What, if anything, should voters make of Pierre Poilievre's attitude toward journalists?

What should voters make of Pierre Poilievre's criti‐ cism of journalists?

All politicians disagree from time to time with the way they're depicted by jour‐ nalists. Any number of them have been vocal about it, publicly or privately. (The late Brian Mulroney, who has been fondly remembered over the past week, was known to harangue journal‐ ists on the phone when he disagreed with their cover‐ age.) Sometimes their com‐ plaints have been justified.

In the hothouse atmos‐ phere of Parliament Hill, tiny struggles are being waged al‐ most constantly. In Scrum Wars, his 1993 book on the relationship between prime ministers and the press gallery, Allan Levine sug‐ gested the scrum - the uniquely Canadian tradition, which takes its name from rugby, of journalists pressing around politicians outside the House of Commons to ask questions - was a symbol of "the test of wills, the con‐ test of wits, and the battle for control that have character‐ ized the relations between Canadian prime ministers and journalists" for more than a century.

In many cases, those bat‐ tles are tedious and easily ig‐ nored.

WATCH: Poilievre spars with reporter over 'terror‐ ist attack' question

But perhaps no Canadian politician in recent memory has criticized, questioned and mocked the media with as much zeal as Poilievre. The potential implications of his approach to journalists for a future Conservative government may be as worthy of consideration as any other aspect of the Con‐ servative offer in the next election.

Poilievre's combative ex‐ changes with reporters in re‐ cent months are arguably the manifestation of a rhetorical drumbeat he has been play‐ ing since his leadership cam‐ paign two years ago.

"The media, the pundits, the professors all say I shouldn't attack Justin Trudeau as strongly as I do," he told supporters in a fundraising email in May 2022.

The next month he re‐ ported that "the corporate media and established inter‐ ests are spending a lot of time trying to stop me."

That fall, after a con‐ tentious exchange with a re‐ porter on the Hill, Poilievre wrote that "the media" were "no longer interested in even pretending to be unbiased. They want us to lose."

What explains Poilievre's loud criticism of the media?

Some of this no doubt speaks to those Conserva‐ tives who have long felt that "the media" leans to the left and tends to take a dim view of conservative ideas and perspectives. On a practical level, it might also be a potent rallying cry.

"We need your support to broadcast Pierre's common sense message over and around the Liberal-funded bi‐ ased media," the party told supporters in a fundraising appeal last December.

Last month, the Conserva‐ tives warned that "we are facing an unprecedented amount of attacks by the mainstream media." A subse‐ quent email claimed that "every single dollar you do‐ nate today will strengthen our war chest and spread our message to counter Trudeau and his media allies."

Poilievre's criticisms of and attacks on the media al‐ so can be viewed as an ex‐ tension of a political style that sees everyone as either a friend or an enemy: for Poilievre, if you're not with him, you must be against him.

In a democracy, no public institution is beyond ques‐ tion or criticism. Journalists, like all humans, are imper‐ fect. But when a politician makes a concerted effort to disparage media coverage, it's fair to ask whether they're laying the rhetorical ground‐ work to dismiss any critical coverage, no matter how fac‐ tual or accurate.

Poilievre's rhetoric is also tied to some clear policy po‐ sitions.

One of Poilievre's first policy commitments was a promise to defund the CBC a proposal that he says would save $1 billion. He has described the Crown corpo‐ ration as a "billion-dollar pro‐ paganda arm" of the Liberal government. (A commitment to the CBC's journalistic inde‐ pendence is written into the Broadcasting Act.)

Based on the applause Poilievre receives at his rallies when he repeats that promise, the idea is popular with his supporters. But Poilievre's objections are not limited to the CBC. He also has said that Global and CTV, the other two major broad‐ cast networks in Canada, are biased against him.

Beyond the public funding given to the CBC, Poilievre's objections extend to the sup‐ port the Trudeau govern‐ ment has made available to private media companies in recent years.

The media industry in Canada and elsewhere has been struggling for years to deal with the challenges to its traditional business model brought on by the Internet. Amid mounting concern about the future of journal‐ ism, the Liberals responded in 2018 and 2019 with a se‐ ries of policies, including spe‐ cific support for local journal‐ ism, a tax credit to subsidize the salaries of journalists, a digital subscription tax credit and the Online News Act, which is meant to facilitate funding agreements between major Internet platforms and media companies.

Last month, the Conserva‐ tive Party posted a Valen‐ tine's Day message that mocked the CBC, the Toronto Star and the Canadian Press wire service and called on the prime minister to "stop buy‐ ing off the media to gain him‐ self favourable coverage." The post on X (formerly known as Twitter) linked to a "petition" that called on the government to "stop funding

Trudeau's media allies with taxpayers' dollars."

Though the Conservatives singled out the CBC, Star and Canadian Press, those three are not the only major media organizations to receive pub‐ lic support. Postmedia, which owns the National Post, Toronto Sun and several oth‐ er major newspapers, re‐ ported receiving money through the journalism tax credit in its most recent quar‐ terly report. Its chief execu‐ tive officer has also ex‐ pressed support for the On‐ line News Act.

A spokesperson for Poilievre did not respond to an email this week asking whether the Conservatives were committed to repealing all of the measures that cur‐ rently exist to support Cana‐ dian media.

What would this mean for a Conservative gov‐ ernment?

So what might this amount to if the Conservatives form the next government? There are at least a few possible im‐ plications worth considering.

First, there is the future shape and character of the Canadian media industry. As a matter of public policy, what would be the result if the federal government with‐ drew its funding from both the CBC and the private media sector? Would that re‐ sult in more journalism or less? Better journalism or worse?

Even among journalists, there is disagreement about the value and design of ex‐ isting federal programs. Are there better or different ways to support the industry? Or is it simply not the place of gov‐ ernment to do so?

Reasonable people can differ on these points.

The other question that might be raised by Poilievre's attitude toward the media is how, as prime minister, he would approach other inde‐ pendent checks and bal‐ ances. There are inevitably occasions when an officer of Parliament or the courts or some other institution raises a concern about something the government has done. How would Poilievre re‐ spond?

There is already some evi‐ dence to suggest Poilievre is willing to personally and di‐ rectly criticize those who dis‐ agree with him. In 2014, when the chief electoral of‐ ficer persisted in raising con‐ cerns about legislation that Poilievre, as the minister of democratic reform, was sponsoring, Poilievre respon‐ ded by questioning the nonpartisan official's motivations before a Senate committee.

Again, reasonable people can differ on the question of how, or how much, political leaders should criticize other institutions.

At the very least, it's not hard to imagine that Poilievre's attitude toward much of the media will re‐ main unchanged.

For now, he can point to the existence of public fund‐ ing as a reason to question the journalists who question him. If he becomes prime minister and manages to re‐ peal that support, he'll be able to claim that the media is aligned against him be‐ cause he took it away.