Some news organizations have begun to bare their teeth and their bias in the fight to retain federal subsidy dollars.

In doing so, they are displaying a willingness to unashamedly defend Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, in order to preserve the funding regime it established for media unable to adapt to the digital age.

Over the past five years, the Liberal government has introduced hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for news organizations approved by a Canada Revenue Agency panel and through the Periodical Fund and Local Journalism Initiative overseen by the Department of Canadian Heritage. There is every reason to believe that in the year ahead, as we move closer to an election, those supports will continue to be enhanced and extended as they have been since they were first introduced five years ago as temporary measures. The prospect of all that loot being ripped like a soother from an infant’s mouth by Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives clearly has the industry on edge and, over the next year, it appears likely we will see an increasing number of outbursts.

This month, Poilievre visited Ontario’s Niagara-on-the-Lake and said some things about media funding that so enraged local newspaper Niagara Now that it decided to pen the longest editorial in its history. Entitled “Poilievre is truly great—at pandering,” it was lauded and amplified by Katie Telford, Trudeau’s chief of staff on X. Criticism of the piece set off an X storm, with attacks launched at The Hub’s own Sean Speer.

It should be noted that Niagara Now is a beneficiary of both the federal government’s “Local Journalism Initiative” which provides full time salaries for news reporters to the tune of $60,000 annually and the Canadian Periodical Fund’s “Special Measures for Journalism” program.

Referring to the Conservative leader, Richard Harley, the editor-in-chief of Niagara Now, writes early in his piece that “what he’s really the best at is pandering, lying and misleading.” About 1,500 words later, he states:

“So it’s our duty as a free press—one that isn’t going to take anything at face value from any political party—to call out Poilievre’s dangerous lies. Or his inability to comprehend the truth.

“Either he’s lying to you and knows it. Or he’s just incompetent.” And: “[H]e’s on another planet.”

He went on to call the Liberal’s media legislation “simple, fair and in the best interest of Canadian journalism organizations.”

Little wonder Telford along with Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland were happy to bring those words—distributed coast to coast via National Newswatch—to the attention of their combined 420,000 followers.

Niagara Now’s editorial works hard to explain why Poilievre isn’t just proposing an alternative policy approach, but lying, pandering, and misleading by not endorsing the Trudeau approach, which has resulted in, according to some observers, close to half of the nation’s newsroom salaries becoming dependent on the government.

The editorial was based on a separate news report by Richard Wright, a Local Journalism Initiative-funded reporter for the same paper. That story editorializes heavily (statements of fact are made without attribution) while fussing about “the internet,” where stories are “shared by people not trained in journalism and whose ethical standards or motivations may be suspect,” and is based on an interview with Poilievre. When asked whether he would continue to subsidize local journalism, Poilievre said he was “looking into it” but that Trudeau has “tried to take it over and basically wants everyone to work for the government so that he can have regurgitated propaganda paid for by taxpayers.”

Leaving some of the Conservative leader’s own hyperbole aside, Poilievre went on to say, according to the report (which was also shared across the country and picked up by UNIFOR), that he thought the solution for struggling media was to find new ways to rebuild traditional sources of financial support—subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Or “[w]hat media have done for…3,000 years,” he explained.

You may or may not find those statements provocative. Obviously, Niagara Now did. Its editorial repeated long discredited tropes about how Meta and Google have refused to share immense profits with media outlets, allegedly earned through the carriage of news links. Among other stretches, it states “there’s no such thing as a censorship law” when the pending Online Harms Act is very clearly all about censorship. The author also insists Google should “pay for the privilege” of carrying news, when in fact it agreed to pay what amounts to an annual $100 million ransom in order to be exempted from the Online News Act.

While wrong, overwrought, and misleading on multiple fronts, the editorial sure stoked up Telford and many of the Liberal members of Parliament that, de facto, report to her. To them and their supporters, the Niagara Now polemic added fuel to a post-Olympics narrative they established to highlight the folly of Poilievre’s vow to “defund the CBC.”

