would be rowing a different boat and singing a different tune. If they have a problem with refunds that is something they will have to adjust rather than the ones that are owed a refund getting the shaft once again. World debt is $250T with 10B people alive that is about $25,000 each and then that is circulated perpetually as is any money added through business ventures or interest free personal loans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kElp01ovbo&index=4&list=PLKkSfhYk-XBj5e_tmHZish3wlITCgLAvc
Last edited:
you are comparing apples and oranges.
Canadian #journalism in a nutshell. Care to explain this rather transparent bias @globalnewsto?
hmmm...
#mediaCoupd'état
oh my,do you have some mommy issues?
paying all my money for double dippers.
Not to worry, he used his influence and power at the CBC to make everything look great.
Giant pandas land in Toronto, get airport greeting from PM - Toronto - CBC News
Giant pandas land in Toronto, get airport greeting from PM - Toronto - CBC News
And Martin before that. And Chretien before that. And Mulroney before that.
Liberals are red
Conservatives are blue
None of them give
a f*ck about you.
yes yes...we're all so knowledgeable about politics and pretend to be unbiased toward parties...ok...anyway, it changes nothing about the way the media is blatant in it's love for progs and other prog-like matters by validating their various wonderful deeds by wonderful people.
oh, and by helping to spread prog words, progaganda and progisms to appear to be open minded and tolerant.
they get off on telling the drones what is current and relevant, what is important in their daily sh!tty lives. they dig the power they wield. newsfotainment. obvious brainwashing is obvious.
enjoy the self-congratulatory brainrot you spew but don't think for a moment the intelligent among us don't see what you're doing. pretend it away by ignoring critics but it's simply fukking obvious.
#cultofmedia
oh, and by helping to spread prog words, progaganda and progisms to appear to be open minded and tolerant.
they get off on telling the drones what is current and relevant, what is important in their daily sh!tty lives. they dig the power they wield. newsfotainment. obvious brainwashing is obvious.
enjoy the self-congratulatory brainrot you spew but don't think for a moment the intelligent among us don't see what you're doing. pretend it away by ignoring critics but it's simply fukking obvious.
#cultofmedia
On the first page Postmedia’s “code of business conduct and ethics,” it spells out four questions all employees—be they directors, officers or employees—should ask themselves when they come face-to-face with a tough decision:
Is this legal? Is this fair and ethical? Am I confident that Postmedia Network would not be embarrassed if this situation became public knowledge? Would I approve of this situation if I were a co-worker, a customer or a shareholder?
The answer, it goes without saying should be “yes” to every question, which might explain why so many are crying foul over the $2.3 million in bonuses awarded to five senior Postmedia executives—outlined in company disclosures on Wednesday. The retention bonuses, which is how they were presented, came to light one week after the National Post newsroom lost one-fifth of its staff to “voluntary buyouts” following the company’s 2015 fourth quarter net loss of $99.4-million.
The decision to hand out bonuses quickly drew the ire of current employees.
Is this embarrassing for Postmedia? It appears that way. Would co-workers or customers approve? Many don’t. And yet, there is no rule that the publicly-traded company broke, says one expert in corporate law and securities regulation—not even potentially failing to abide by the company’s own code of ethics.
“A breach of the code of conduct does not in itself create a basis for a legal claim by the shareholders,” says Gail Henderson, a Queen’s University professor. Shareholders can voice their displeasure at the annual meeting, much like Barrick Gold shareholders did last year, which led to a revamping of executive pay, but Henderson says “the easiest thing [for shareholders] to do is what’s referred to as the Wall Street Rule: if you don’t like it, sell you shares.”
As it stands today—after Postmedia was recapitalized in October and existing shareholders saw most of their equity wiped out—the company’s largest shareholder is New Jersey-based Chatham Asset Management. Chatham controls up to 49.9 per cent of voting rights, has the right to appoint 33 per cent of Postmedia’s board, and also holds a significant amount of the company’s new debt, bearing interest at 10.25 per cent.
While news outlets across the country are shuttering or laying off staff, the Postmedia bonuses were tied to retention and not performance, meaning the money was intended to keep the executives, like 76-year-old Paul Godfrey (bonus: $900,000), around a bit longer to see them through the company’s recapitalization period. “The board at the time decided…it would be best for the company if all these top executives stayed in their jobs during the transition of this company,” Henderson adds. “That’s the idea behind the payments.”
But even then, the company might have been unsuccessful. The Globe and Mail reported Thursday that Jeffrey Haar, Postmedia’s executive vice-president and legal counsel (retention bonus $300,000), will be leaving the company at the end of the month. No word on if or how much of the retention pay he’d have to hand back, having received only one $100,000 instalment to date.
So is there any rule or regulation stopping a company from giving executives bonuses while laying off staff and losing large amounts of money? “No. Not directly,” Henderson says. “As a director, is this the kind of headline you hope to see? Probably not. I’m sure they think they’re doing the best in the long-term interests of the company. Sometimes that’s going to mean a bad headline.”
https://t.co/TtkGOb3B1X
A memo circulated by the National Post’s editor-in-chief last week reveals that the Toronto newsroom is restructuring to become a “digital-only operation.”
