View From the Homeless Streets

Machiavellian, manipulative flimflam and devious are a few of the words that came to mind as I watched the slick media campaign commercial seeking to convince Canadians to urge their MP’s to impose a special tax on Canadians in order to fund corporate welfare to save the media conglomerates from their own bad management and decision making. 

A glib campaign camouflaged as “save local television” since Canadians are very unlikely to support another corporate bailout; especially one funded by the imposition of a new tax. 

It appears that the media conglomerates learned a lesson from the cold reception their earlier attempt to sell a new tax on the internet to fund a bailout of their newspaper assets from bad management and decisions received. 

This time around they are running a slick media campaign to hoodwink Canadians into demanding the federal government “save local television” through the imposition of a new tax to fund the proposed corporate welfare.

Stephen Harper has demonstrated that he is quite happy to provide $billions$ in corporate welfare or welfare for the rich while denying help to the working poor, those living in poverty and other Canadians at the lower end of the wealth spectrum. However, given the number of unemployed and working poor who find themselves facing the real possibility of joining the ranks of the homeless and the financial strains the recession is imposing on many other ordinary Canadians imposing a new tax on Canadians to bailout media conglomerates would be politically unwise.

Unless somehow Canadians could be persuaded to demand a new tax be imposed to fund corporate welfare to save Media from its own mismanagement.

So it is we find ourselves assailed by the slick “save local television” campaign.

This campaign is not about “save local television” but about saving the media conglomerates from the consequences of their decisions.

Unlike the conglomerates or that pseudo-capitalist Mr. Harper I see no reason to save businesses from the consequences of their own bad decision making and bad management practices. 

Despite the fear mongering attempts to panic the public neither local television or local newspapers will disappear if the media conglomerates go under. What will disappear are the conglomerates, so it is hardly surprising that the conglomerates are desperate for corporate welfare to bail them out.

With the bankruptcy of the conglomerates their assets will be sold off in order for the lenders recover as much of the monies owed as possible.

The most likely outcome of this process is to return control of local television and newspapers to local ownership rather than continuing to have local television and newspapers answer to distant corporate interests and policies.

An outcome I consider to be highly desirable since it is my opinion that the interests of Canadians have been badly served by the creation of media conglomerates where local television and newspapers are driven to maximize profits to benefit corporate headquarters and answer to said corporate headquarters.

It is this “in the best interests of the conglomerate” that leads to questionable editorial and ethical standards; standards that would benefit substantially from local ownership.

It is not the deceptive nature of the “save local television” campaign and its hidden agenda to save the conglomerates through the imposition of a new tax burden on Canadians that causes me to state ethical standards would benefit from local ownership.

It is the misuse of local charities to endorse the campaign and the apparent disregard concerning the consequences misusing local charities to endorse this campaign could have on the charities that I find unacceptable.

It was quite disappointing to see charities such as the United Way, the Salvation Army, the Vancouver Food Bank and others endorsing a campaign to benefit media conglomerates via a new tax on Canadians.

Especially since the nature of their involvement could easily raise questions about the motivation of these charities for their endorsements. 

Moreover I was rather shocked that these charities would jeopardize their charitable status through involvement in a political campaign; an action specifically prohibited under by the legislation governing the granting AND revoking of charitable status (the ability to issue tax receipts for donations received).

That it is a political campaign is evidenced by the call for people to put pressure on federal politicians to impose a this new tax and bailout the media conglomerates.

All of the charitable organizations involved need to rethink their endorsement and involvement while seriously considering adopting AA’s 6th tradition “An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.”
  
In light of these facts Canadians should be contacting federal politicians to make it very clear they have no interest in being taxed to benefit media companies or save them from the consequences of their own actions and decisions.

Canadians should also make it clear to those running this campaign of misinformation that they find this behaviour unacceptable and have no interest in bailing out media companies.

Tell your federal politicians you say no to these new taxes and corporate welfare.