City council’s lengthy and, at times, passionate debate over whether to reinstate public notices in The Citizen Monday night was about much more than advertising spending.
It was proof that local media continues to matter to the public, and to transparency and democracy in our community.
The fact that so many councillors felt compelled to speak at length, and with conviction, shows that this issue resonates with them and, we can assume, their constituents.
Monday night’s conversation wasn’t a dry procedural matter. It was a lively interchange about where people get their information, who holds local power to account and how we define civic engagement in the digital age.
Excellent points were made on both sides of the debate. Some councillors argued against what was called “a direct subsidy to a single outlet.” Others argued persuasively that notices published in print create an unalterable historical record, one that digital-only platforms do not replicate in reliability or permanence.
So how did it end? After more than an hour of discussion, council rejected the motion brought forward by two councillors to direct up to $100,000 to return to publishing the city’s public notices in The Citizen by a vote of six to three.
Several councillors pointed to the value of broadening public notice distribution to all local media, but as the conversation splintered off from a discussion of advertising to one of journalism there was a shared recognition that The Citizen leads the way in covering city hall.
Council also heard — and acknowledged — that The Citizen itself did not initiate this push.
Owner and publisher Cameron Stolz has made it clear that the paper did not lobby for the motion, and in fact, The Citizen would prefer to see broader city support for all local media outlets, not just our own.
Our position, then, aligns with the second motion council passed: To prioritize all local media and deprioritize American platforms like Meta.
It may not have been the full victory some councillors wanted, but it is a small step toward reinjecting much needed support into the local media ecosystem.
The city’s staff pointed out the reach and utility of social media platforms like Meta, which owns Facebook, especially for promoting events and gathering survey responses.
Yet councillors also voiced concern about Meta’s blocking of Canadian news content and the broader implications of relying on a foreign tech giant which harvests local data while avoiding local accountability.
For those watching this debate unfold, one thing stood out. The intensity and length of council’s discussion showed just how central local media still is to civic life.
It’s a welcome first step in a much-needed conversation about the role of local journalism and its funding.
Funding the work that reporters do comes primarily from advertising that is purchased by those who want to reach the audience The Citizen’s publications and website provide.
It has the added benefit of being an investment in our community.
While public trust in government may ebb and flow, local newspapers continue to serve as both a check on power and a conduit for information. That’s no small feat in an age of algorithm-driven newsfeeds and platform-driven communication.
In other words, this debate wasn’t just about advertising.
It was about values: transparency, accountability, and the importance of having reliable, independent reporting on civic affairs.
Coun. Brian Skakun put it best when he said The Citizen’s investigative work fills a void that no other outlet is currently equipped to match.
In addition to its other strong local media outlets, Prince George is fortunate to still have a newspaper, and more importantly, one that continues to hold government to account. It’s a reality many communities across Canada are facing, as local papers shutter and news deserts expand.
The fact that this debate sparked strong opinions and attracted public interest proves something important: That people still care deeply about where their information comes from.
They may not always tune in to council meetings, but they do read about them.
And that means local journalism isn’t just surviving. It’s leading the conversation.
Share your opinion on this with a letter to the editor: [email protected].
