Jeffrey Dvorkin says YES
The Massey College senior fellow and former director of the journalism program at U of T
Government in Canada has been funding the media for 100 years. There has always been a postal subsidy for newspaper distribution. More recently, the Canada Periodical Fund has helped magazines, newspapers (non-daily) and digital periodicals overcome market disadvantages. And, of course, there is the CBC, which gets more than a billion dollars a year from a direct government subsidy.
Conservative and Liberal governments alike have seen support for media as an urgent part of maintaining democracy in Canada. There is widespread agreement among parties and beyond that without a vigorous journalistic culture, democracy here would suffer. US studies, for example, show that less journalism results in more frequent reelection of incumbents.
The question of government funding of media is increasingly about whether Canadian media has become—or is in danger of becoming—an arm of government. Meanwhile the digital transformation of media continues, convergence has given us fewer choices, and so-called “news deserts” spread. Over 500 news outlets in Canada shut down between 2008 and 2024.
How to correct this? And what would be the consequences of less government support for media?
It’s worth looking at how other aspects of our society would function with less support. If government stopped funding public education, the private school business would boom. The privatization of hospitals would take us into a vastly poorer version of US healthcare—a life-threatening outcome. What about privatizing the military? Let’s not go there.
A free press is a critical element of democracy. We don’t need more government-funded news or pro-government messages. We do need better ways to fund media—and they should involve thoughtful support from government.
Our government gives tax credits to media organizations for labour and technology costs and to invest in regions ill-served with news. Subscriptions to credible media earn individuals a tax benefit. In addition to this, the public should be allowed to donate to the CBC to enable the removal of ads. This would end CBC’s competition for ads with commercial news publishers, which is contributing to the spread of news deserts, and make the public broadcaster more accountable to its audience. A Crown-funded national public broadcaster must do what commercial outlets can’t: develop unique programming to serve the needs of local audiences for information, reflection and perspectives that enable effective participation in democracy and cultural life. Programming must be decentralized while budgets focus on strong local/regional news and information. Local stations must program the needs of a local audience.
We must restore public confidence while deepening journalism and reporting on government. If our democracy is to survive, media as an agency of citizenship must be brought up to date, not defunded.
Peter Menzies says no
The Macdonald–Laurier Institute senior fellow and former Calgary Herald publisher
Not long ago, anyone arguing Canada’s news media should depend on a buffet of taxpayer money controlled by politicians would’ve been labelled a traitor to the craft. In the meantime, a great many moral contortions have brought us to where the matter is even up for debate. But here we are: the vast majority of Canada’s news organizations now depend upon politicians for their existence. They have submitted to the humiliation of applying to the government to become a Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization. They did so to avail themselves of the Journalism Labour Tax Credit and the Local Journalism Initiative. Others shape their content to qualify for the Canada Periodical Fund. Licensed broadcasters queue for assistance at the government-appointed Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
It requires some imagination to square this with statements like this one from the Toronto Star’s Standards and Practices: “Independence from those we cover is a key principle of journalistic integrity. We avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of such conflicts. …These policies apply to all outside interests that could cause our audiences to question the fairness and independence of our journalism.”
Journalists argue they can’t be bought. But the near-total absence of commentary arguing against these funds within the pages and platforms of organizations bearing the government’s stamp of approval indicates that debate can most certainly be stifled. And what journalists believe on this file is inconsequential. All that matters when it comes to subsidies and journalism is what the news-consuming public believes. And polling suggests the subsidies aren’t saving journalism; they’re killing it. Oh, the husks of once-magnificent titles still stumble around like zombies, but without trust—the bond tying journalists to readers, viewers and listeners—it’s all a charade.
In 2024 The Hub, a subscriber-based platform that eschews government funding (disclosure: I write for it), polled Canadians. Seventy-six per cent of respondents believe subsidies could undermine journalists’ ability to report objectively. Seventy per cent oppose the funding, including 75 per cent of Liberal voters and 86 per cent of Conservatives; 73 per cent say subsidies hamper journalists’ ability to challenge the government. Reuters, meanwhile, reports that Canadians’ trust in journalism fell from 55 per cent in 2016—before the latest subsidies were announced—to just 39 per cent in 2024.
