I would be against the federal government's $660 news media bailout even if Mother Theresa, Ghandi, the Dahli Lama, Nelson Mandela, and Anne Frank, were on the panel that decides which media outlets get our tax dollars. When we are talking about a select few people choosing which news media outlets get federal money, character doesn't matter. This "select few" idea is contrary to every principle of a free press.
This panel of people selected by the government, will pick and choose which media outlets will get a portion of $660 million in order to support a "solid, independent news media which is necessary for a functioning democracy." Independent like the 30-year-old living in mom's basement? Or independent like the student in university who writes an essay tailored for the teacher in order to get a good grade, in this case, government funds?
Freedom of the press must exist to have a free society. When governments pick and choose which media get funds, we lose the independence of the press which means we lose freedom of speech. Most journalists and media owners will have the integrity to not let their work be swayed by these funds. But having a benefactor has an immediate subtle effect and a dangerous long-term effect, like the man in the basement or the student writing to the teacher's preference. Do we really want to go there? Do we want our press to be "owned" by our government?
We just honoured Second World War soldiers who lost their lives on D-Day, fighting a regime that controlled the freedom of the press. My ancestral family left their homes and livelihoods for the freedom to think and speak freely. Many newcomers to Canada have similar stories. The Indigenous peoples of Canada have their own experience of a too-powerful government and restricted speech.
How can it be that our collective memory is so short? How can it be that we skewer and bash the American president for his outrageous speech and lack of respect for the media, yet are silent when, albeit in a more polite "Canadian" way, our own duly elected prime minister brings out a draconian program in an attempt to correct the problem of declining media profits?
The problem of how to support struggling media is complex. We have Youtube stars becoming millionaires, which means there is still money to be made in media. Is it just a matter of producing content people are willing to pay for? I do know the solution is not a panel to pick and choose which ones survive. That this government is unable to think of a better solution means they lack the imagination to govern. Governing requires the ability to think, the ability to come up with creative solutions that uphold our democracy, that encourage an increase of media rather than this ham-fisted attempt to pick the winners.
Previous governments have provided funding for all media, maybe they could explore that. There are other options than this handout to media outlets chosen by a panel. This bailout and panel can only be thought legit by those convinced of their own superiority. They have forgotten that they govern for all, not just the ones they agree with. If this was just about providing funding to selected construction companies to build projects, we would just have another sponsorship scandal.
No, this panel, this bailout, puts the sponsorship scandal to shame. It brings a massive axe to the very base of our democracy.
