Newspapers: Sponsored content, advertorials and the shifting balance of power

Norm Farrell has a useful post about sponsored content, the new name for advertorials. And The Gazetteer wondered what I thought, as a former newspaper manager.

Farrell says sponsored content is bad. 

“How should readers react when business pages are presented by an industry lobby like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers? I don't care to pay a newspaper that presents promotional pieces of advertisers as news nor do I wish to pay a newspaper that hesitates to publish stories that affect reputations of its sponsors,” he asks.

“If the Vancouver Sun's business pages are presented by the fossil fuel industry, readers are not likely to read that shale gas is "The dotcom bubble of our times." Nor are they likely to read that British Columbia has earned almost nothing from natural gas royalties in recent years.”

The piece raises two separate questions. Are readers being misled by ads masquerading as news, and are newspapers failing to cover stories for fear of irritating big advertisers?

No one pushed Bogie around

Advertorials were always a source of conflict between ad salespeople and the newsroom. Advertorials offered businesses a chance to buy ads that looked sort-of-like a news story, supposedly gaining credibility for the message. They paid a premium for the privilege.

Ad departments wanted the result to look just like a news story. The newsroom wanted the opposite - a different type face, borders and a big label that said ADVERTISEMENT. And the editorial staff didn’t want to produce the material, believing that that could create the perception of conflict in covering related stories. (And because they thought it beneath them.)

Usually, the editorial side won the day. Readers could recognize the ads for what they were.

As long as that’s true, I don’t have a problem with sponsored content or advertorials. In at least two cases, that apparently hasn’t been true of the Postmedia advertorials. They have run on newspaper websites as if they were real content, generated by editorial staff based on their best judgment about what information readers needed or wanted.

There are broader problems. Organizations and individuals are getting slicker and more convincing in developing and distributing sponsored content, in all media. More and more content that looks like or pretends to be journalism is really advertising. (Or clickbait aimed solely at getting people to look at ads.) 

That content comes from people who can pay for it. People who can’t pay have a limited role in the public discourse.

Editors and reporters used to decide what would go in the paper each day. The process was haphazard and shaped by personal prejudices and limited resources, but it was mostly aimed at delivering something useful for readers.Now, people with money can buy sponsored content. They can train their spokespeople and manage the message. There are seven print journalists left in the legislative press gallery. The government has 278 employees in the communications and public engagement department. The spinners have a vast advantage in numbers and resources.

And newspapers, and news media generally, are in a different position in dealing with advertisers than they were in the past.

Newsrooms won the arguments about clearly labelling advertorials in part because the businesses were profitable and seen as essential by many advertisers. 

Today, newspapers are struggling to survive. The advertisers have the edge in negotiations, as companies are looking for any way to generate revenue. The risk is that advertisers will hold too much sway.

A few advertisers have always sought to influence content. My position, while managing newspapers, was that it was in the long-term best interests of advertisers to accept that they had no special sway. Readers bought newspapers because they believed the information was selected based on their needs. If that was no longer true, readership and credibility would fall and ads would be less effective.

It was easy to say no to an unreasonable request - nicely - because the newspaper could cope with some lost revenue and be reasonably confident that any boycott would be short-lived. 

That has changed. Struggling businesses are more easily pressured. That’s not a slam on the people who work there, simply an acknowledgement of reality. When shareholders and analysts are awaiting quarterly results, or hedge funds are looking to get their money back, it’s harder to make decisions, in grey areas, that risk revenue.

Newspapers were sometimes accused of arrogance in the past. But arrogance brought with it a certain independence. 

It’s interesting that we are having this discussion. Newspapers, for all their stunning faults, have at least established a code of ethics around their relationship with readers. If they hadn’t, there would be no possible breach to consider.

Government's $40-a-day payment to parents bad news for teachers' union

The government’s promise of $40-a-day payments to parents if schools are closed in September is an astute tactical move.

The plan, announced by Finance Minister Mike de Jong Wednesday, is a triple threat to the teachers’ union efforts to make gains in a new contract.

First, the payment - $400 a week for a family with two children in school and under 13 - will mute, at least a little, parent protests if schools are closed in the fall.

Second, the money government saves when schools are closed - about $60 million a week - will be taken off the table. The BC Teachers’ Federation won’t be able to argue it is available to help reach a settlement.

And third, the promise reinforces the government’s claim that it won’t legislate teachers back to work quickly, a point de Jong made again Wednesday.

That might be the most important part. 

The average teacher has lost about $3,500 in gross pay because of the stupid two-week strike in June. (Stupid because it hurt teachers and put no real pressure on government.)

That stung. But a long strike, even five or six weeks, could cost another $20,000, with a risk of no gains at the end.

Of course, the government could be bluffing, parents might be angered by a September strike and the Liberals could be forced to legislate teachers back to work. I still think that’s the most likely scenario.

But for many individual teachers, even the likelihood of a long strike would be dismaying.

Unlike many unions, the BCTF had only a tiny, immediately exhausted strike fund.  (That too raises questions about why a union that takes in at least $30 million a year in dues had no strike fund for a dispute everyone anticipated.)

The BCTF needs to increase public pressure on the government to make gains, but it hasn’t really succeeded. The public discussion is all about wage and benefits, not class size and composition issues. Teachers’ pickets to block school maintenance but irk administrators, but seem irrelevant - or destructive - to the public. 

The union can push for mediation for a few more weeks. It’s a reasonable position.

