It’s only a matter of time before the government attaches strings to mainstream media subsidies

The Rewrite

Misinformation is not exclusive to alternative online news organizations

The purpose of news ought to be to ensure that Canadians have a shared set of facts around which they can form their opinions and organize their lives.

In a previous world, whether they succeeded or failed at that was really no one’s business, at least provided the publisher wasn’t knowingly spreading false information intended to do harm. That is against the law, as outlined in Section 372 of the Criminal Code, which states:

“Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.”

Do that, and you can be imprisoned for up to two years.

But if a publisher was simply offering poorly researched, unbalanced journalism, and wave after wave of unchallenged opinion pieces with the ability to pervert the flow of information and leave the public with false or distorted impressions of the world, he or she was free to do so. Freedom of the press and all that.

The broadcasting world has always been different. Licensed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), content produced there must, according to the Broadcasting Act, be of “high standard”—something that the CRTC ensures through its proxy content regulator, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC).

Its most recent decision, for instance, condemned Sportsnet Ontario for failing to “provide a warning before showing scenes of extraordinary violence” when it broadcast highlights of UFC mixed martial arts competitions during morning weekend hours when children could watch. If you don’t understand how a warning would have prevented whatever trauma the highlights may have caused or how that might apply to the internet, take comfort in the fact that you aren’t alone.

The CRTC now has authority over all video and audio content posted digitally through the Online Streaming Act, and while it has not yet applied CRTC-approved CBSC standards to it, it’s probably only a matter of time before it does.

The same will—in my view—eventually take place regarding text news content. Since it has become a matter of public interest through subsidies, it’s inevitable that “high standard” expectations will be attached to eligibility. In other words, what once was nobody’s business is now everybody’s business. Freedom of the, er, press and all that.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith

Which raises the point: is the Canadian public well informed by the news industry, and who exactly will be the judge of that now that market forces have been, if not eliminated, at least emasculated?

For instance, as former Opposition leader Preston Manning recently wondered on Substack, how can it be that “62 per cent of Ontarians,” according to a Pollara poll, believe Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to be a separatist?

“The truth is that Premier Smith—whom I’ve known personally for a long time—is not a separatist and has made that clear on numerous occasions to the public, the media, and anyone who asks her,” he wrote.

I, too, have been acquainted for many years with the woman Globe and Mailcolumnist Andrew Coyne likes to call “Premier Loon” and have the same view as Manning, whom I have also known for many years: Smith is not a separatist.

Manning’s theory is that there are three reasons for Ontarians’ disordered view—the first two being ignorance and indifference.

The third and greatest, he wrote, is “misinformation—not so much misinformation transmitted via social media, because it is especially older Ontarians who believe the lie about Smith—but misinformation fed into the minds of Ontarians via the traditional media” which includes CBC, CTV, Global, and “the Toronto-based, legacy print media.”

No doubt, some members of those organizations would protest and claim the former Reform Party leader is the cause of all the trouble.

Such is today’s Canada, where the flying time between Calgary and Toronto is roughly the same as between London and Moscow, and the sense of east-west cultural dislocation is at times similar. As Rudyard Kipling determined, the twain shall never meet “till earth and sky stand presently at God’s great judgment seat.”

This doesn’t mean easterners and westerners can’t get along. Heavens no. But what it does illustrate is that maybe having editorial coverage decisions universally made in Hogtown about Cowtown (the author’s outdated terminology), Halifax, St John’s, Yellowknife, or Prince Rupert isn’t helping national unity. It is ridiculous, when you think about it, that anyone believes a vast nation’s residents could have compatible views when key decisions are limited to those perched six degrees south of the 49th parallel within earshot of Buffalo.

But CTV won’t change. Global can’t. The Globe is a Toronto newspaper, and most Postmedia products have become stripped-down satellites condemned to eternally orbit 365 Bloor Street East.

The CRTC is preoccupied with finding novel ways to subsidize broadcasters to maintain a status quo involving breakfast shows. So we can’t expect any changes there, nor can we from the major publishers.

Which leaves the job to the CBC, whose job it has always been to make sure the twain could meet. That makes it fair to assume Manning will be writing for many years to come about Toronto’s mainstream media and misinformation about the West.

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

Thanks for reading The Rewrite!

Please help us grow our audience by sharing this post.

Share

Hundreds of paid subscribers

Seeking and destroying journalism doing harm to journalism

Subscribe to The Rewrite

Up Next

Pierre Poilievre – End Extortion and Protect Communities

Don't Miss

Canola or cars? Canada can’t save both

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Developing Alberta’s Oil & Gas for Export Should Not Require a “Grand Bargain” or “National Interest” Status from Mark Carney

Canadian Energy Centre / 34 mins ago

Indigenous communities shut out by B.C. tanker ban want another chance

Crime / 1 hour ago

Pierre Poilievre – End Extortion and Protect Communities

Business

Why are we still paying so much for telecom and TV?

Published on August 12, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

Loosening restrictions on foreign investment and removing regulations that constrain how firms can compete in Canadian telecommunications
and broadcasting industries would benefit Canadians through increased service offerings, improved product quality, and lower prices, finds a new study released by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Telecommunications and broadcasting are both vitally important to the economic health of a nation, and yet in Canada, both suffer from inefficient competition, which means Canadians suffer through more limited service offerings and high prices,” said Steven Globerman, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Promoting Efficient Competition in Canadian Telecommunications and Broadcasting.

