The legacy media has traded the pursuit of truth for partisan activism

By David Leis

Canada’s media is not failing because people stopped reading it. It is failing because people stopped
trusting it.

For decades, the media was one of the central pillars of a free and democratic society. Its role was
straightforward: to hold power to account, present competing viewpoints and give citizens the information
they needed to make informed decisions.

Canada does not lack journalists. There are more platforms, more voices and more content than ever
before. The problem is that much of the system no longer operates as a free press.

It behaves like a managed one. And Canadians are starting to notice.

The most obvious reason is simple—government funding. Today, roughly 2,000 media outlets in Canada
receive some form of federal support through tax credits, direct subsidies and programs introduced since
2019 to support journalism.

Even if journalists insist the funding does not influence their work, the perception alone is damaging.
Media depends on trust. Once the public believes coverage may be influenced, even subconsciously,
trust erodes.

But funding is only part of the problem.

When media organizations depend on government programs to survive, incentives change. Stories that
challenge power become riskier. Editorial decisions become more cautious. Coverage begins to align,
sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly, with a prevailing narrative.

During the last federal election, much of the coverage centred on the United States and President Donald
Trump. Meanwhile, issues that dominated daily life for Canadians, such as housing costs, affordability
and rising crime, were pushed aside. That was not an editorial accident. It was a choice, and it shaped
what voters believed mattered most.

The same pattern shows up in policy coverage. When the federal government announced it had reached
NATO’s two per cent defence spending target, much of the reporting simply repeated the claim. Far less
attention was given to how the target was met through accounting changes and reclassification of existing
spending rather than through a meaningful strengthening of Canada’s military capacity.

This is not a small oversight. It is the difference between informing the public and reinforcing a preferred
narrative.

Too much reporting now begins with a conclusion and works backward. The goal is no longer to discover
what is true, but to support what fits the prevailing view inside the newsroom.

That is not journalism. That is advocacy.

There is nothing inherently wrong with opinion. A healthy media ecosystem depends on strong viewpoints
from across the political spectrum. But traditionally, there was a clear line: opinion lived on the editorial
page, while news reporting aimed for objectivity.

That line has blurred.

When advocacy replaces inquiry, the consequences are predictable. Certain stories are amplified. Others
are ignored. Questions that should be asked are left unasked. Over time, the range of acceptable opinion
narrows.

Voices that fall outside the dominant perspective are not debated. They are dismissed. Entire areas of
discussion are treated as settled when they are not. The result is a media environment that increasingly
speaks to itself instead of to the country.

A media that does not consistently challenge power cannot hold it to account. When coverage aligns too
closely with government priorities or avoids politically sensitive issues, the public is left with an incomplete
picture of reality.

The irony is that while legacy media struggles, independent outlets are gaining ground. Many operate
without government funding and rely directly on audiences for support. Not because they are perfect, but
because they are doing what audiences expect: asking harder questions, covering neglected issues and
being transparent about their perspective.

More government funding will not restore trust or independence. Narrowing the range of acceptable
viewpoints will not rebuild credibility.

A healthy media ecosystem requires distance from government, not dependence on it. It requires
competing viewpoints, not managed consensus. And it requires journalists willing to follow facts wherever
they lead, not where prevailing narratives lead them.

There is no shortage of media in Canada. What’s missing is a press willing to hold power to account.

David Leis is President and CEO of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and host of the Leaders on the Frontier podcast.