Tag: news

Catching up on MediaPolicy – Trust cascading Canadian journalism – Paramount wins the anti-trust battle – California signs off on news subsidies

October 4, 2026

Millions of students use AI to cheat on their assignments, or so we’ve heard.

So it is no surprise that someone claiming to be a independent journalist would use AI to deceive reputable news agencies.

“Daniel Robson,” now exposed as an alias, succeeded in publishing articles in a string of Canadian news and opinion outlets including The Ottawa Citizen, The Hub, Policy Options, the Montreal Gazette, Open Canada and the Western Standard while faking his identity with an AI photo illustration. He also used an AI large language model to write articles and his e-mail correspondence with editors.

Some of the editors had telephone calls with a human voice calling himself Daniel Robson.

But as the editor of Policy Options Les Perreaux confirmed after discovering the deception :

In reviewing our correspondence and the six other submissions the writer sent us which we did not publish, we have identified signs of AI assistance throughout. Image-analysis tools raised questions about the veracity of the photograph he supplied to us. Last October, he also declined an honorarium we occasionally offer to journalists who write for us – an unusual step for an emerging independent journalist.  

We should have undertaken more verification before publication. I relied too heavily on the fact that work under Daniel Robson’s name had already appeared in other Canadian publications – a form of trust cascade in which publication itself becomes a credential.

The Globe & Mail, which noted it did not accept stories pitched by Robson, has a comprehensive news story here.

A more salacious story appears in the English-language Türkiye Today which alerted the duped Canadian news outlets. The gist of the story is that the mysterious Robson might be a Moroccan intelligence agent engaged in foreign interference with Canadian news outlets.

None of the Canadian news outlets are accusing the writer of civil or criminal fraud.

What struck me about the reporting on “Robson” was what I would call missing the forest for the trees.

This kind of deception —-including the most serious allegation of state-sponsored planting of stories—-is as old as analog. Large language model AI tools make it easier. Burned once by a “trust cascade” of successful publication elsewhere, newsroom editors will wise up. It’s a warning shot. We forgot that AI can do more than create deep fake videos for Russian bot farms to post on Facebook.

What should really concern us is a failure of our human imagination. A lesson is to be learned from the recent website hacking by autonomous AI agents that escaped their sandboxes at OpenAI and other companies.

In the context of journalism, contemplate a rogue “frontier model” AI agent, or an army of state sponsored AI agents, tirelessly probing with sophisticated array of audio, video, text and photo tools until it can pull off an undetected Robson-at-scale penetration of publishing software at multiple news outlets.

***

Prime Minister Mark Carney recently told the New York Times that one of the good things about building stronger Canadian ties with the European Union was that “the Europeans aren’t going to tell us what we have to put on our landing pages of Netflix or Spotify or whatever, and that stuff matters.”

That called for a MediaPolicy drill down on how the Europeans regulate Netflix and the Californian streamers. You can read about it in my post in Cartt.ca.

Also, I recently teamed up with Stephen Stohn to write in the Toronto Star about the importance of Carney standing up for the Online Streaming Act.

***

This week a US federal judge charged with hearing the anti-trust lawsuit brought by California’s Attorney-General and ten other states against the Paramount-Warner Brothers merger signed off on their out-of-court settlement.

The consensus opinion of the deal is that Paramount, owned by David Ellison and debt-financed by his friend-of-Trump father Larry, was the hands down winner.

You can read the bullet-point analysis in Axios. Deeper pieces are available from the New York Times or The Hollywood Reporter.

The settlement features only “behavioural remedies.” That means promises of post-merger good behaviour but no asset divestitures.

For example, the deal blesses Ellison’s ownership of competing cable news networks CBS and CNN on the condition that Ellison convene an editorial board to protect newsroom autonomy.

The outcome was a bit of a surprise.

California’s AG Rob Bonta held high value cards in this poker game. In court he could persuasively tell a judge that the merged studios would unfairly dominate competition between Hollywood studios, supported by major portfolios in cable television, news, and streaming video. He could win.

Bonta also figured to use Ellison’s financing against him in any settlement talks.