But its next move then should be to announce it was ending strike activities to give government time to consider a new bargaining approach and to wait for court appeals in the class size and composition decision.

Schools would open, unless the government was foolish enough to continue its partial lockout or go to a full one. And the union could work under the terms of the current contract regroup and plan a better approach to negotiations.

Honduras, and the U.S. border crisis no one is talking about

The Honduran kids are starting to pile up in detention centres along the U.S. border. Since Oct. 1, about 52,000 “unaccompanied minors” have been caught by by U.S border patrols in the southwest. Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorians mostly.

That’s extraordinary. About 200 kids caught every day, after a dangerous, frightening journey of at least 2,400 kilometres. Likely 60,000 kids this year.

When 599 Chinese migrants showed up in rusty boats on B.C. shores in 1999, Canadians were plunged into panic. 

The same number of young migrants get arrested on the U.S. border every three days. Others make it across without being caught, or turn back on the journey.

They’re political fodder in the U.S., their stories reconstructed to fit the narrative desired by each side. 

Really, they’re kids. Some set out on incredible journeys on their own. Others were helped by families who took on huge debts - $4,000 to $6,000 - to hire a coyote. When their children are caught at the border, and returned, the debt remains.

The road to the U.S. is littered with bodies. The journey often involves riding a freight train called El Bestia. Gangs prey on migrants.

Imagine the desperation of parents who send their children on such a journey.

Canadians should understand the impulse to seek a better life. About 96 per cent of us come from somewhere else.

Those days are gone. Even as trade agreements removed barriers so capital and goods could move freely between countries, workers weren’t allowed the same freedom. They were trapped.

It makes sense for a Honduran kid to gamble on the journey to the U.S. They have seen the benefits - almost 20 per cent of GDP is money sent home by foreign workers, mostly in the U.S., mostly illegal. Everyone knows friends or family members who have made the trip. (And everyone knows people who have started the journey and never been heard from again.)

The U.S. is trying to turn back the tide. It’s fighting rumours an amnesty applies to minor migrants. This week, Homeland Security director Jeh Johnson warned parents of the risks children face travelling to the U.S.

But the day after Johnson’s warning was released, the U.S. State Department updated its travel advisory for Honduras. 

“Critically high” levels of crime and violence. Highest murder rate in the world. Corrupt police. Crimes often not even investigated and criminals operating “with a high degree of impunity throughout Honduras.” Narcotraffickers  and gangs, “known to commit crimes such as murder, kidnapping, extortion, carjacking, armed robbery, rape, and other aggravated assaults.”

Overblown, I’d say.

But if that’s the official U.S. governments position, it can not be surprised that Honduran teens are heading to America.

Escaping violence is a motivation. The gangs in the cities - imports from the U.S. - kill casually.

But mostly, the young migrants are looking for a chance.

I was amazed by the hopefulness of Hondurans in our time there. There are few jobs, schools are bad and opportunities are desperately scarce. But people open small stores, or take courses to prepare for a job that probably doesn’t exist. Kids stay in school, sign up for trade courses. It is at once inspiring and heartbreaking.

Embarking on a journey to the U.S. is a demonstration of that hopefulness.

Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez tried to shift responsibility to the U.S. The children are war refugees, he said, driven out of their country by violence fuelled by the drug trade.

Americans (and Canadians) consume cocaine. Without them, the drug would not be transported through Honduras and other countries too poor to control the business.

True enough. The 43-year-long “war on drugs” is a costly, destructive failure that has enriched and empowered a few - gangs and cocaine cartels included - and accomplished, literally, nothing while resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Drugs are cheaper and more available than ever.

But Honduras would be a bad place to be young even if not a single of cocaine moved through the country. Gangs and poverty and a broken society are the real problems.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” it says on the Statue of Liberty. Canada embraced the same sentiments, without the poetry.

Except today, we don’t want those masses to show up. 

The fears about foreign workers and wages are understandable. For me, the problem is with the word “temporary.” We should welcome new citizens, not people brought here to be cheap labour and then sent home.

The kids flooding the U.S. border are risking everything for a chance at a new life. 

And we’re locking them up and sending them back were they came from.

Update: This great graphic shows where the kids are coming from.

Time for BCTF, government to prepare for fall legislated settlement (and save summer school)

I’m sure Vince Ready is busy. But I expect he also decided against getting involved in the teachers’ strike/lockout because there is no real chance of a mediated settlement now.

In a past life I was involved in labour negotiations. In one difficult set of talks, a mediator was appointed to help us reach a deal. He arrived, met with management and union, and booked out less than an hour later. The parties were too far apart, he said, and mediation would be a waste of time. Good luck.

That’s true in this dispute. There are too many issues on the table, the parties are too far apart and there’s no sign that either side really wants a deal. The BCTF’s goofy strike tactic, at a time when the government feels under no pressure from parents or public, served only to cost teachers an average $3,500 in lost pay and, by increasing their expectations, make a deal less likely. 

If the parties were really keen on a negotiated settlement, they wouldn’t have spent the last week exchanging insults through the media.

There are useful things that could be done now. The parties could agree on an independent costing of current proposals, for example. That might help identify potential areas of compromise. 

But I’d expect the dispute to continue into September. Barring creative solutions - which are possible but unlikely - a legislated settlement would be imposed just before school resumes, or after a couple of weeks of strike.

That means both sides should be focusing on winning public support for their positions on key issues. If government believes the public broadly supports the teachers, the back-to-work legislation will provide at least some gains. If not, the union will fare less well.

