Source: The Conversation – Canada
In defending an independent press, American founding father Thomas Jefferson famously remarked that he would prefer “newspapers without a government” to a “government without newspapers.” So it’s doubtful the third president of the United States would approve of a program for the government to pay reporters’ salaries.
But desperate times for Canadian media, where newspapers are closing and journalists are losing their jobs, especially at the local level, may call for desperate measures.
At least one-third of journalism jobs in Canada have simply disappeared since 2010, according to government data, as news outlets collectively lost some $4.9 billion.
Canada has faced a net loss of at least 343 local news outlets since 2008, according to the Local News Research Project. It doesn’t require an investigative reporter to determine this is a crisis.
Against this backdrop, the federal government has spent $128.8 million since 2019 to support the hiring of more than 400 journalists under the Local Journalism Initiative(LJI) at newsrooms across the country.
Controversy
The goal? Quality coverage in communities where the free market alone cannot support reporting, particularly news on local governments and civic affairs.
The money is doled out by administrator organizations — such as News Media Canada — representing different sections of the media industry and at arm’s length from the government of the day. Politicians don’t pick which reporters get funded.
News outlets apply to these organizations to hire reporters; individual journalists or content creators can’t apply on their own. All stories produced under the initiative are published under a Creative Commons licence on The Canadian Press news wire, meaning other media outlets are free to republish them, expanding the pool of local information available to everyone.
The program has been controversial. Journalists have a responsibility to hold powerful entities, including the government, to account. Critics, including some leading journalists, argue “taking money from the people we cover will place us in a permanent and inescapable conflict of interest,” producing “newspapers concerned less with appealing to readers than to grantsmen.”
Audiences don’t like how this smells either. Two polls came to similar conclusions, one commissioned by Toronto-based news outlet The Hub, which has been critical of the LJI, and the other commissioned by journalism support organizations. More than 70 per cent of Canadians believe news outlets could struggle to hold the government accountable while taking its money.
(Nations Online: Canada)
No evidence of interference
LJI critics also contend this infusion of government cash won’t do much to make the local news business sustainable over the long term.
On this last point, a majority of reporters funded under the initiative agree, according to my new research published in the journal Journalism Practice.
But the study, based on interviews with 22 LJI-funded reporters, paints a more complicated picture of conflict of interest.
Two-thirds of respondents expressed at least some concern with the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Yet no one could point to a specific story they were unable to cover assertively or that editors or grantors pressured them to change or drop as a result of the funding. Several of the same journalists, in contrast, offered clear examples of malign local advertiser influence earlier in their careers.
One now-veteran reporter was chasing tips that a grocery store in British Columbia was selling rotten meat to customers, exactly the kind of local accountability story audiences want. He recounted:
“I was told in no uncertain terms I was to stop working on the story, as the grocery store was the biggest advertiser for the paper. I had to do what I was told. The guys I worked with would have thrown me right off the bridge for the advertising money … I am sure most people who work in news could tell you a similar situation.”
No one described anything comparable involving LJI funding.
Workload issues
This isn’t to say the program is perfect. Many reporters complained about the sheer volume of stories they were expected to produce. Some said their LJI contracts stipulated they needed to write 12-15 stories each week. Under that kind of pressure, it’s nearly impossible to do serious investigative work holding governments, or anyone else, to account.
It’s much easier to rewrite a simple news release under those workload demands than to dig through campaign donations for local city councillors, analyze zoning board reports or engage in genuine investigative journalism.
These kinds of complaints about volume over value will be familiar to anyone who has worked in a newsroom. Still, many reporters financed by the initiative said they wouldn’t have a job without it, meaning no one would be keeping an eye on local officials, covering community events or writing the first draft of history in small-town Canada.
In years past, many viewed government control or censorship as the biggest threat to a free press. Today, that might not be the choice.
Of the options facing an industry in crisis, some targeted, arms-length government support might be the least bad option available. The audience, however, is right to be concerned. Journalists, like the people we cover, deserve scrutiny for our financial choices.
The key will be ensuring government cash isn’t the only option. In the U.S., non-profit foundations have increased their funding for journalism amid the industry’s business crisis.
Progress won’t be perfect
Media Impact Funders, a network of grantors, estimates that the 25 largest journalism funders gave US$1.1 billion to journalism grantees globally between 2018 and 2022, based on 2024 data.
Smaller news outlets in Canada and elsewhere are trying new business models beyond selling advertising, including printing services, website hosting and even online gambling, in the case of Torstar, the company behind the Toronto Star.
Perfection shouldn’t get in the way of progress — or even risky experimentation — when it comes to saving the news industry.
The future of journalism may look like a loot bag following a kid’s birthday party — a little advertising money, subscription funds from loyal audience members, some entrepreneurial activities outside of the standard news business, and yes, perhaps some government support.
Today, the “government without newspapers” Jefferson feared is closer than ever. In some communities, it’s already here.
Ironically, some taxpayer assistance might be what the industry needs if we are to keep both our local news and some level of government accountability.
Chris Arsenault has received funding from SSHRC and the Michener Awards Foundation.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/08/canadians-distrust-government-funded-local-news-but-it-might-the-industrys-best-bad-option/