Weekend reads: Breaking the news

A Q&A on the state of Canadian media, with Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne

CSA Images/Getty Images

It has, once again, been a big week for media developments in Canada, with debates around the federal government’s $100 million deal with Google to fund the industry — and news breaking that the CBC is cutting 600 jobs and not filling 200 vacancies, as it faces a $125 million budget shortfall. Meanwhile, CBC president Catherine Tait has again attracted ire, for dodging the question of whether the public broadcaster will pay executive bonuses this year. (According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the CBC handed out more than $16 million in bonuses last year.)

This all comes at the end of a volatile year for the Canadian media, which we’ve covered in a special series here at Lean Out, interviewing some of the industry’s most incisive critics, including Line founder and editor Jen Gerson, former CTRC vice chair Peter Menzies, law professor Michael Geist, former CBC executive Sue Gardner, Blacklock’s Reporter publisher Holly Doan, and media historian Marc Edge.

For this weekend’s column, we speak with a prominent Canadian commentator, who has also been outspoken about the issues facing our media. In his column for The Globe and Mail this week — “With Google’s agreement to pay off the Canadian media, the shakedown in C-18 is made explicit” — he writes that the Online News Act has been calamitous for our industry, and that the Google deal has exposed both the government and the media as “not only extortionists, but frauds.”

“There never was any legitimate principle, you understand, behind the forcible redistribution of income from GoogleFacebook to the Canadian news media,” he argues. “The principle was no more complicated, or profound, than ‘they have money and we don’t.’”

Andrew Coyne is a columnist at The Globe and Mail, and a member of the At Issue panel on CBC’s The National. Here, in this edited and condensed interview, he talks about the Google deal, the CBC — and the future of news in Canada.

TH: There’s a lot going on in media news right now. How would you characterize the moment that the Canadian media currently finds itself in?

AC: It’s a moment of transition. People, I think, are too quick to talk about the collapse of the media, or the end of the media. I think it’s more that it’s transitioning from one business model to another. It’s a messy and difficult and painful period. But I think some of the gloom and doom is a little overdone.

Basically, what we’re transitioning from, at least in the newspaper business, is from a primarily advertising-financed model — which, particularly in North America, has been the dominant model for the last hundred years — towards what I hope is one that’s more dependent on the reader to finance it. Traditionally, I think something like 20% of our costs were covered from newsstand subscriptions and 80% was advertising. Now it’s going to be probably more like 80/20 the other way, maybe 90/10.

That has all kinds of significance, not just in terms of how we are financed, but what we’re producing. When the content is just something to put between the ads, there’s a lot less importance attached to it. You could get away with a lot of stuff, back in the day, that you really couldn’t get away with now. With a more reader-financed model, you have to make it worth their while. You have to produce a quality product. You have to justify their expense …

A paying audience turns out to be a very demanding and discerning audience. If that’s our future, if we’re writing now for a demanding readership, maybe there will be fewer of us employed, but it will be a much more fulfilling relationship.

And it’s not a given that there may be fewer of us employed. There may be fewer of us employed at what I might call department store newspapers, that are all things to all people and have a columnist for every subject. It may be that what we’re looking at, in the future, is a lot of different boutiques. Reading habits and the way people get informed may be different — and we can’t be afraid of that. We can’t be trying to hold on to a traditional model, let alone traditional participants. Which seems to be the aim of current policy.

TH: The federal government has reached a $100 million deal with Google, to pay annually into a fund to support journalism. In your recent column, referring to media coverage of this deal, you write, “Whatever effort there might have been to pretend there is a principled basis to the government’s attempted shakedown of Google and Facebook has officially collapsed. The shakedown is now explicit.” How so?

AC: Rather than adjusting to the new world they are in, the newspaper industry’s first instinct — as is the case with too many Canadian industries — was to complain to the government. They had to come up with a grievance.

If you look at it, what really happened was Google built a better mousetrap. So did Facebook. They provide a service to advertisers that we can’t match. That’s just a fact. It’s an unfortunate one for us perhaps, but it’s a fact.