This politicization of media by the federal government and its supporters was not expected until early next year. That’s when I suspected Telford and others behind the curtains of power would start making it clear to the press who their daddy really was, and heighten their demonization and conspiracy theories regarding those who believe in an independent, trusted media.

That’s when I thought media would begin to panic at the prospect of Poilievre ripping Trudeau’s financial security blankets from their grasp and begin unleashing both barrels on the Conservative leader until next spring—or at least until he promised, if elected, to keep the dollars coming.

But here we are, already. I don’t really care that Poilievre got slapped around. What I care about is an independent news industry that can be trusted to put the public’s interests ahead of its own.

There are increasingly few media platforms out there that value public trust in their independence and are willing to post commentary critical of the government’s growing financial leverage in the newsrooms of the nation. Most are happy to reject commentary offering alternative viewpoints on media funding and simply take the cash. Had they been more open in their approach, perhaps their employees might have a more informed view.

But they don’t, which means Niagara Now holds its views honestly, if incorrectly. It and others in similar positions may very well, as its editorial suggests, cast equally skeptical eyes over press releases from all political parties. But, had it applied the same rigour to the messaging produced by its own industry’s lobbyists, it might have avoided posting editorials stating “it’s our duty as a free press…to call out Poilievre’s dangerous lies” within readers’ eyesight of a government of Canada logo.

Expect a lot more of this in the next 14 months. And keep an eye out for those logos. They are a giveaway. And they’re everywhere.

On Monday night, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump joined billionaire Elon Musk for an exclusive two-hour interview on X.

The discussion covered a wide range of topics, including the assassination attempt on Trump, the economy, immigration, energy policy, and international relations as well as the Democrats switching out President Joe Biden as presidential candidate for Vice-President Kamala Harris.

The interview, which saw arguably the world’s most famous man in conversation with the world’s richest man on a social media platform he owns, garnered substantial attention, according to X’s internal numbers.

“Between 7:47 PM and 10:47 PM ET, President Donald Trump’s Space post received 73 million views,” the X platform claimed Tuesday morning. “During the same period, there were 4 million posts about Elon Musk and President Trump’s conversation on X, generating a total of 998 million views.”

The interview with Musk is part of a broader trend of Trump (and other politicians) engaging with non-traditional media and giving legacy outlets the cold shoulder.

Earlier this month, Trump was interviewed by online streamer Adin Ross (2.4 million YouTube views). In June, Trump spoke with YouTuber Logan Paul (6.4 million views). Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, were also both interviewed by YouTubers the Nelk Boys (8.8 million views). The interviews generally took the casual tone of a personal conversation between friends. They may have lacked traditional journalistic rigour, but they were entertaining and interesting to watch.

Biden has also appeared on multiple podcasts, including the Jay Shetty Podcast and Conan O’Brien Needs a Friend.

This trend of politicians engaging with alternative means of communication isn’t limited to the U.S.

In Canada, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has appeared on several independent podcasts to discuss topics including cryptocurrency, with hookah in hand. He’s also done interviews with YouTuber (and frequent Hub podcast guest) J.J. McCullough (465,000 views on YouTube) and with Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson (3.5 million views on YouTube).

This year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has spent hours appearing on friendly podcasts like Freakonomics and Today, Explained.

Politicians have also been opting to use social media for major political announcements, trading the press conference podium for the social media post.

Last month, Biden chose X, a platform regularly denounced by progressives, to announce the end of his re-election bid. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis launched his Republican presidential primary campaign on the same platform. Hillary Clinton also announced her 2016 presidential campaign on social media.

Here at home, Poilievre launched his 2022 Conservative leadership campaign with a video posted to social media.

While X can be a vitriolic mess, it still seems to be the place to break news.

What does this all mean?

