News media cash cheques thanks to the Libs; The Hub breaks ranks and calls on the industry to come clean

Independent publisher donates Google bucks to charity and calls on others to make their portions public, too. Plus! Unnamed source excuses hit a new, untrustworthy low

Imagine a country where, in concert with the calling of an election, money made possible by the incumbent party was deposited in the accounts of media organizations.

Then envision newspaper and broadcasting companies keeping it quiet. Finally, let it dawn on you that this is happening - right now - in Canada.

Fortunately, there are web-based independent news organizations around like The Hub (full disclosure: they have paid me $1,800 in freelance writing fees so far this year). On Friday, Hub executives Rudyard Griffiths and Sean Speer announced their organization had received $22,248.58 from the $100 million fund Google created in order to get excluded from the 2023 Online News Act. They added that they do not take any form of government subsidy, are donating this and any future Google fund revenue to charities and called upon other recipients to make their draws on the fund public.

“The news media will, of course, insist that this new infusion of state-mandated subsidies won’t affect its impartiality during the campaign,” they wrote, “even though the Conservatives opposed the legislation and have signaled that they will repeal it if elected.

“Yet the industry’s lack of transparency about the incoming payments is a tell. It’s a signal that recipient organizations … know it’s a problem.”

The Online News Act was based on a blazing embrace of misinformation by the Liberals, who conspired with the news industry to mislead the public by spinning the fantasy that Google and Meta were “stealing” news links. While it is true that Big Tech developed superior forms of advertising that cost legacy media billions in lost revenue, the allegations of theft had no relationship to the truth.

The legislation resulted in Meta blocking news links and Google replacing commercial relationships with the fund. The response to The Hub’s plea? So far, just a snippy exchange on X/Twitter involving the Post’s Chris Selley.

He wondered “Huh? Surely *not accepting the money* was an option?”

The Hub responded: “Enjoy your taxpayer funded lunch. It’s on us.”

---

The CBC got a prescribed share of the Google fund - $7 million - and has even more at stake in this election. The Conservatives have pledged to defund the English language side but preserve Radio-Canada, which broadcasts in French.

Liberal leader Mark Carney, who attends mass weekly, went Old Testament 📖 on the topic. Apparently referencing Solomon’s choice, Carney said he supported CBC and the Conservative plan isn’t possible because “you can’t cut the baby in half.”

The Liberal leader, while confusing those unfamiliar with 1 Kings, 3:16-28 and its tale of two prostitutes (an awkward analogy, come to think of it) obviously hasn’t read my latest policy paper, summarized in this piece I wrote for The Line.

The CBC, according to one of its relentless critics, then produced a segment with four minutes of Carney coverage, two for Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and a mere 30 seconds for NDP leader Jagmeet Singh.

---

Journalism hit rock bottom by traditional standards when Global News indicated it had granted sources anonymity “so they could speak frankly.” No, Global, you didn’t. You granted axe-grinders a platform through which they could do as much damage as possible to whatever rival they wish without ever having to defend or take responsibility for their statements, which makes both their veracity and their motives untrustworthy. I recommend readers avoid Global News - at least if you are interested in journalism. Their story about Conservative grumblers got CBC so excited it put three reporters on it, but not one of them could find an on the record source - only people who “fear retribution.” What does that even mean? Readers have no idea if these folks are credible or if their information is first or third hand. This is remarkably self-destructive behaviour within a craft struggling to be trusted.

---

Speaking of declines in longstanding practices, I noticed that since the launch of the election campaign, incumbents are still describing themselves as Members of Parliament and journalists are frequently referring to Carney as Prime Minister. This is not unprecedented, but the pattern is new. Traditionally, once Parliament is dissolved, there is nothing to be a member of and news reporting reflected that. The government still exists in a caretaker capacity but making calls to foreign leaders and dictating immediate shifts in foreign policy, as Carney did, were simply not done, as BQ leader Yves-Francois Blanchet pointed out.

I asked Grok to clarify and this is what it came up with:

“In Canada, during an election period, the use of titles like Member of Parliament (MP), Prime Minister, and Opposition Leader can depend on the context and timing within the election cycle. Here’s how it generally works:

“Once the writ of election is issued and Parliament is dissolved, all sitting MPs, including the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, technically lose their official parliamentary titles because the legislative body no longer exists.

“However, in practice, these titles are often still used informally during the campaign for clarity and recognition:

• Prime Minister: The incumbent Prime Minister is frequently referred to as such during the campaign, even though their official role is reduced to a caretaker capacity.

• Opposition Leader: This title may still be used to refer to the leader of the opposition party from the dissolved Parliament, though they are primarily campaigning as a party leader at this stage….

“Proper etiquette, especially in formal or legal contexts (e.g., Elections Canada materials), avoids using these titles after dissolution to reflect the fact that the roles are vacant or in transition.

“So, is it proper (to use pre-writ titles)? Strictly speaking, no.”

I would add that incumbency is almost always an advantage in an election so if journalists want to maintain a reputation as fair and honest brokers, they should do the “proper” thing. So should candidate Carney and others. I have no reason to believe they will.

---

(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald and a former vice chair of the CRTC)