Back at the end of the 1980s, I had the opportunity to tour the Soviet Union. Upon disembarking from our Aeroflot plane in Moscow, we were ushered into customs much like we would be in any other country. Where things differed was with what the customs agents were searching for. It wasn’t drugs or firearms they were concerned with as much as magazines, books, and newspapers. The Soviets didn’t want to allow unfettered information to reach citizens and it was seized if found.
It was an eye-opening life lesson for me as a young man coming from a free nation. Authoritarian governments must control the flow of information to their citizens if they want to maintain power. Despite the efforts on the part of the Soviet Union to keep citizens from being exposed to free discourse and information from the outside world, it still managed to trickle in. As people in the USSR learned the outside world wasn’t living in the same state of privation and were enjoying individual rights, they found inspiration to challenge the state and the Soviet bloc finally collapsed.
Media outlets have had a tough time over the last 30 years. The advent of the internet and streaming TV services has decimated the once massive media sector. The loss of classified ads alone to sites like Craigslist and Kijiji cost major newspapers a revenue source of thousands of dollars per day per outlet. Layoffs in the media world have become endemic as outlets contract in size or shut down altogether. The loss of thousands of reporters and columnists has harmed news coverage and critical commentary terribly. Having the government step in to fill that void through subsidies could be a cure worse than the disease, however.
When a business becomes dependent upon a revenue flow, it acts to avoid risking that revenue source. When media outlets become dependent on the government to pay the bills, the outlets will be disinclined to provide coverage of issues or offer critical commentary on news items that may upset the government in power. How many publishers will be willing to sink their outlet and lay off the staff on a point of principle by going after the government?
The government will of course claim the subsidies come without strings, and publishers will claim it doesn’t impact their news coverage. But we have all seen enough examples of vindictive government actions in the past to know better than that.
Aside from the bias added to media through subsidies, bailouts also stunt media from evolving as it should. Media outlets need to be innovative and adapt to the changing landscape. There are subscription and advertiser-based models that are working for new, up-and-coming outlets, but legacy media outlets won’t be incentivized to embrace those models if it’s easier to pursue government cheques. If and when the subsidies come to an end, outlets that haven’t changed with the times will close shop. Subsidizing the old models of media is only keeping outlets on life support rather than trying to cure the underlying issue.
There is one simple way to add more dollars to the private media market. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising revenue being tied up by the CBC right now. The CBC already gets over $1.2 billion in tax dollars as it is. If the CBC got out of the advertising business, companies would seek out other media outlets with their advertising dollars. Outlets could be funded without being beholden to the government, and the CBC would be truer to its mandate as a public broadcaster.
If such an easy solution to funding media outlets exists, why then won’t the government do so?
It all comes down to control. The state likes having media beholden to it and wants to continue on that path. Government members sleep easier at night when the media isn’t inclined to investigate or criticize their actions.
Changing the government may lead to an end to the subsidies, but we shouldn’t count on that. New administrations can often drag their feet when removing policies that work to their advantage once in power.
Media dependency on the state is a threat to democracy. Authoritarians are using the advent of modern communications as a justification to move in and control information.
The state often doesn’t have the best interest of its citizens in mind. If we lose free media, though, who will be there to tell that to citizens?
Without a free media, the rest of our freedoms are at risk.