For the union, that means dropping proposals unlikely to win public support, like improvements to an already generous benefits plan. It means recognizing that a salary deal is going to look very much like other public sector settlements. And it means focusing on class size and composition issues.

For the government, that means quitting bargaining in public, stopping the expense of taxpayers’ money on ad campaigns fighting the union and come up with a serious response to the court rulings on class size and composition.

Practically, that means the BCTF should immediately announce that summer school classes will go ahead. There is no benefit to striking over the summer - it won’t put pressure on management to settle. And shutting down summer school will cost the union parents’ support and deprive some members of income they were counting on. (The government has already lifted the lockout for summer school.)

Clark's pension costs taxpayers $76k a year, but disability rate increase not 'affordable'

Premier Christy Clark scores top marks for hypocrisy in explaining why British Columbians on disability benefits, and their children, should live in poverty.

Clark said this week that she knows the benefits, frozen since 2007, are too low. But British Columbia is just too poor to provide any increase. That will have to wait for some unknown future when it is “affordable,” she said.

But Clark believes it’s perfectly affordable to have taxpayers contribute $76,000 a year to fund her pension.

A single parent with one child on disability benefits in British Columbia - someone like Clark - receives $1,272 a month. That’s up to $570 for rent and $672 for everything else. They are expected to raise a child on $15,000 a year. 

Increasing disability assistance rates after seven frozen years is impossible, Clark says. Not “affordable.”

But MLAs believe that they need up to $1,580 a month for a temporary second home in Victoria to use when the legislature is sitting. That’s affordable.

They believe a pension plan that requires four dollars from taxpayers for every dollar paid by MLAs is affordable. The taxpayer contribution to fund the plan works out to an average $48,000 a year for each of the 85 MLAs.

The claim that British Columbia can’t afford to raise income assistance and disability assistance rates is simply false. 

The reality is that government has chosen to leave some 33,000 children and their families in poverty. People on assistance benefits are forced into substandard, sometimes dangerous housing, and denied the ability to afford the basics of life. 

It’s destructive for everyone. A single person is supposed to find housing that costs less than $375 and live on $122 a week. That is a grim existence for anyone, even people who are on income assistance for short periods. 

For people with few job options - those on disability assistance and with “persistent multiple barriers to employment” - it’s especially dire. They represent about two-thirds of recipients.

And government-mandated poverty is especially devastating for children. It does lasting damage to their health, educational achievements and social adjustment, and damages their prospects in life. Raising the rates now will save money for taxpayers in future, improve their lives and build a stronger province.

Clark needs to be honest. The rates haven’t been increased since 2007 because government has decided the needs of those people aren’t as important as its other priorities.

Including pay raises, pensions and benefits for MLAs.

Expect a teachers' strike in September

The chances of reaching a new teachers’ contract this month range from slim to none. 

There can always be breakthroughs when both parties sit down and bargain seriously, especially with the help of a mediator.

But that usually requires some preconditions. 

The number of outstanding issues needs to be reduced, and the distance between employer and union positions narrowed. The negotiators need to have prepared their principals - politicians and union members, in this case - for inevitable compromises.

And both sides need to feel under pressure to reach an agreement.

None of those are in place. There are still too many issues on the table for effective final bargaining - benefit improvements, prep time, salary grid changes, class size and composition. 

And the parties are too far apart. On pay, for example, the union wants a $5,000 signing bonus and raises that would increase pay by 8.2 per cent by 2017. The employer proposes $1,200 and raises that would see pay rise 4.6 per cent by the same date. The union’s proposed signing bonus would cost $150 million; the government’s proposal would cost $36 million. The union wage proposal would cost the government about $75 million more a year by 2017 than the government proposal.

The government hasn’t come up with any legitimate response to court decisions that demand bargaining on class size and composition based on the clauses eliminated when it ripped up contracts.

The B.C. Teachers Federation has raised members’ expectations, making it hard to sell any eventual compromise deal. If negotiators go public with a long list of proposals after a strike has been launched, those become the benchmarks for union members. 

And the union’s ill-timed strike is costing a typical member $350 a day in gross pay (without increasing pressure on the government). Some have characterized the $5,000 signing bonus as necessary replacement for the money they lost by striking. Their position is increasingly entrenched.

All those factors make a settlement unlikely.

So does the apparent belief of at least some participants on both sides that this process is a battle of right and wrong. Negotiations are about reaching a deal based on what is possible, not a holy crusade.

More talks in the next two weeks are unlikely to result in a settlement. But they might resolve at least a few items, or bring a little more clarity about what a final deal would look like.

But at this point, the union and government need to begin considering how they will deal with the impact of a strike in September. 

Ultimately, parents won’t stand for schools to be closed. If a deal can’t be reached at the negotiating table, one will be imposed.

Public opinion is critical in that process. If the government believes the public sides with the teachers, the imposed settlement will reflect that. If government thinks they have support, the deal will give less to teachers. 

It’s a lousy way to reach agreement on pay and working conditions for some 33,000 employees. But until the process is improved, it’s what we’ve got.

Teachers' June strike a tactical error

I don’t understand the teachers’ union decision to strike with two weeks left in the school year.

Parents resent school closures at any time; they impose serious hardships on working families. My entirely unscientific sampling in the Comox Valley suggests parents blame both government and union for the strike/lockout.

But shutting down schools now has little real impact. End-of-year events are lost, but starting summer holidays two weeks early doesn’t pose much of a threat to learning.

