I'm not at all convinced that telecom layoffs are inherently bad. I can't say I support these firms employing people, given what we know about the conditions people face working for them.
I'm also curious why you would define Canadaland as an independent media firm. What makes it independent? Are we now assuming that if a media outlet is not owned by a telecom or a hedge fund that it's independent?
You're right - layoffs aren't ALWAYS bad. It's just weird for Rogers-Shaw to suggest they won't have them at scale. And I have no idea how I was defining "independent" media. What is a better characterization? I mostly wanted to write the word "chum-ocracy"
I'm not at all convinced that telecom layoffs are inherently bad. I can't say I support these firms employing people, given what we know about the conditions people face working for them.
I'm also curious why you would define Canadaland as an independent media firm. What makes it independent? Are we now assuming that if a media outlet is not owned by a telecom or a hedge fund that it's independent?
You're right - layoffs aren't ALWAYS bad. It's just weird for Rogers-Shaw to suggest they won't have them at scale. And I have no idea how I was defining "independent" media. What is a better characterization? I mostly wanted to write the word "chum-ocracy"
I think Canadaland deserves to be recognized as a full member of the media industry, as complicit or responsible as all the rest. :)