If government and the news industry want trusted news to survive, subsidizing its production is counterproductive. If anything should be subsidized, it should be the consumption of news, through deductibility of subscription costs and other mechanisms, forcing platforms to compete for, and build, public trust. As for the CBC, its primary source of revenue must similarly be detached from the vicarious whims of Parliament and its sustenance placed squarely in the hands of the public.
jeffrey dvorkin responds to peter menzies
As a former managing editor of CBC Radio and former VP of News and Information at National Public Radio (NPR) in Washington, DC, I’m arguing yes to government funding for media—with strict limits.
In the 1990s we operated at CBC on the premise of maintaining an arm’s length relationship with government. We understood, as did our bosses, that our credibility as a provider of reliable information depended on maintaining public trust. The journalists who created our programs and reported the news for CBC had to act without “fear or favour” toward the government. One example of how CBC remained resistant to government pressure was during the Somalia affair. In 1993 a Somali teenager was beaten to death by two Canadian peacekeepers who were part of humanitarian efforts in that country. Captured by photos, the killing revealed internal problems in the Canadian Airborne Regiment. A CBC reporter received and reported on altered military documents, which led to allegations of a cover-up.
In the early 2000s, after moving to NPR, I found that mainstream media believed the first amendment to the US constitution gave journalists a measure of protection. American suspicion of government (quite different from the more accepting Canadian attitude) meant that US media were, for the most part, vigilant in maintaining independence.
But one particularly effective guarantee of public broadcasting’s independence from government in the US is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB dubs itself “the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting,” and it distributes public money to some 1,220 public radio stations and 361 public TV stations. These stations can raise their own operational money. Stations (notably PBS, as NPR gets less than 1 per cent of its budget from CPB) that exist in markets where fundraising is limited can ask for government funding in the form of a top-up from the CPB. This includes stations in rural areas, Indigenous communities etc. Congress allocates public funding once a year and CPB distributes it. CPB ensures that public funding is done at arm’s length from government.
Similarly, CBC’s credibility might be improved if its budgets came from an openly neutral source, one that is at arm’s length from the federal government.
Funding from government sources needs to be seen to be free from the influence of government
CBC journalists are of course aware that funding for their work comes directly from a parliamentary allocation, now more than $1-billion a year. Upper management, including the CBC’s president, go before a Heritage committee to press their case for continued annual funding for both CBC and Radio-Canada. English and French TV services alike are allowed to air ads, which bring in a few hundred million dollars. With the ad market softening, that amount has been declining.
Canadian media are suffering. The financial weakness of our broadcasters and newspapers is revealed daily. The spread of news deserts continues apace. Even the CBC is feeling the pinch. In frequent presentations to Parliament and reports to the public, the CBC says it tries to do “all things for all people,” with a range of offerings in two official languages and several Indigenous ones. This goal is clearly impossible when eyeballs and ears are attracted to social media’s more entertaining qualities.
Indeed the internet bears unique responsibility for this collapse of traditional media. Canada’s government is attempting to remedy this by redirecting funds from Meta, X and other deep-pocketed sources that it says are taking advantage of traditional news media. This hasn’t worked, as Meta won’t co-operate and most of the Google funding hasn’t yet been distributed. Increasingly in Canada, as in the US, suspicion is growing about the motives for government largesse. Sequential Heritage ministers haven’t made a strong case for how that funding will come without strings or government interference.
Meanwhile other sources of new income haven’t appreciably boosted circulation numbers or broadcast audiences. Public trust in media continues to decline due to the heightened suspicion of all major institutions, especially government. And digital continues to be the accelerant on a widespread media fire.