“We are, of course, continuing to publish print products from this newsroom, but the amount of attention that it occupies will be isolated to a much smaller portion of this operation,” Anne Marie Owens wrote.
https://t.co/Gxh80YxTyo
Is this legal? Is this fair and ethical? Am I confident that Postmedia Network would not be embarrassed if this situation became public knowledge? Would I approve of this situation if I were a co-worker, a customer or a shareholder?
The answer, it goes without saying should be “yes” to every question, which might explain why so many are crying foul over the $2.3 million in bonuses awarded to five senior Postmedia executives—outlined in company disclosures on Wednesday. The retention bonuses, which is how they were presented, came to light one week after the National Post newsroom lost one-fifth of its staff to “voluntary buyouts” following the company’s 2015 fourth quarter net loss of $99.4-million.
The decision to hand out bonuses quickly drew the ire of current employees.
Is this embarrassing for Postmedia? It appears that way. Would co-workers or customers approve? Many don’t. And yet, there is no rule that the publicly-traded company broke, says one expert in corporate law and securities regulation—not even potentially failing to abide by the company’s own code of ethics.
“A breach of the code of conduct does not in itself create a basis for a legal claim by the shareholders,” says Gail Henderson, a Queen’s University professor. Shareholders can voice their displeasure at the annual meeting, much like Barrick Gold shareholders did last year, which led to a revamping of executive pay, but Henderson says “the easiest thing [for shareholders] to do is what’s referred to as the Wall Street Rule: if you don’t like it, sell you shares.”
As it stands today—after Postmedia was recapitalized in October and existing shareholders saw most of their equity wiped out—the company’s largest shareholder is New Jersey-based Chatham Asset Management. Chatham controls up to 49.9 per cent of voting rights, has the right to appoint 33 per cent of Postmedia’s board, and also holds a significant amount of the company’s new debt, bearing interest at 10.25 per cent.
While news outlets across the country are shuttering or laying off staff, the Postmedia bonuses were tied to retention and not performance, meaning the money was intended to keep the executives, like 76-year-old Paul Godfrey (bonus: $900,000), around a bit longer to see them through the company’s recapitalization period. “The board at the time decided…it would be best for the company if all these top executives stayed in their jobs during the transition of this company,” Henderson adds. “That’s the idea behind the payments.”
But even then, the company might have been unsuccessful. The Globe and Mail reported Thursday that Jeffrey Haar, Postmedia’s executive vice-president and legal counsel (retention bonus $300,000), will be leaving the company at the end of the month. No word on if or how much of the retention pay he’d have to hand back, having received only one $100,000 instalment to date.
So is there any rule or regulation stopping a company from giving executives bonuses while laying off staff and losing large amounts of money? “No. Not directly,” Henderson says. “As a director, is this the kind of headline you hope to see? Probably not. I’m sure they think they’re doing the best in the long-term interests of the company. Sometimes that’s going to mean a bad headline.”
https://t.co/TtkGOb3B1X
A memo circulated by the National Post’s editor-in-chief last week reveals that the Toronto newsroom is restructuring to become a “digital-only operation.”
“We are, of course, continuing to publish print products from this newsroom, but the amount of attention that it occupies will be isolated to a much smaller portion of this operation,” Anne Marie Owens wrote.
https://t.co/Gxh80YxTyo
Last edited:
"yes yes...we're all so knowledgeable about politics and pretend to be unbiased toward parties"
I can't say I'm biased toward any party. I haven't liked what the Liberals have done in the past but if they came up with something for our good I would vote for them.
The only thing I feel 'knowledgeable' about right now is that Trudeau is an embarrassment. What a *****, wearing his pink 'Kindness' T-shirt! He can't put two sentences together without interjecting 'AH, AH, AH, AH, AH'!
All he concentrates on is social issues ; 'everybody be nice now!', 'give the breaks to women and minorities', give money (that we don't have) to useless causes around the world - while he does NOTHING about essential services, the economy, security and the ISIS crisis.
How long will the brain-dead voters flounder at his feet to get a smile, a hug or a wave from the useless ***?
He makes Neville Chamberlain look like the smartest man ever lived! Remember Chamberlain? The guy who promised there would be peace in our time' because Hitler wined and dined him.
I can't say I'm biased toward any party. I haven't liked what the Liberals have done in the past but if they came up with something for our good I would vote for them.
The only thing I feel 'knowledgeable' about right now is that Trudeau is an embarrassment. What a *****, wearing his pink 'Kindness' T-shirt! He can't put two sentences together without interjecting 'AH, AH, AH, AH, AH'!
All he concentrates on is social issues ; 'everybody be nice now!', 'give the breaks to women and minorities', give money (that we don't have) to useless causes around the world - while he does NOTHING about essential services, the economy, security and the ISIS crisis.
How long will the brain-dead voters flounder at his feet to get a smile, a hug or a wave from the useless ***?
He makes Neville Chamberlain look like the smartest man ever lived! Remember Chamberlain? The guy who promised there would be peace in our time' because Hitler wined and dined him.