Not only is a big piece of the merger debt held against Ellison pater‘s personal fortune, the Ellisons were on the hook for $7 million daily payouts to Warner shareholders, beginning on October 1st, for any delay in getting court approval for the merger. The trial wasn’t even set to kick off until March 2027. That would be at least a $1.7 billion pill for Ellison to swallow.

But Ellison matched Bonta’s chips, smiled, and raised him. He made a bare knuckled threat to move Paramount studios and a successfully merged Warner Brothers out of California to another state. Bonta described this as “blackmail” and initially dug in.

Blackmail or no, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass begged for settlement. The big Hollywood unions split: IATSE and the Directors Guild for settlement, the Writers and Screen Actors Guilds opposed. The heir apparent to Gavin Newsom in the governor’s mansion, Xavier Becerra, was said to have been swayed by Ellison’s threat.

What tipped the balance was that Californian Democrats blinked. Perhaps eyeing the Democratic Presidential nomination for 2028, Newsom brokered the deal between Ellison and the states.

The deal does not oblige Ellison to keep Paramount Warner in California.

The whole episode was high drama and, for Canadians, reminds one of the Rogers-Shaw merger where the CRTC was sympathetic to Rogers’ pro-merger argument that shifted the focus away from market power wielded against rivals Bell and Telus and towards the creation of a stronger Canadian player fit to take on the media colossi of Netflix, Disney and YouTube. This was the same argument made by the Trump Department of Justice in supporting the Ellisons’ merger.

On a final note: US media is not saying anything about AG Bonta submitting to Governor Newsom. I’m no expert in Californian state law but it appears that the state’s Attorney General does not enjoy the same degree of autonomy from the Governor as we might expect in Canada.

***

As MediaPolicy noted three weeks ago, Californian Democrats pushed a news journalism state subsidy for local news through the state legislature.

Governor Newsom waited until the September 30th deadline and signed off on the bill despite some reservations.

In-state publishers and broadcasters with at least 33% of coverage of Californian current affairs are eligible.

The Californian Community News Act tracks Canada’s federal labour tax credit for hiring and retaining journalists although slightly skewed in favour of smaller news outlets. The Californian dollar amounts are comparable to the Canadian program: $20,000 (USD) per head for the first five journalists and $15,000 thereafter.

California’s projected budget allocation is $40M USD ($57M CDN), covering an estimated 2,600 journalists employed at 600 local news outlets. That is less than Canada’s $75M CDN program for news publishers, covering 3,900 journalists.

In the Californian bill, any new hires that grow the size of the newsroom are supported at $35,000 per salary, a feature rewarding newsroom expansion that Canada’s federal program does not include.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack;

or follow @howardalaw on X or Howard Law on LinkedIn.

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

This post is copyrighted by Howard Law, all rights reserved. 2026.

Mark Carney, Canada’s cultural export

September 24, 2026

In this historical moment, Prime Minister Mark Carney has become our greatest cultural export. He is considered in his pronouncements, good natured and unflappable. He is the global anti-Trump.

Occasionally, the imperious CEO gets loose. In a rare appearance in the House of Commons for Question Period, Carney was obliged to grind out the parry and return of Opposition barbs.

Having gamely returned service to Pierre Poilievre’s first serves on issues of affordability, Carney swivelled to meet the incoming from Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet on the PM’s repeal of the Digital Services Tax and Netflix cash contributions to Canadian media funds.

“Mr. Speaker,” said Blanchet, “the Prime Minister personally cancelled contributions of any kind by tech giants to the economy or the arts in Quebec and Canada, including through taxes or content creation, simply to appease the American President. The effort fell flat. Although I remain unconvinced, the Prime Minister claims to have walked away from the negotiation table for language and culture-related reasons. Since the effort failed, should the Prime Minister consider reinstating the digital services tax and allowing cultural contributions by the web giants?“

After a reply offered in banal Parliamentary vocabulary, the Prime Minister steadied for Blanchet’s follow up volley.

