Ottawa’s media meddling is just the start

Historically, a free press has meant freedom from government intervention — from the king, the president, the prime minister, politicians, bureaucrats. The proposals outlined Wednesday by Finance Minister Bill Morneau to rescue journalists pretends to be consistent with that fundamental principle. The measures, he said, will be “arm’s-length and independent of the government.” They are not, and they represent a step backward for Canadian journalism.

Under the Morneau proposals the arm of government is directly involved in deciding which journalists or news organizations will receive special treatment, tax breaks, charitable status. Over five years the amount of federal money moving directly into news and journalism will exceed $600 million, which obviously results in government dependence, not independence.

Morneau’s own words betray the falsity of his defence of the media-bailout plan. Decisions will be in the hands of an “independent panel of journalists (that) will be established to define and promote core journalism standards, define professional journalism, and determine eligibility.” What the heck does all that mean? Other journalists are going to set standards for what? Content? Ethics? Ideology? Adherence to the Canada Food Guide?

One of the handouts, a refundable tax credit — which means companies get a cheque from the government — will be paid to “qualifying news organizations” to support “labour costs.” Again, some “independent panel established from the news and journalism community” will determine corporate eligibility, as the fiscal update explains, “as well as provide advice on other measures.”

This is not arm’s length nor does it ensure independence and press freedom. Newspaper CEOs and Unifor union chief Jerry Dias may be pleased with the federal bailout moves, but taxpayers and all who believe that the press should be free of government control, manipulation and interference should not. There is no way Ottawa’s journalism-bailout scheme can pass any pressfreedom test.

Right in the fiscal update document, the first rule under the government’s proposals for influencing journalism is to ensure diversity. The update notes that “employment in the journalism sector is close to gender balanced, with 48 per cent of all journalists being women. It is anticipated that the same balance will be maintained in non-profit news organizations.”

The update also expresses concern about ownership: “Direct benefits for the first two measures would accrue to non-profit news organizations and for-profit businesses, ownership of which is not evenly distributed throughout the economy. To the extent that these measures indirectly impact employment and wages in the news industry, benefits are expected to be shared by the diverse groups of men and women, including their families, working in this sector.”

So, the supposedly independent panel of journalists and others from the “news community” already has its first government directive.

The mere act of appointing a panel with objectives and instructions is a form of state interference. Which members of the news community will be selected? If the government is looking for a veteran columnist with decades of experience attacking government intervention in the economy, don’t call me. I could not possibly accept a role as a government-appointed determinant of government subsidies.

The journalists and companies that receive government funds will financially benefit at the expense of others who are not on the receiving end of refundable, non-refundable tax credits and other supportive interventions. Ottawa’s billiondollar support for the CBC already warps the media landscape, and the new interventions will make the current structure even more distorted.

It is also unlikely that these measures to shape local journalism and bolster some media companies over others will be the end of government efforts to meddle in the industry. One can reasonably expect that there will be corresponding attempts to undermine the corporate entities and others that are said to be destabilizing Canadian journalism and the news and information business.

There is constant pressure on government from many sources to take action against the social media giants that are accused of stealing profits from legacy newspapers while spreading fake news. In a new commentary this week, former U.S. labour secretary Robert Reich called on Washington to break up Facebook and Google on the grounds that they dominate advertising. Anti-trust action is needed, said Reich, on the grounds that they “stifle innovation.” Canadian regulatory activists share the view that the U.S. tech and media companies need to be controlled and taxed — with the money redistributed to Canadian entities.

All these attempts to regulate, control and alter the media landscape, from newspapers to social media to the internet, represent a new threat to the fundamental principle of media freedom. The long-standing principle is that the state has no business meddling with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The new principle seems to be that the state can and should play a role, as long as it makes sure to call it an “independent panel.”

APPOINTING A PANEL WITH OBJECTIVES AND INSTRUCTIONS IS A FORM OF STATE INTERFERENCE.