In an interview with The Hub, Peter Menzies, a senior fellow at The Macdonald-Laurier Institute, former newspaper executive, and past vice-chair of the CRTC, said politicians no longer need legacy media outlets, including newspapers or radio stations, to tell their stories.

“Everybody can tell their stories directly. So, in essence, everybody is their own media,” he said. “The internet changed everything, and it’s changed it in politics.”

Katherine Haenschen, an assistant professor of political science and communication studies at Northeastern University, said in an article that interviews with alternative means of communication represent a cornerstone of campaign communication strategy: “Meet the voters where they’re at,” she explained.

Today, many of those voters are no longer tuned into legacy media.

Many Americans—and Canadians—are tuning out traditional news sources in favour of podcasts, influencer live streams, and social media. Alternative news outlets like the Daily Wire and The Free Press have gained traction in the United States—same for former legacy media journalists turned independent like Megyn Kelly. Listeners and readers, often on the Right, are thirsty for stories and perspectives they won’t find on traditional TV or radio.

According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Digital News Report 2024, 72 percent of Americans get their news online, with 48 percent receiving their news specifically from social media. The report also found a drop in TV and print news in the last ten years.

A Pew Research poll found that among those aged 18-29, 83 percent prefer digital news, with social media being the most popular source.

The Reuters Institute also showed that podcast listenership has surged, with 44 percent of Americans saying they tuned into a podcast in the last month.

In 2013, just 12 percent of Americans turned into a podcast in the month prior to being polled by Pew Research.

U.S. satellite and cable TV subscriptions are down by 20 million since 2014—a trend expected to continue. Weekday newspaper subscriptions have also fallen by 32 percent in the last five years.

Similar trends are again being observed in Canada. 72 percent of Canadians get their news from the internet, and 46 percent directly from social media. TV and print news consumption has also dropped. Meanwhile, 41 percent of Canadians listened to a podcast in the last month.

Many Americans, especially those in Generation Z, no longer pay attention to legacy media outlets, turning instead to alternative sources for information. This comes amidst allegations of bias and political agendas in legacy media, particularly in its coverage of politics.

A Harvard study found that 80 percent of Trump’s media coverage during his first 100 days in office was negative. By contrast, Pew Research concluded that 32 percent of the coverage of Biden’s first 100 days was negative.

According to a 2022 Syracuse University study, journalists who described themselves as Republicans dropped from 18 percent in 2002, to 7.1 percent in 2013, to a mere 3.4 percent in 2022. That same year, 26 percent of Americans called themselves Republicans.

Additionally, there were criticisms of the legacy media’s “Russian collusion” narrative, its alleged cover-up of Biden’s declining health, and what some perceive as favourability towards Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz.

The Reuters Institute report found that only 32 percent of Americans trust the media. A Gallup poll found trust is especially low among those aged 18-24, with just five percent expressing a “great deal” of trust, while 37 percent said they had no trust at all in the media.

A poll by the American Press Institute and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 53 percent of Americans are extremely or very concerned that news organizations will report inaccuracies or misinformation during the election.

Similar sentiments are again seen in Canada, with Canadian legacy media outlets, also being accused of being biased, especially since many of them, including the CBC, receive government funding. The Reuters report showed just 39 percent of Canadians say they trust the media.

Criticisms of the Trump-Musk interview

The Trump-Musk interview was not without its critics, with many of them squawking from legacy media perches.

USA Today called the interview an “unmitigated disaster,” CNN said it was like watching “Grumpy Old Men,” MSNBC chalked it up as a “failed” interview, NPR claimed it was “light on news,” the New York Times called it a “two-hour ramble,” the Washington Post said Musk asked “softballs,” and The Verge called it a “tech disaster.”

Legacy media said Musk allowed Trump to lie, therefore making him an “enabler.”

Some claimed that Musk, as a billionaire businessman, lacks the training, experience, and ethical standards of a professional journalist—a concern that can be extended to YouTubers and streamers.