Government can wait out the strike without much pressure from parents. Based on the first reports on weekend bargaining, that appears to be what has happened.

And starting today, a typical teacher will be losing about $350 a day in gross pay. Union strike pay is $50 a day, but the fund is virtually empty.

By the end of the week, an average teacher will be out $1,750, the equivalent of a 2.4-per-cent raise. 

Strikes and lockouts are part of bargaining. But they’re destructive, and usually launched as a last resort. 

It’s hard to see the B.C. Teachers’ Federation at such a point. There is no obvious deadline for a new contract to be reached. The union is probably nervous - rightly - that the government would use the length of negotiations as a reason to impose a contract. But a strike now doesn’t change that and might strengthen the government’s position.

If a deal isn’t reached in the next two weeks, the strike could make reaching a settlement more difficult. Teachers would be out $3,000 or $4,000, and some would expect the union to get that money back in a new contract.

And the union has limited its options for job action in September.

I’ll look at the issues once the information is clearer. But the BCTF's tactical decision to strike now is baffling.

Five observations on the Ontario election

1) A record of corruption and incompetence doesn’t disqualify a party from forming government. The Ontario Liberals cost taxpayers almost $1 billion when they cancelled two power plants in 2011 to improve their election chances, and were either dishonest or incompetent in covering up the real costs. It wasn’t enough to get them kicked out of office. In fact, their share of the popular vote rose from 38 per cent in 2011 to 39 per cent this week. 

Opposition parties can't count on voters to punish parties for past wrongdoing.

2) Changing leaders, as the Liberals did, appears to be like a shaking an Etch-a-Sketch over your head. Everything is erased and you get a fresh start.

3) A large number of voters are more-or-less happy with the status quo or don’t believe the promises of those proposing change. The Ontario Conservatives said they would cut 100,000 public sector jobs and cut spending sharply. It didn’t sell. (The Conservative campaign also stumbled when its plan to create one million jobs was revealed to be based on bogus numbers, and leader Tim Hudak refused to acknowledge the giant error.)

4) Our winner-take-all election system doesn’t reflect voter preferences. The Liberals took 39 per cent of the votes and 55 per cent of the seats; the Conservatives 31 per cent of the votes and 25 per cent of seats; the NDP 24 per cent of the votes and 20 per cent of the seats. (The Greens captured five per cent of the votes, but didn’t elect any candidates.) 

5) Third parties face a tough road. Despite the Liberal record, the NDP failed to attract voters, up just one percentage point from 2011. There was little to choose between Liberals and New Democrats in terms of policy, and the electoral system encouraged those opposed to the Conservatives to vote Liberal.

Private schools, the strike/lockout and inequality

Not all parents are worried about school closures in the current teachers’ dispute.

Christy Clark and thousands of others have opted out of the public school system and pay large fees for children to go to private schools. They are not affected by the strike/lockout.

But they’re still a factor. About 76,000 children are enrolled in private schools, about 12 per cent of all students. Their parents tend to be affluent, educated, and highly concerned about their children’s education. 

If their sons and daughters were being kept from school, they would be cranky. And they have much greater ability to make life unpleasant for government. They have the money, time, energy and commitment to raise a mighty fuss about closed schools or even missed days.

Private schools place them above the fray, and offer another reason to shell out the fees - $6,000 to $20,000 per year, typically.

More and more parents have been choosing private schools, despite the cost. In the last four years, public school enrolment has dropped about four per cent, while private schools have attracted about 10 per cent more students.

A decade ago, 9.6 per cent of students were in private schools. Now it’s 12 per cent.

The Liberals pride themselves on a business-like approach to governing and good management. But a business that was losing more and more market share to competitors would decide something was wrong and fix it. 

The government, and the people in charge of the education ministry, haven’t done that.

Nor has their been any serious discussion about the impact of an expanding private school system.

We like to think that we’re an egalitarian society and people with intelligence, talent and drive have a relatively equal chance at success. 

Quality public education is one of the most important elements in creating that kind of society.

A two-tier education system undermines equality of opportunity. The income of parents, not talent and effort, becomes a critical factor in the kind of life children can achieve. 

That’s wasteful for society; the talent of a significant portion of the population isn’t fully utilized. 

And it entrenches and increases inequality. 

There’s a persistent fallacy that inequality just happens, or is the result of economic forces beyond our control. 

But inequality in Canada reflects policy choices that governments have made. Cutting unemployment benefits or freezing disability payments makes some people at the bottom of the income ladder poorer. Reducing income taxes makes people at the top end richer.

The choices that have led to an increase in private school enrolments will increase inequality in the future.

That’s not to say government should ban private schools. Parents have a right to choose.

But the government now subsidizes private education with per-pupil grants at 50 per cent of the grants to public school districts. The subsidy could be 40 per cent. It could be eliminated entirely. It could be increased. Those are policy choices, and some would slow the move to private schools and reduce future inequality.

Or the government could look harder at why parents are judging the public system inadequate and address those issues. It could do research parents are choosing private schools and address those concerns.

None of this has a direct relation to the current labour dispute. The teachers’ union is seeking to improve working conditions and income for members; the government is trying to save money. Both sides talk about the students, but their own interests come first. That’s the nature of union-management negotiations. (It might that the best thing for students would be a 10-per-cent pay reduction in teachers’ pay, with the money used to hire an additional 4,000 teachers. No one could reasonably expect the union to agree to such a change.)