Instead, what they said was, “What they’ve been doing is they have been stealing our content.” If people don’t know about this, they could well believe that Google has been publishing all our content for free. Or Facebook. But they haven’t been. All they do is run links to our content. Basically a headline and a few words, nothing more. Which has the effect of sending people to our pages.

Basically, they have been providing us with hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of free advertising every day. They send millions of readers to our pages. For free. We don’t even pay them for it. And we have the unmitigated gall to say they should be paying us for this service. It never made a lot of sense. I think far too many newspapers allowed this craziness to infect their news coverage. People would repeat this as if it was a serious argument.

Understandably, both Google and Facebook said, “We cannot possibly agree to this. Because it essentially exposes us to unlimited liability. The more people linked, the more we’d have to pay.” You’re basically breaking the Internet. The whole Internet is based on the idea that you link to things.

Now, there was a bit of a difference in the messaging between Google and Facebook. Google always basically said, “Look, give us a number and we’ll pay you the money to go away.” That, in the end — after the government’s bluff was called — is what they agreed to. So, Google will pay this lump sum.

But, as I say in the column, what you’re basically admitting, when you do that, is that this isn’t about linking. This isn’t about stealing content. It’s basically a shakedown. The only principle that has ever really animated all of this is: “Google and Facebook have a lot of money. The newspaper industry wants it. Government, make them give it to us.” I wish it was more complicated than that. But it ain’t.

TH: An Angus Reid poll from the summer showed that 59% of Canadians opposed government funding of private newsrooms, believing that it compromised journalistic independence. But the Fall Economic Statement, as you note, increased the cap on labour expenditures per eligible newsroom employee from $55,000 to $85,000. In your column, you write that, “Once, the industry might have rejected these sorts of handouts, especially at a time when much of the public has come to doubt its impartiality: of all the ways to demonstrate your independence from government, massively increasing your dependence on government must be among the worst.” In your view, how is this impacting trust in media?

AC: Terribly. The first thing any idiot on Twitter says is, “Oh, I guess you’re waiting for your paycheck from the government.” Now obviously, that’s loony and cheap. But it feeds that perception — and to some extent it’s a reality. I don’t think it means that because newspapers are getting funding from the government, they are going to automatically turn around and endorse everything Justin Trudeau does. I don’t think it’s as ham-fisted as that.

In the short run, if the issue becomes, politically, “Should we fund newspapers or not?” … I haven’t seen a lot from Pierre Poilievre about this. Apparently, he has made at least one statement saying, “I oppose the public funding of newspapers.” He’s certainly opposed to the funding of the CBC. He’s been a lot less vocal about the money going to Postmedia, for example. But let’s suppose he does the right thing and comes out against it. Well, that’s going to put us in an awful situation in the next election, if that becomes an issue. Based on their track record so far, I don’t trust the publishers to take an honest line on this. I think it may well affect their coverage in the short term.

But the thing I’m more worried about, in the long run, is not so much that it’s a partisan thing. It’s that we would all habituate ourselves, as we already have, to the idea of, “Government funding of newspapers is not just an emergency stopgap. It’s part of the natural order of things.” And we’ll persuade ourselves that nobody could possibly have ever put out a newspaper without public funding.

Once you’re okay with that idea, when another industry is pleading for a bailout, how are we really in a position to say, “No, the principle should be that businesses should have to stand or fall on their own merits, on whether they can attract consumers?” It will put us in a very invidious position. And, over time, natural selection won’t even occur to us. So, I fear it will tilt the whole industry in a much more statist direction. And of course, there’s all kinds of other problems that go with that.

One is it that it won’t actually fix our problems. The long run of this industry is going to be about persuading willing readers to part with their money to support us — not whining to government, or shaking down foreign billionaires. All this does is tell us, “Go back to sleep. Your problems are over. Uncle Ottawa will look after you.” None of which I think is particularly constructive.

The other thing, of course, is if you’re handing out government money, somebody has to decide to whom the money is going to go. There would have to be criteria. We’re already seeing what I thought we’d never see in this country, which is, effectively, licensing of newspapers. It’s not called that, but we have now the designation of “qualifying Canadian journalism organizations.”