Questions were raised about Musk’s support for Trump, including donations to his campaign. There have also been concerns about streamers giving Trump gifts—Adin Ross gifted him a Rolex Watch and a Tesla Cybertruck, and the Nelk Boys also gave him a Rolex.

I asked Menzies his thoughts on the criticism levelled against the Trump-Musk interview and other alternative media.

“It’s almost like there’s a sense of anger [in legacy media] that they’ve been displaced,” he said. “[They think] Elon Musk isn’t a member of the priesthood, therefore he shouldn’t be doing this, which is frankly just silly.”

On the nature of professional relationships between politicians and interviewers, Menzies noted the relationship between some legacy media outlets like CNN and Trump is far from professional. “I don’t think anybody has an expectation that this relationship is what you would call a normal professional relationship between media and a politician,” he said.

Proof of this, late-night host Stephen Colbert was met with audience belly laughs when he claimed that CNN was fair and balanced in an interview with a CNN journalist this week.

As for the issue of Musk being a Trump supporter and donor, or streamers gifting Trump Rolex watches, Menzies gave an answer that may come as a surprise to many journalists. He said the public does not really care about these things, and cautioned legacy media against making a big deal out of it.

“It’s an inside baseball discussion with that sort of stuff,” he said. “I understand why the media cares, but I don’t understand why the public should care. Getting all upset about that just helps illustrate the disconnect between the media and the public they’re supposed to be serving.”

It’s also worth noting that while Trump engages with alternative media, he hasn’t entirely shunned legacy media. He recently sat down with Fox News and appeared on stage at the National Association Of Black Journalists Convention for a Q&A. He also previously did a town hall with CNN and has held multiple press conferences.

In contrast, Harris has not held a single interview since she was crowned by the party’s elite nearly 30 days ago. This month, she can be found on a fawning cover of Time magazine, but her communications team declined an interview with its journalists.

Going forward

The media landscape has changed, and it appears to be a lasting shift.

A report by the Reuters Institute last year noted, “There are no reasonable grounds for expecting that those born in the 2000s will suddenly come to prefer old-fashioned websites, let alone broadcast and print, simply because they grow older.” The report added, “The internet makes possible much more content and reaches all kinds of people.”

This shift is further emphasized by the success of independent media outlets and journalists launching their own news shows.

Menzies says if legacy media wants to maintain its relevance, at a time where politicians no longer need them to get their message out, they need to change.

“They need to figure out what the value proposition is, and that is for politicians,” he said. “It used to be the other way around, where the politician was trying to get on your [legacy media] show…Now you’ve got a situation where [legacy media] are begging the politicians to come on their show.”

“What the media need to appreciate from the political point of view is that you need to convince them…what’s the upside for a politician to come on your show? Do you have that big an audience? Will they be treated fairly?” Menzies said. “You have to create a value proposition. And I think the one that has existed for a long time doesn’t exist anymore. So they better come up with a new one.”

Add to this the fact that appearing on a mainstream outlet introduces risk into the elected official’s decision to appear, regardless of their political leanings. They would much rather sit in a podcast studio, where they can answer soft balls from their fans about their favourite midnight snack, than be in a TV studio where their policy on health care may be challenged or their mistruths will be called out.

If legacy media wishes to avoid becoming completely irrelevant, it  would be wise to stop complaining about the rise in alternative media, and instead work towards a new value proposition.

There can still be a place for conventional media to give politicians an opportunity to defend their ideas and policies, but in a fair rather than nasty, non-biased environment. Politicians can stand to benefit from a more challenging but fair interview. Proof? 2024 Republican primary candidate Vivek Ramaswamy made a name for himself for his impressive ability to appear on any program and defend what he stood for. Whether you like him or not, this showcased candidate strength.

The landscape has changed and legacy media needs to change too. They are no longer the gatekeeper or agenda-setter. Americans—and Canadians—are turning to alternative sources of information and politicians no longer need legacy media to get their message out.

The empire has fallen. Like it or not, this is the new normal.