Once that sinks in, then the boss should be advised that paying “less” cannot then be called an “excessive” demand.
Only a fool would make such a statement.
So let’s lay out the facts.
What led Sun News Network to yank its signal to Bell’s satellite television feed was not prompted by us, but by Bell’s thinking we would provide it for free if it continued stalling on signing its carriage contract.
In fact, Bell’s excuse that the price was too “excessive” to pay is not only lame but disingenuous.
What Sun News offered Bell was the same deal already signed with Shaw, Shaw Direct and Videotron, yet Bell came back and told us the amount was “excessive” — despite being less than what it pays CTV News Channel, CP24 and BNN.
And Bell owns those three.
So there’s the “excessive” argument up in smoke.
The real reason Bell is balking at paying “less” for “more” is because Sun News is already hurting its ratings.
Why else would it carry Al Jazeera and eight other foreign all-news channels, but refuse to carry Sun News, Canada’s only conservative news network?
Could it be its fear of competition, despite a responsibility to the CRTC to be a cable-satellite provider, which is also a veritable licence to print money?
If you want to see a telling clip, go to this website — http://goo.gl/1o23O — and watch as CTV’s senior man in Ottawa, Craig Oliver, boo-hoos to Sun News host Ezra Levant that Sun News would threaten livelihoods.
“Who needs it? We’re already struggling for audience, all of us,” Oliver sputters. “We don’t need another news channel.”
So call Bell. Tell them that, while they might not need another news channel, you do.
Despite peddlings from the left, Sun News came out of the blocks better than anticipated, doubling projections, and then gained steam.
Our election coverage was not only seamless, it attracted more than 100,000 viewers.
And therein lies the real tale of the tape.
Bell’s own news networks are scared stiff.