Nor is it a partisan issue. Private school enrolment, as a percentage of all students, increased at virtually the same rate during the last NDP governments.

It should be a concern. We claim to believe it’s important that all children have a fair chance at making the most of their lives. 

The increasing emergence of a two-tier education system shows we don’t actually care about that principle. Or, for that matter, that we recognize the unfairness and corrosiveness of increasing inequality.

Footnote: Not all parents who send their children to private schools are rich, not all private schools are ritzy. The current per-pupil grant to public school districts is about $6,900; private schools get $3,450. 

KILLED AFTER OFFICE GOLF PARTY NIGHTMARE OF CRASHES

I’ve been doing some research that led me into the Toronto Star online archives of the mid-1950s.

It wasn’t any golden age of journalism.

But boy, they knew how to grab readers.

The headline at the top of the post was from the Star’s line story on June 25, 1955. It was screaming, two-deck head across the top of the page, and the story delivered. After a company golf party, the boss - drunk - insisted on driving home. He crashed and died, and other staff following in their cars piled into each other in the confusion. Three people were charged with impaired driving.

 The other headlines were just as catchy, in the truncated style of the day.

“Officer shoots self, give Vancouver chief leave in police probe.”

“Pollution, epidemic feared if strike at Kitchener continues.”

“Peron’s police cheer as young Catholics die defending churches.”

“Gored by bull, Burks Falls farmer dies.”

“Thought help cries game, girls let chum drown.”

“Mystery germ hits Alberta, halts operations.” (Antibiotic-resistant staph infections were already a problem in hospitals.)

And my favorite, “Swimming wolf fights to death with fishermen.” (In fact, the fishermen were in a boat and clubbed the wolf with a paddle, hit it with an anchor, dragged it to shore and, when the animal still wasn’t dead, cut its throat.)

The main art was two photos under the headline “Canadian Girls Win Acclaim for Golf and Posture.” 

All in, there were 16 stories and two fairly large illustrations.

I checked the Star’s current front page the same day I looked at the 1955 paper.

It had four stories. (There are also teasers for inside basketball coverage and coverage of the latest popes to be deemed saints.)

The line story head was “Condo failed to deliver on sales pitch, owners claim.” The other heads were “Under this immigration law, anyone can be a terrorist,” “Special needs kids told to stay home” and “Ukraine crisis: Insurgents in east hold dozens hostage.” 

They are all OK stories. But put them up against the 1955 page, and they seem, well, dull. And instead of a groaning smorgasbord, readers get a limited set menu.

In fairness, the page today is about 40 per cent smaller. Newspapers have been steadily making the page shorter and narrower to reduce newsprint costs. (And for reader convenience, of course, though mostly to save money.)

But still, even with the reduced page size, the editors in 1955 would have presented eight or nine stories. 

A few thoughts leap out. 

First, the people who go on about the great quality journalism in the old days - a decade ago, 40 years ago, a hundred years ago - haven’t actually read the old papers. Then, as now, there was some fine work, a lot of average work and some hackery. 

Second, the papers were a heck of a lot more entertaining and interesting. A story about a killer wolf isn’t great journalism. But it is the kind of item that people will talk about at work, which means that if you don’t read the paper, you’re left out of the conversation.

And third, the 1950s approach seems well-suited to the digital age - generate a lot of different items, package them and troll for readers. A print version of BuzzFeed.

So why did newspapers move away from a formula that worked? Partly, we decided people were getting the headlines and quick hits of a 16-story front page from radio and TV. (This was pre-Internet, though radio had certainly been around for a long time.) The theory was that we would offer more depth to retain readers.

But that also aligned nicely with the work a new generation of university-educated journalists said they wanted to do - in-depth stories about big issues. That’s important, but it doesn’t serve much purpose if people aren’t reading the pieces. 

It would be harder to take the same approach now. You would need lots of keen reporters to chase down the story of the drunken office golf outing gone wrong, and police sources willing to talk. Newspapers can’t afford the reporters, and police would refer you to a communications staffer who would confirm a crash was under investigation and little more.

And the fishermen would likely have grabbed a video of their heroic efforts to kill the wolf, posted it and it would have reached two million views on various platforms and aggregators within 12 hours.

Still, the old Star page is a reminder that in the discussions about newspaper readership (print and online), we should be considering the possibility that some people aren’t reading because we’re not interesting enough.

Clark's answers on RCI role don't add up

Christy Clark needs to provide better answers about her previously undisclosed role with RCI Capital Group.

In 2007, Clark signed a contract to become founding chair and director of an RCI subsidiary that hoped to win multimillion-dollar contracts to bring international students to Canadian universities. The universities would get high-paying students; RCI would get money for recruiting the students in Asia; and Clark would get finder’s fees and four per cent of revenues.

Since becoming premier, Clark has promoted RCI, which collects fees for arranging foreign investments in Canada, on two trade missions and appeared at a company media event.

The appearance of conflict is unavoidable, especially as Clark failed to disclose her past involvement with RCI. A politically well-connected company that employed Clark is benefitting from her efforts as premier.

And Clark’s explanations have failed to add up.

Initially, she denied a connection with RCI and founder and CEO John Park. 

When a National Post reporter showed her the contract she had signed to work for the company, Clark said she never actually did any work or got paid. 

“When I worked in the private sector, I talked about doing some work with them — but I was never paid for any work with them,” said Clark. 

But Clark didn’t “talk about” doing work. She signed a contract, which promised an annual salary and bonuses - $20,000 if some B.C. universities came on board.