Blanchet suggested that Carney’s strategy to build closer ties to the European Union meant that Canadian alignment with the EU’s bolder approach to digital taxes and streamer contributions would make sense after breaking off trade talks.

The Prime Minister stood up and delivered a curt, “No, Mr. Speaker.” And sat down. Pointe finale.

Now it helps to watch this on video so you can appreciate the dismissive tone and body language. The clip also captures the bemusement rippling through the Bloc MPs seated behind Blanchet.

As the Prime Minister probably appreciated afterwards, that kind of answer won’t cut it in Québec, a province that loves legislation regulating streamers so much it has two.

***

With the House of Commons sitting again, Parliamentary committees picked up from where they left off in the spring.

In the modern age of an all powerful Prime Minister’s Office, these independent committees frequently resemble teenager house parties when the parents go out of town. Don’t destroy the place and you can do much pretty much anything you want.

The Finance committee is chaired by Karina Gould, the Toronto–area MP and former cabinet minister who made an impressive run for the Liberal leadership in 2025. This week Gould delivered the Liberal committee majority’s report on public submissions for the upcoming 2026 budget.

It’s not all that newsworthy when the Finance Committee reports on its “pre-budget” consultation. Its MPs make loads of budget recommendations in policy areas already covered by fellow MPs sitting on other Parliamentary committees like Canadian Heritage. And in a Budget that remains in the tight fisted grip of the Finance Minister and the PM, the Finance MPs’ recommendations are far from being a first draft of the final Budget.

On culture, the Finance MPs made eleven recommendations.

Some are guaranteed never to see the light of day.

A recommendation that Internet Service Providers (i.e. Bell, Rogers, Québecor) begin paying the same five per cent culture levy that their cable divisions pay is a non-starter.

Recall how in June 2017 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau humiliated Canadian Heritage committee chair and fellow Liberal MP Hedy Fry by holding a pre-emptive news conference to dismiss out of hand her committee’s recommendation favouring an ISP tax.

Other recommendations may be under more serious consideration by the PMO. For example, this omnibus recommendation on public spending on news journalism captures several of them:

Support the sustainability and growth of newsroom jobs by maintaining the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit at the current 35% rate and expanding eligibility criteria to include owner-operators, employees in broadcasting, and partners in news businesses. Budget 2026 should also direct at least 25% of federal advertising spending toward private-sector Canadian news outlets, address disparities in tax treatment for advertising, and extend the Local Journalism Initiative indefinitely to support the creation of original civic journalism in underserved communities. 

The other recommendation that caught my eye was the strengthening of the intellectual property rights of news organizations in response to the ingestion of their content by AI large language models such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude:

The committee further recommends that the Government of Canada protect Canadian news publishers’ intellectual property in the context of artificial intelligence by requiring government AI suppliers to commit to the principles of transparency, consent, and attribution when using copyright-protected content, requesting that the Competition Bureau examine competition issues in search and AI markets, including crawler practices.

And here is a companion recommendation that applies to any kind of Canadian media:

Ensure that artificial intelligence (AI) developers obtain permission and provide compensation for the use of copyright-protected works in training data, reject any new or expanded copyright exceptions for text and data mining, and require transparent disclosure and record-keeping of training sources to support a functioning licensing market.

There are many public policy issues packed into those two paragraphs.

But to news publishers, the issue is simple. They want to be compensated (or even asked permission) by the AI giants for ingesting their content, first for the “training data” that birthed the LLMs’ vocabulary and gave them the context to understand news content, and also for the “output” summaries that LLMs provide to inquisitive users like you and me.

The news publishers’ claim is that AI ingestion is not only without permission and compensation, it’s grabbing intellectual property that news publishers might use to make their own LLMs in open-sourced applications. As well, the LLMs are using ingested news content to create de facto news outlets that directly compete with the news publishers.

Faced with litigation from news publishers, the AI global giants have signed off some pick-and-choose deals with top news outlets.

It’s reminiscent of what happened ten years ago in news hyperlinking by Google and Facebook, ultimately leading to the Online News Act C-18. The web giants made a few deals on the cheap with big news organizations and stonewalled the smaller news publishers.