One solution? Government could play a better role by acting in an arm’s length manner. We need a Canadian version of CPB, for all media. Funding from government sources needs to be seen to be free from the influence of government. A “blue ribbon” panel of citizens could determine how much money should be allocated to various media, including the CBC. This would help restore public trust in journalism by acting as a neutral and accountable supporter of independent media. In turn, news media must foster an environment of contextual, local and investigative journalism by and for Canadians—because the future of our democracy depends on it.
peter menzies responds to jeffrey dvorkin
There is no reason why citizens should have their tax dollars used to prop up media promoting policies—left or right—to which they are opposed. Canadians who lean to the left shouldn’t have to pay taxes to support the National Post, which leans to the right, any more than conservative-minded Canadians should have to feed the bottom line of the Toronto Star, dedicated to the advancement of left-leaning causes.
This doesn’t mean that public policy support should not be provided for the consumption of news and a shared set of facts. As I will show, the current problem is that assistance is being provided at the wrong end of the food chain and is suppressing the innovation needed during a time of historic transition. In the meantime, I will challenge a couple of points.
Yes, the government has always “funded media,” but postal subsidies were never about subsidizing journalism; they were about subsidizing access to journalism by consumers. Newspapers would have been unharmed without these subsidies, while readers in rural and remote areas would have been burdened, having to pay more for local news. The case can similarly be made regarding magazines, although, as they have transitioned to online entities, this rationale has become more questionable.
It’s true that hundreds of publications have shut down in Canada. What needs to be added to the conversation is that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 250 new platforms—most of which are better equipped for the realities of the 21st century—have launched in Canada since 2008. It’s also important to note that Canadians now have access to news from thousands of global outlets. There is no shortage of news—except at the local level, where coverage of municipal councils and courts, for example, is often rudimentary. The more subsidy is given to prop up proprietors who aren’t meeting the public’s demand for this information, the less room there will be for innovators and entrepreneurs willing to do so. The government’s thumb, through subsidies, is permanently on the scale in favour of old structures struggling to innovate while suppressing startups with new energy and ideas.
The government’s thumb, through subsidies, is on the scale in favour of old, struggling media.
Journalism is not fundamental to democracy. It exists and even thrives in authoritarian regimes. Freedom of speech, civil rights, free and fair elections and an independent judiciary are the fundamentals of democracy. Provided journalism supports those fundamentals and delivers news in an objective fashion, it is useful to democracy. When it doesn’t do so, it can harm democracy. The Tehran Times and Pyongyang Times are both examples. Pravda, of course, is legendary. All employ journalists.
Among the civil rights most vital to democracy is a free press. Our democracy guarantees that people who distribute the news are free to do so in whatever fashion they please, moderated only by their ability to meet public—and not government—expectations. Studies invariably show that consumers want news that is thorough, objective and accompanied by a balance of opinion and analysis from a variety of perspectives. Some bias one way or the other in the opinion offerings is tolerated and even rewarded, provided the news can be trusted. The greater the pressure to be trusted and serve readers/consumers in the manner they wish to be served, the better those services will be. Subsidies lessen that pressure, because they decrease news organizations’ need to build trust with the public.
The more the media is funded by the government and politicians, the less people will trust it to hold government to account.
As for the CBC, it’s one thing for a public broadcaster to exist within a news ecosystem rich with independent organizations—a mix that imposes discipline on all involved. It is quite another to declare there can be no ill effects when the entire news industry exists only thanks to subsidy. All this situation does is diminish trust, which reduces public consumption of the news, which increases demands for subsidies. It’s also worth noting that the CBC was born of a desire on the part of the government of the day to control content on the airwaves.
We agree that societies function better when citizens have a shared set of facts they can use to organize their lives and that a stable news industry supportive of democratic principles serves the public good in providing that information. What needs public policy support, however, is the consumption, not the production, of that information. Allowing each citizen to deduct the cost of subscriptions up to $1,000 annually (up from the current $500) would provide such an incentive without the damage to trust and innovation that is being inflicted by current practices. Let the most trusted news providers win and the least trusted and incapable of adaptation lose.
____________________________________________