Clark says she left the firm by calling Park and telling him she couldn’t do any work for the company because she was starting a new job as a talk show host for CKNW.

Anyway, she says, she understood the project never went anywhere and the subsidiary was shut down within a couple of months.

But the contract was signed by Clark on Sept. 27. She had already been working for CKNW for a month by then. That claim doesn’t add up.

And reporter Bob Mackin shared a letter that RCI sent to the University of New Brunswick proposing a $52-million deal to recruit and deliver international students. That letter referred to Clark as the company's current chairwoman. And it indicates she was copied on the proposal.

So the claim the company was quickly shut down doesn’t add up.

The other problem is that Clark’s approach to this looks inexplicably sloppy.

She took the time to sign a contract - and even amend it to improve her compensation - to join the company. She accepted a director’s role, which carries serious responsibilities. She allowed her name to be used to promote it.

But when she quit, she apparently never thought of sending a resignation letter. A phone call was supposed somehow to nullify the contract. 

That’s baffling. Any competent person knows the importance of handling business affairs properly. A signed contract can’t be undone with a phone call. A letter of resignation - which Clark should have been able to produce when questions arose - was required.

Parks’ explanations have been equally puzzling. Initially, he denied Clark had ever had a role with RCI. 

Confronted with evidence, he said Clark had been hired, but the company was quickly shut down.

But the province’s corporate registry shows the subsidiary wasn’t shut down until 2011, after Clark was elected premier.

Park blames sloppiness in doing the paperwork to close the company, though he hasn't produced any written evidence to support his claims about when the subsidiary ceased operations.

It’s the second revelation about previously undisclosed and relevant business activities that have emerged. Clark was also a partner in her former husband’s lobbying company during her time out of office, but never revealed her role.

Clark was entitled to work during her break from politics. But citizens are entitled to disclosure of those activities - particularly when Clark is using her position in government to advance the interests of those companies.

How much longer does Postmedia have?

I’m rooting for Postmedia. But the latest quarterly results released Thursday don’t offer much hope for the future of the corporation.

Since the company took over the assets of Canwest in 2010, it has gone from weakness to weakness. The problems aren’t unique to Postmedia, of course. Newspapers and other traditional media are being hammered by a loss of audience and advertising revenues.

Postmedia was slow to accept that reality. And its response has been inadequate.

Basically, the corporate strategy is to cut costs, increase digital revenue and try to get readers to pay more for content, whether it's delivered by print, online or through mobile devices.

But it’s not working.

In the latest report, revenues are down 9.1 per cent for the quarter. That follows declines of 9.6 per cent for the 2013 fiscal year and 7.4 per cent for 2012. 

Since Dec. 1, 2011, revenue has fallen by $181 million.

The company launched a three-year cost-cutting program in July 2012, and reports it has found $98 million in annualized savings. That’s not nearly enough given the revenue drop. But deeper cuts will reduce quality and service and lead to more revenue losses, a vicious cycle that usually ends badly.

The plan to boost digital revenue has flopped. Digital revenue was down in the quarter.

The effort to get people to pay more for content is likewise stalled. Circulation is down more than 11 per cent compared to a year earlier, and price increases have not been enough to increase revenue.

And people have proved reluctant to pay for online content, despite the introduction of paywalls. 

Postmedia claims 140,000 registered online users, but won’t say how many are paying customers and how many are print subscribers who registered for free access.

In any case, only 5,000 new people signed on in the last quarter, or about 500 per paper over the three-month period. That’s not enough.

Postmedia is hoping that a planned relaunch of the print products and new tablet and smartphone subscription options will turn things around, or at least give management some breathing room. 

If they don’t, the corporation’s future is grim. Based on the current trends, Postmedia is a year or two away from facing major problems in coming up with the cash flow to make the required interest and principal payments on its debt. Asset sales might buy a little more time, but they don't change the fundamentals.

Three numbers that will tell the tale for Postmedia

Postmedia will releases its latest quarterly results Thursday.

Here are three numbers that will tell if the company is making any progress toward a viable future.

Revenue: The amount of money the company takes in has been plunging since Paul Godfrey and hedge funds bought Canwest’s assets. Nothing can save the company unless the freefall is arrested. 

Revenue will still be lower than the previous year, but unless the rate of decline slows to five per cent or lower, there is little hope.

Digital revenue: Postmedia’s digital strategies have fizzled, and managers have come and gone. The company needs to show some sort of digital revenue growth - at least four per cent.

Digital subscribers: A key element of the corporation’s strategy is getting readers to pay more for the content. It hopes tablet editions will help, but the current indicator is digital subscribers. Last quarter, Postmedia said 135,000 people have registered for access to newspaper websites. But it refuses to say how many are paying customers, and how many are subscribers registering for free access.

If the strategy is working, that number should increase to at least 150,000.

The quarterly will present information on cost-cutting and restructuring. But revenue losses - 17 per cent in the last two fiscal years - have far outstripped expense reductions. 

Unless the company can find a way at least to slow the loss of revenue, its future is bleak.

BC Liberal's executive director refuse to answer questions in Ontario police investigation

No one has to co-operate with the police when they’re investigating a possible crime. You’re free to tell the officers that you have no interest in helping them and won't say a word.

But not if you’re a politician or political operative who hopes to be credible and trusted.