To those unlucky news outlets, the web giants offered instead free distribution of their hyperlinks in order to draw traffic to their websites. Even if that quid pro quo was ever adequately remunerative to publishers big and small for hyperlinks, it’s not on offer from AI companies for ingestion, including again Google and Meta.

That’s because the notion of an exchange value of “content for traffic” doesn’t apply to AI ingestion of news content that is killing traffic referrals from web platforms to news outlets, as the graph below indicates.

So what next?

There is already litigation over ingestion that will end up in the US Supreme Court and maybe our’s too. The Trump administration has lined up in support the ingesters. The Carney government is sitting on the fence.

His MPs on the Finance committee are recommending he get off of it.

finarp04-eDownload

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack.

This post is copyrighted by Howard Law, all rights reserved. 2026.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – The $600M waterhole – Australia’s new C-18 – Paramount merger drama continues

August 22, 2026

I was pleased with myself this week to be quoted in a news story that described the Carney government’s promise of $600 million annually for cultural spending, in replacement of the CRTC’s $200M levy on foreign streamers, as “the world’s biggest lollipop.” 

So clever, but ultimately the wrong metaphor even though the soporific effect of a big wad of federal cash was meant to take the edge off of the angry reaction among Canadian producers, broadcasters and the public at large after Carney overruled the CRTC.

No, the right metaphor is “the $600 million watering hole.”

I say that only because the Prime Minister and cabinet minister Marc Miller have been so coy about where the money is headed. After all, $600M is three times the overruled $200M. It’s not just a Netflix bailout. 

But we’re still in the dark about the destination of those federal dollars. Members of the minister’s newly appointed advisory committee on audiovisual production have been sworn to secrecy, according to the Wire Report’s story about signing NDAs. The Wire Report story quotes one member of the committee as saying we will not see the product of their deliberations “for a few months.”

I would expect that the producers (CMPA), the broadcasters (CAB), and news publishers (Newsmedia Canada) are engaged in an all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort to influence where that $600M gets spent. If the government is telling them anything useful, no one is talking.

Ergo, let’s give uninformed speculation a try. Some of the additional $400M might be new spending. Some of it might relabel existing federal cultural dollars.

Government Priority 1?: Media Funds

Presumably the first $200M of the $600M is to do what minister Miller promised: replace the CRTC’s 5% cash levy on audiovisual (Netflix et al) and audio (Spotify et al) streamers. 

The $200M figure came from the CRTC’s 2024 estimate and is now two years out of date. Of the total, the CRTC earmarked $140M for additional CanCon contributions to the Canada Media Fund for entertainment and children’s programming, the Independent Local TV News fund, the Indigenous Screen Office and a variety of smaller production funds that finance shows by and for diverse communities and official minority language communities. 

Another $60M of music streamer cash was intended for artist development funds (Factor, MusicAction, Starmaker, and RadioStar). It was also to support Community Radio Fund and the newly established Indigenous Music Office.

There was also money for news reporting in small and mid-sized radio markets. 

The audio streamers weren’t part of Carney’s June 3rd quash of the CRTC ruling on video streamers, but a subsequent communication by the federal Attorney-General to the judges hearing Spotify’s appeal to the Federal Court means that $60 million is gone too.

Based on the minister’s public statements, expect these media funds to be the first to drink from the $600M watering hole.

Priority 2?: Reversal of the fake cuts

The next speculative tranche of the $600M is a relabelling exercise: the restoration of 2026 federal budget cuts to cultural funding. 

That would reverse the $192M cut to the CBC, the $68M cut to the Canada Media Fund, $13M cut from the Canadian Periodical Fund for magazines and community news publishers, and $2M from French-language TV5 News. Perhaps the Liberals will pick the moment to restore their cuts to the Canada Book Fund ($3.4M) and the Canada Music Fund ($16M). Final tally: nearly $300M.

Ever since the minister tabled these cuts in the “Main Estimates” federal budget back in February, the word on the street was that the CBC and Canada Media Fund cuts would be restored or mitigated in a Supplementary estimate. 