The thing about journalism — the reason why it’s never been licensed— is that it’s all up for grabs. It’s all contested territory, everything about journalism. What is a story? What’s true and what’s false? What is a news organization? All these things elude definition. As soon as you have government bodies defining them, you are implicitly or explicitly involving the government in deciding what content — and whose content — will be approved, and will ultimately appear.

That might start out as being, “We’re not about right or left. We’re just talking about extremes versus moderation.” Again, none of that is any business of the government. And unfortunately, that’s where we’re getting to.

Final point — and I’m just referring back to something you quoted — in 1980, 1981, the Kent Commission, a big Royal Commission, looked into the state of newspaper industry. When it recommended that newspapers be subsidized, the publishers rose as one and said, “Get out of our newsrooms. We do not want government involved in this.” It may be the only time in Canadian history that an industry has refused government support. It’s really sad to me to see how differently publishers look at that question today.

TH: Let’s turn our attention now to the CBC, which is also making headlines this week. We both recently sat on a Macdonald-Laurier Institute panel on the future of the CBC. This week, the CBC cut roughly 10% of its workforce, on account of a $125 million budget shortfall. What are the optics of CBC laying off people, right before the holidays — and right after the Google deal is inked, with a good portion of that funding likely going to the CBC?

AC: Yeah, there’s a lot to unpack there. Obviously, any time any business lays people off, that’s always a bad news story. It’s particularly cruel when it happens right before Christmas. Obviously, no one would wish that. The fact that they haven’t ruled out providing bonuses to their executives is probably not great optics either.

Ultimately, the decisions of any organization should be up to that organization. It’s a bit odd seeing it reported on as a news story, seeing the CBC reporting on it as a news story. It’s not a huge news story if another organization lays people off. But the CBC has a particular position, I guess, and a particular fascination with itself.

But there’s two things here. One is that the private industry — I think with some justice — now sees the CBC as [being] on their turf. It’s on their turf in two ways. One is that its news coverage is financed in part by advertising, rather than from the public funds. And secondly, that the CBC is, increasingly, essentially a publisher. It publishes print stories on its website. It’s one of the largest publishers in the country. And so, the private publishers, I think, have some justice in saying, “Wait a minute, we’re basically competing with this organization. We’re having trouble enough as it is, and we have a publicly funded competitor essentially taking readers and eyeballs and advertising dollars away from us.”

Now, one answer to that is to get the CBC out of the advertising business. And that would certainly be preferable to the status quo. The whole point of public funding was one answer to the dilemma that faced broadcasting in its early decades — that you couldn’t charge people directly for the programming they were watching. The point of it was supposedly to get away from some of the dilemmas that advertising imposes. Where you’re always trying to get the largest audience and you’re not necessarily providing the most deep, immersive experience. You’re just trying to get eyeballs in front of the TV set. So, that’s one answer.

The other answer is to move the CBC off of both advertising and public funding onto a pay model. I think that would be good for the CBC itself. You could still have elements that could be subsidized, but ultimately the CBC has always suffered from not really being able to define its mandate. Was it supposed to be providing a unifying experience, that we could all gather around the electronic hearth and discover our commonality as Canadians? Which would be a large audience model. Or was it to serve niche audiences that supposedly weren’t being served by the private market?

Well, it’s certainly not achieving the first. The average primetime audience is 5%. I don’t mean that as a cut against the CBC; everybody’s market share is going down, because that’s where we are. But if your argument for public funding is supposed to be that you’re gathering the nation together, that’s not happening. And the niche audiences are being absolutely served now by private television. Because you now can charge people for what they watch. With the advent of the Internet, and the disappearance of spectrum scarcity, I guarantee you can find broadcast or video content to serve absolutely every conceivable taste, or market segment, or minority. It’s all covered now.

So, it really has run out of raison d’être from that standpoint — certainly, in terms of the argument for public funding. Just as I am opposed to subsidizing private media, I think the argument for subsidizing the CBC, which may have held water in the past, I don’t think holds water anymore.