Laura Miller, the executive director of the BC Liberal Party, has refused to meet with police officers from Ontario’s anti-racket squad to answer questions. Police believe she could help with their investigation of breach of trust in an alleged high-level illegal coverup in the office of former premier Dalton McGuinty, where she was deputy chief of staff.

The investigation is focused on David Livingstone, Miller’s boss. Police believe Miller’s partner was enlisted to go through the computers of everyone in the premier’s office and illegally delete documents relating to the Liberal’s pre-election decision to kill two gas-powered power plants - one partially built - that might have cost it swing seats. The decision cost Ontario taxpayers more than $1 billion in sunk costs and compensation for the companies involved. (The story is complex - a good summary is here.) 

Serious stuff. If the truth had been known before the 2011 election, the outcome might have been different. 

McGuinty resigned, Miller moved on to help with Christy Clark’s election campaign and was then hired to run the BC Liberal Party.

And now, according to Gary Dimmock’s excellent coverage in the Ottawa Citizen, Miller is refusing to be interviewed by police.

That’s a citizen’s right. But politicians and political parties make a big deal about believing in the justice system, supporting and police and helping them keep communities safer by co-operating in crime investigations.

When the most senior party staffer refuses to sit down answer questions, that all is revealed to be hypocritical rubbish. We want you ordinary people to co-operate wth police, Clark and company are saying. We’ll act in our own self-interest.

And it raises serious questions. Why, exactly, is Miller refusing to answer questions about what she knows? What does Christy Clark think about the party executive director’s refusal to co-operate with an extremely serious police investigation?

And what does that say about Miller’s attitude toward accountability and the law in her B.C. job?

Norman Spector has been asking why Miller’s refusal hasn’t been covered in B.C. media. It’s a good question.

So long, Copan Ruinas, and thanks

We’ve been counting down the lasts for a while now. 

The last four-hour bus trip home from San Pedro Sula a week ago. Last trip to the pool with the kids from Angelitos, the care home/orphanage we’ve been helping out, on Sunday. Last concept note for Cuso International. Last trip up the hill for a $1.25 haircut yesterday. Last boiling up of three pounds of chicken menudo for the dogs. (The slogan should be ‘now with more chicken feet.’)

It’s not much fun. Partly, it’s just stressful trying to pack up life in Copan Ruinas after more than two years, cram our stuff into two backpacks and big suitcase and head off to who-knows-what in Canada. (Lugging along an accordion and a dog.)

And partly there is a sense of unfinished business. 

My partner Jody and I have been Cuso International volunteers here, placed with local development agencies and tasked with ‘building capacity’ in communications. I’ve spent a lot of time on interesting projects for the Cuso Honduran office as well.

It is a great experience. We’re living in Honduras, experiencing life in an entirely different culture, discovering the challenges of life in a poor, unequal and largely dysfunctional country. It’s year-round summer, and life is lived - loudly - on the street. Or it might as well be, as every house in our neighbourhood is built right to the street and windows are always open. I can pretty much sing along with one neighbours music choices by now. 

And it’s not like visiting. 

We know the neighbours and the people in the market stalls. We’ve been through the afternoon rains, and the April heat, and had a chance to see how people live in a poor country. We ride the buses and cope with the power failures and, as we’re paid stipends equivalent to Hondurans doing similar work, pay attention to what things cost. I’ve been touched by how genuinely sad some people are to learn we are leaving.

Which, I suppose, is one reason I have a sense of unfinished business. It takes time to become more than a visitor, and to be an effective contributor in the important work Cuso International and its partners are doing. After two years, I’m much more useful and understand much more. And as a result I wonder how much more could be done with more time.

And any time of leaving is, for me, a time of regrets. I was walking White Dog, who is going to Canada, and Crazy Pup, who is not, today and noticed a path heading up into the hills east of town that I hadn’t seen before. There are a lot of paths not walked.

I’ll be glad to tick off some of the lasts. Sometime before Monday morning at 7 a.m. we will have the last power failure, and the last resulting loss of Internet service. And at some point, I will utter a last frustrated complaint about the creeping pace of web access when it does work.

And I’ll read the last story in a Honduran newspaper that leaves me baffled at how things could be so messed up. (The current contender is a La Prensa piece yesterday on a public school in La Moskitia that offers its 610 students one diploma program, in technology and computer skills. The area has no reliable electricity and almost no opportunities in computer work. And in any case, the school hasn’t had any actual working computers for students since it opened seven years ago. Miraculously, hopeful students keep showing up.)

Leavings always seem to come in a rush of farewells and hurried preparations, with too little time to think much about all that’s left behind. I’m writing this perched one of two plastic chairs that are our remaining furniture, with clothes spilling out of the half-packed bags on the floor. We’ve got a couple of steaks to fry up for dinner, two plates and two knives and forks. 

Maybe the rush is a good thing. There will be time to figure out what all this lasts mean when we’re settled, for a while, in Canada.

Five questions about the Leslie moving expense furor

Former Canadian Forces lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie - and federal Liberal advisor and prospective star candidate - is being attacked by the Harper Conservatives for claiming $72,000 in retirement moving expenses under a policy that applies to RCMP officers and the military.

The Intended Place of Residence policy covers retiring Mounties and military personnel for one last move after they retire. The idea is that if you end your career in Newfoundland, but want to move back to be closer to your grandkids in Saskatoon, the government will pick up the cost. It’s a reward for accepting a series of transfers over the course of a career.

But the Leslie case raises some questions.

