Mark Twain once said “a lie can spread half way around the world while truth is still putting on its shoes.” That’s even truer today than it was in Twain’s time because social media can spread lies and so-called “fake news” far and wide with lightning speed, and we’ve seen how this can have devastating impacts on our democracy.
One of the most chilling proofs of this came out the other day. In his blog Media Policy, Howard Law revealed the results of a public opinion poll conducted last summer by the Privy Council Office. He said it turned up unexpectedly in an access to information request filed by Global TV journalist David Akin.
According to that poll, 60 to 70 per cent of Canadians said they no longer believe many of the country’s public institutions are capable of making decisions that benefit the public. Those institutions include local, provincial and national governments and financial institutions. Perhaps most significantly they also include the only institution dedicated to reporting truth. Canada’s legacy news media—our newspapers, television and radio stations—are only trusted by 32.5 per cent of Canadians, according to the poll.
Why should we be concerned about this?
First, declining trust in the news media is not new. I documented its beginning 26 years ago in my book Yesterday’s News, which I intended as a warning for Canadian news leaders to change or perish. Readers and viewers needed to be educated about what journalists do and why they are worthy of our trust, I wrote. Our democracy, and the information Canadians need to vote knowledgeably, were at risk. The results of the poll show that battle may be irretrievably lost.
Second, those who say that social media makes information more widely available than ever before, thus strengthening democracy, are plain wrong. Reporting the news is more than just saying something happened and what people think about it. Verifying what happened, fact-checking what people say about it, putting it in context and striving to make sure it is the best available version of the truth is the core job of journalism.
The difference was illustrated a few months ago when Elon Musk tweeted that legacy news media were dead, usurped by social media giants like X (which he owns). “What’s the point of reading 1,000 words about something that was already posted on X several days ago?” he asked. Within a few days, his post had been viewed 15.5 million times, and most of the replies agreed with him.
That’s the mentality that encourages people to skip the hard job of determining what’s true and glom on to conspiracy theories or believe outright lies or elect presidents like Donald Trump. Or worse, decide not to vote at all because you’ve lost trust in governments and don’t see the point. Going back to that Privy Council Office poll, here are the percentage of Canadians who still say they have trust in democracy’s key institutions:
Question: To what extent do you trust the following to make decisions in the best interests of the public?
Local municipal government 41.7%
Financial institutions 35.9%
Government of Canada 35.7%
Canadian news outlets 32.5%
Provincial governments 31.0%
Social media companies 10.4%
This is simply shocking.
This poll is an indictment of the Liberal government’s controversial strategy, since 2019, of directly subsidizing journalism.
Its argument at the time was that this was necessary to sustain factual journalism in the public interest and to strengthen democracy. Legacy media were shedding jobs and losing subscribers and advertisers to faster, more nimble digital platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter (now X). So the government decided to throw $595 million at the problem, in the form of subsidizing 25 per cent of journalists’ salaries, and giving tax incentives to private companies that qualified as “registered journalism organizations.”
That put the government in the business of defining what journalism is, who qualifies as a journalist, and which organizations it will support or not, all the while claiming it is supporting “independent” journalism. It sounds sort of like Pete Rose claiming he really belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame because even though he bet on games he managed, he never bet on his team to lose.
In the five years since, there has been little reporting in the subsidized media about what that federal support has achieved (surprise, surprise). But by all accounts the news media have not stepped up to take full advantage of the funding by hiring journalists or transforming their businesses into charities. To date, only 11 news organizations have jumped through the hoops to qualify as “registered journalism organizations” eligible to issue tax receipts to donors under the Income Tax Act. Only one of them is a reputable legacy newspaper, La Presse of Montreal.
Given the lack of uptake, the group that lobbied hardest for federal bailouts, News Media Canada, showed its mojo by coming back to the trough for more. In November, the feds gave news media a big cherry on top by agreeing to more than double the tax credit for eligible new reporters. This subsidy now covers 35 per cent of reporters’ salaries up to a maximum of $85,000 a year.
The 570 news media outlets eligible for these subsidies have responded by shuttering scores of century-old newspapers serving small towns, cutting coverage and laying off journalists in larger newsrooms, and asking relief from guarantees to cover local news that they gave when they were licensed to broadcast by the CRTC.
Furthermore, they pressured Ottawa to enact Bill C-18, which tried to force online news giants to compensate Canadian news media for sharing their stories. Google and Meta responded by blocking all links to news, an act that damaged hundreds of small digital start-ups that are trying to cover the ground that legacy media abandoned. Google recently settled but the $100 million it pledged to a new Canadian Journalism Fund will do little to prolong the life of existing newsrooms.
These policy failures suggest that Canada needs another federal royal commission on news, the first since the dawn of the digital age. Interesting new ideas for sustaining journalism have recently been advanced, first by respected conservative voices Konrad Von Finckenstein and Peter Menzies, and more recently by the aforementioned Howard Law and my old journalism school colleague Ivor Shapiro.
The only questions are, does this government have the courage to do this, and is anyone confident it would act on the results?
Editor’s Note 2024/01/23: An earlier version of this article stated that this poll was conducted by Canadian Heritage. It was in fact conducted by the Privy Council Office. Furthermore this article stated that the poll was kept hidden, when in fact it all Privy Council polling data is regularly published on the government of Canada website. The polling data referred to in this article has yet to be published at time of writing. rabble regrets the error.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