I think for both of us, public and private, the best solution is to get on with the business of finding and keeping willing audiences, based on the quality of the content that we provide. And that’s not such a bad situation to be in.

TH: You had mentioned the issue of bonuses. CBC president Catherine Tait went on The National this week, and Adrienne Arsenault, to her credit, asked about the bonuses. In the wake of that comment, we’re seeing high-profile ex-staffers like Gillian Findlay publicly criticizing Tait’s leadership. Tait is also being called to committee in the House on this issue, in the new year. What impact do you think all of this will have on the public perception of the CBC? Will this help Pierre Poilievre’s cause to defund?

AC: I’m afraid it will. And I say afraid because I’ve made the argument for changing the funding of the CBC, but I don’t think you have to abolish the CBC. There may well still be a role for a public broadcaster, just funded differently.

But whether that’s a good idea or not, it should be based in terms of the public interest and public policy concerns — and not, as it all too often appears with Poilievre, as a form of revenge. You know, “The CBC has written nasty things about us, so let’s punish them.” That’s not a good basis for any kind of public policy formulation. And whether that’s the reality or the perception, he certainly shouldn’t be allowing that perception to fester. So, that’s all very unfortunate.

I do think that Ms. Tait has not been the most effective representative for the CBC. If the knock against the CBC is that it’s out of touch, and it has not kept pace with the times, and doesn’t realize how times have changed and how it has to change — she does not come across as somebody who really gets all that. She comes across as somebody who really is defending the idea that nothing has changed, nothing needs to change. Everybody loves us, and why would anybody ever criticize us? And when your own former CBC people are suggesting that you need to give your head a shake, then she may not be the most effective representative for the CBC at this time.

When your own former CBC people are suggesting that you need to give your head a shake — then Catherine Tait may not be the most effective representative for the CBC at this time.

TH: Let’s move on to the subscriber business model that you’re supporting, as a way forward for the industry. I think it has a lot of advantages. I’ve thrown my lot behind it, with Substack. But one thing I wonder about is: How do we make sure that the public that cannot afford subscriptions is informed on what’s going on in our country? And how do we maintain a shared set of facts?

AC: Yeah, I think that is similar to a lot of arguments, whenever the question is: Should people pay for things? Should people pay for food? If they can’t afford food, well, the answer that we give people money. We don’t suppress the price of things. We give people money so that they can buy the things we think they should want or need … As part of a general income support program, if you want to make sure that people can afford subscriptions, then you would bump up the general levels of income support. If you wanted to be more paternalistic, if you said, “We have a public interest in making sure that people are informed,” then you could attach strings to that.

But the problem you run into with that — as you run into with any form of public funding of media — is you can provide them with the money to pay for it. If you want, you can give them free subscriptions. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to watch it or read it. So, ultimately the only answer for an informed public is you have to make it worth their while …

That doesn’t mean you have to pander to them. It doesn’t mean you have to do it on the lowest common denominator. You can reach people in all kinds of ways. But for us, as an industry — and for those of us who now glory in the title of “content providers,” formerly known as writers or journalists — ultimately if you’re not writing to be read, if it doesn’t matter to you whether people read you, you’re in the wrong line of business. Ultimately that’s going to be a matter of financial reality.

But it’s also a matter of existential reality, in my opinion. Part of your job, as a writer, is to find ways to get people to read you. As I say, you can still be writing on substantive matters. But you have got to make it worth their while, and you have got to make it enjoyable, in some way or form.

Again, if moving to a reader pay model makes us a little hungrier in that regard, a little more concerned not to bore the reader, or waste their time, that is all to the good.

TH: Or be too ideological…

AC: Absolutely. I always say that what we look for in a writer is what we look for in a friend. You’re asking somebody to spend time with you. And who do we like to spend time with? Well, we don’t like spending time with people who shout at us all the time, or who lecture to us, or talk down to us, or bore us. We like people who can be serious at times, but can be funny at times. Can lighten the mood when they need to, can amuse us, can tell us something we didn’t know. All these things are not that much different from who we choose to be friends with.

To me, that’s a good guiding credo: If you’re asking people to spend time with you, make it worth their while.