1) Was the information about Leslie’s expenses a political smear engineered by the Conservatives? CTV News broke the story, saying it had “obtained” documents on the moving expenses. But the TV network did not say how it got the documents, or from whom. That should be part of the story.

2) Is the Conservative government suggesting its policy should be changed, and the costs of a last move should not be covered by taxpayers? If so, why has the change not been made over the eight years the Conservatives have governed?

3) What was Leslie thinking? Just because the benefit is in place doesn’t mean you need to claim it. Leslie was highly paid, over $250,000 a year, and retiring on a pension that most Canadians could only dream about. He decided he wanted a different house in Ottawa. Why did he choose to have taxpayers pick up the costs - moving fees, real estate commissions, property transfer taxes - for what was a personal choice?

4) How much is the policy costing taxpayers? About 3,500 Mounties and Canadian Forces employees are retiring each year.

5) And given that volume, why hasn’t the federal government negotiated a better deal? The largest chunk of Leslie’s expenses were real estate fees. Surely the government, with thousands of moves a year, could get a better deal on real estate commissions.

Honduras seizes 'crime zoo,' animals go hungry

Back in September the Honduran government started seizing the assets of Los Cachiros, an alleged drug and crime organization. The $500 million in seizures included a zoo and resort business the organization had established between San Pedro Sula and Tegucigalpa. We had meant to go; the TripAdvisor reviews were pretty good.

Uh-oh, I thought, when news of the seizure broke. Those animals were a lot better off in a zoo owned by narcos than one run by the Honduran government, which has demonstrated a consistent lack of competence in almost everything it touches.

Sadly, that seems to be true. La Tribuna reports today that the government agency responsible for seizures has fumbled around with the zoo, with no one consistently responsible. (A Google translate version of the story is here.)

The only money available to feed the animals and maintain the zoo comes from park revenues, which have fallen because there is no advertising or promotion, many people think it was closed after the seizure and it is not being maintained.

The current revenue isn’t enough to cover food and vet care for the animals - tigers, giraffes, zebras and a collection of animals native to Central America.

The government could have put in a trustee to manage the zoo, with a budget to run the business and look after the animals. Or it could have hired a competent management company on contract. Instead there has been a succession of people within government responsible. 

That’s not just bad for the animals. The zoo and resort provided jobs and economic activity in the region. As the government bungles its management, those will be lost.

The seizures from Los Cachiros were co-ordinated with the U.S. government, which had targeted the family-based group under the “Kingpin Act” aimed at foreign crime groups.

The zoo’s struggles raise questions about government management of other assets on the U.S. hit list and apparently seized, like African palm plantations, cattle ranches, hotels and mining and roadbuilding companies.

Grimmer news for League Investors - some $355 million of their money gone

The news keep getting worse for investors in Victoria-based League Assets. And the financial disaster is still not getting adequate media coverage.

Back in November, I predicted massive losses for the investors League, which promised investors security and great returns through real estate investments.

Based on the latest filings from PWC, the news is even worse than I expected.

League Assets, the creation of Adam Gant and Emanuel Arruda, is broke and filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. PWC is being paid to manage the mess.

The best estimate, in November, was that League’s properties could be sold off and net $227 million.

But there are $186 million in mortgages, PWC reported in its latest filing, and $6.3 million owed on outstanding property taxes and liens. They get paid first.

Some 460 trade creditors are owed $19.5 million. They get paid next.

Which leaves about $15 million for League’s investors, who entrusted the fund with $370 million of their money - retirement savings, money set aside for children’s education and the like.

There are 4,280 investment accounts, which means an average investment of about $86,000. Blogger Rachel Berube has shared case studies from the company’s sales material, which include investors who talk about mortgaging their homes to invest in League and counting on the investments for their retirements. 

Based on the PWC reports, those investors will be lucky to get back four cents on the dollar. A typical $86,000 investment entrusted to League will be reduced to about $3,400.

It’s extraordinary. Investors put $370 million into League based on promises, and now $15 million is left. 

Money doesn’t disappear, and many creditors are asking where the missing $355 million has ended up.

Honduras: The new president gets a lavish swearing-in

There’s a certain over-the-top, bread and circuses aspect to tomorrow’s ceremonies for the swearing in of the new president of Honduras.

Especially for a country that is, effectively, broke, with desperate unmet needs.

The government has given all employees a half day off, in case they want to attend the ceremony or watch it on TV. A fleet of 450 buses has also been lined up to bring people from around the country.

The national stadium in Tegicugalpa, the venue for the big event, is being repainted, and beginning Sunday night the roads in a wide area around the stadium will be closed to traffic.

And 8,000 police - 4,000 of the new military police and 4,000 regular officers - were pulled from duty beginning Saturday to prepare security for Monday’s event. They will set up a series of security cordons and guard the hotels where representatives from some 60 countries will be staying (including Canada).

It’s a far cry from the Canadian process where the new prime minister and his cabinet are sworn in, there are some photo-ops and a cocktail party for party supporters, and everyone gets back to work.

You could argue, I suppose, that all the spending and pomp and pageantry are a legitimate celebration of democracy in a country still scarred by the 2009 coup. The November elections, while flawed, where the second since the widely criticized post-coup elections.

Or alternately you could argue that the giant public event is in effect a victory celebration for the National party, which succeeded in capturing the presidency and a plurality of congressional seats, designed in part to reinforce the power of President Juan Orlando Hernandez.

Mostly though, you have to wonder about the lavish spending on a spectacle at a time when hospitals go without medicine and the government has claimed an urgent need to cut spending.