The study finds that opening up telecommunications and broadcasting in Canada to increased and less regulated competition, including from foreign investors (except in cases where national security might be compromised), would promote more consumer-focused content, more choice and lower costs for Canadians over time.

Specifically, in telecommunications, competition has been tightly managed by successive governments and focused on establishing a fourth national carrier to compete with the major incumbents: Bell Canada, Rogers, and Telus. Consequently, investment and innovation has been discouraged and prices have been higher than they otherwise would be. However, given the emergence of a fourth national carrier, the justification for regulated competition no longer holds.

Public policy in broadcasting has primarily focused on subsidizing the production and distribution of Canadian content. Incumbent broadcasters are the conduit, directly or indirectly, for the relevant subsidies, which, in turn, are largely passed through to consumers. This means Canadians pay a higher price for streaming services and other broadcasting services.

“Public policy in both the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors has been directed at objectives other than promoting efficient competition, and the result has been less innovation, more limited choice of products and services and higher prices for Canadians,” Globerman said.

Fewer regulations and loosening foreign ownership restrictions in telecoms and broadcasting would improve services and lower prices for Canadians

Promoting Efficient Competition in Canadian Telecommunications and Broadcasting

Competition policy in the telecommunications sector has long focused on establishing a fourth national carrier to compete with the major incumbents: Bell Canada, Rogers, and Telus.
The effort to establish a major rival to the incumbents has encompassed indirect subsidies to entrants to acquire spectrum and mandated interconnection to the incumbents’ networks.
While a fourth national carrier has emerged in the wake of the merger between Rogers and Shaw Communications, the development has come at the cost of decreased rates of network innovation and higher prices to consumers.
Government policy in the telecommunications sector going forward should focus on promoting efficient competition, which includes foregoing competitive handicapping and promoting contestability. The latter would be enhanced by eliminating all restrictions on foreign ownership except in cases where national security might be compromised.
Public policy in broadcasting has primarily focused on subsidizing the production and distribution of Canadian content. Incumbent broadcasters are the conduit, directly or indirectly, for the relevant subsidies, which, in turn, are largely passed through to consumers.
The subsidy scheme can be a barrier to entry or expansion, particularly for streaming services that are uncertain about their competitive ability to be profitable in the face of an effective tax on their revenues beyond a minimum revenue threshold.
Efficiency and transparency argue for subsidizing Canadian content through general taxes if the relevant subsidy scheme is maintained.
Removing restrictions on foreign ownership of conventional broadcasters and cable companies would also enhance contestability in the sector.

Business

Disney Settles Star Wars Actress Gina Carano’s Lawsuit

Published on August 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

Actress Gina Carano reached a settlement with Disney and Lucasfilm Thursday after filing a lawsuit against the company in 2024 following her firing from the show “The Mandalorian.”

In February 2024, Carano filed the lawsuit, alleging she had been wrongfully terminated and discriminated against. Posting a statement Thursday on X, Carano announced that the more-than-year-long legal battle had officially ended, calling the settlement the “best outcome for all parties involved” and thanking billionaire Elon Musk and her lawyers.

“I hope this brings some healing to the force,” Carano wrote. “I am humbled and grateful to God for His love and grace in this outcome. I’d like to thank you all for your unrelenting support throughout my life and career, you’ve been the heartbeat that has kept my story alive. I hope to make you proud.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“I am excited to flip the page and move onto the next chapter. My desires remain in the arts, which is where I hope you will join me,” Carano added.

Carano posted her initial announcement of the lawsuit last year on X, stating that Musk would provide lawyers for her after he said he would offer legal representation to those who “had been fired from using the platform (X) for exercising your right to free speech.”

The lawsuit stemmed from Carano’s February 2021 firing from Lucasfilm’s Star Wars series “The Mandalorian.” The actress had been promptly let go from the show after “sharing a post on social media implying that being a Republican today is like being Jewish during the Holocaust,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

At the time of her termination, Lucasfilm released a statement saying there were “no plans for her to be” employed by the company in the future.

“Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future. Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable,” the statement read.

In addition to being let go from the show, Carano’s representation, United Talent Management, also dropped her. In response to the company’s statement at the time, Carano called out the “smear campaign ” against her, alleging she had been “hunted down from everything” she posted and liked on social media.

“Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is I was being hunted down from everything I posted to every post I liked because I was not in line with the acceptable narrative of the time,” Carano wrote in 2024. “My words were consistently twisted to demonize & dehumanize me as an alt right wing extremist. It was a bullying smear campaign aimed at silencing, destroying & making an example out of me.”

While details of the settlement have not been released, a Lucasfilm spokesperson told Variety that they “look forward to identifying opportunities to work together” with Carano.

“The Walt Disney Company and Lucasfilm are pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement with Gina Carano to resolve the issues in her pending lawsuit against the companies. Ms. Carano was always well respected by her directors, co-stars and staff, and she worked hard to perfect her craft while treating her colleagues with kindness and respect. With this lawsuit concluded, we look forward to identifying opportunities to work together with Ms. Carano in the near future,” a Lucasfilm spokesperson said.