Priority 3?: Double counting of budget dollars already announced for broadcaster access to the QCJO journalism labour tax credit

In March 2026 the Liberals announced (by my estimate) a $115M expansion of the QCJO journalism labour tax credit to television and radio broadcasters. The public pressure for policy action hasn’t let up: since then, Rogers and Global News announced layoffs in television and radio as well as closures of several AM radio station. Quebecor has threatened a fresh round of layoffs “if nothing changes.”

If Carney counts this as a piece of the $600M, this is also a relabelling of previously committed federal dollars.

Priority 4?: Replace the CRTC’s recent 1.55% cash levy on streamers and Canadian broadcasters, quashed by Carney’s announcement

The 1.55% would have relieved Canadian cable companies from the obligation to subsidize public service television channels mandated for basic cable TV by the CRTC (e.g. APTN, TV5, CPAC).

When the CRTC announced this cash levy in May I estimated the cost at $42M for foreign streamers and $93M for Canadian broadcasters.

If taken out of the $600M, that’s another $135M draw from the waterhole. 

Priority 5?: More money to replace the lower than expected streamer investments in CanCon productions

The CRTC ruling that Carney overruled would have compelled foreign streamers to invest directly in Canadian shows at 8.5% of revenues (the cash levies of 5% and 1.55% made up the remainder of the overall 15%). 

We won’t know until minister Miller unveils his new policy direction to the CRTC, but these “Canadian Programming Expenditure” investments could be metered at the same 8.5%, or more or even less. I say with a straight face: it all depends on what Carney promised Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos in that New York hotel room meeting in late May.  

If Carney agreed to reduce that 8.5%, I figure it will cost about $28M in federal money to replace each percentage point of the 8.5%. 

Priority 6?: the Online News Act

I hate saying this out loud, but others have as a matter of wish fulfillment. Between American trade bullying and Carney’s propensity to cave on cultural legislation, is the Online News Act on the chopping block? 

If it doesn’t get thrown under the bus in trade negotiations, should we expect another hotel room meeting where the Prime Minister promises to sunset Google’s $100M news licensing payments to Canadian news organizations which are up for renewal in 2029? (A note here: Apple got an in-person meeting with the Prime Minister on June 11th to talk about the Safe Social Media Act, recorded in the lobby registry).

And if so, is Carney planning to replace Google’s $100M out of the $600M? 

Priority 7?: Anything

There is the chance that the $600M includes money for some good public policy, independent of the expediency of the moment.

Not that I am stumping for it, but it would not surprise me at all if the Liberals committed more money to the export of Canadian shows through Telefilm, or special funding for international co-productions with France or other trading partners. It would rhyme with their overall approach to big investments with, um, non-hegemonic trading nations.

If you’ve done the math, that’s a $850M draw down from a $600M waterhole.

If Canadian producers, artists and broadcasters have also done the math, that would explain the flurry of lobbying activity since Miller announced the $600M. 

***

While we Canadians speculate on the future of the Online News Act, this week the Albanese government in Australia legislated version 2.0 of its 2021 news licensing scheme, rechristened as the News Bargaining Incentive.

The NBI expands the scope of its 2021 legislation to add TikTok and Microsoft’s LinkedIn to the previous law that required Google and Meta to make licensing deals with most Australian news outlets. Meta refused to renew its deals that expired in 2024. The NBI is the government’s response. 

The new legislation sets a price on compliance: the four tech companies must pay 2.5% of their Australian advertising revenues into a news fund.

However, each of the digital platforms can substantially reduce their cost by making licensing agreements directly with at least eight news organizations. The tech platforms get 150% credit toward their 2.5% target by making deals with large news organizations, and 200% credit for agreements made with small and medium sized news outlets. 

If there’s any shortfall on meeting the 2.5% target, the government will levy the remainder in cash from the platforms with proceeds banked in a national news fund. That pool of money will be presumptively distributed to news organizations based on a journalist headcount, as in Canada. Unlike Canada, the Australian news fund can tweak the headcount formula to be more generous to smaller news outlets. 

I have not seen estimates of news licensing payments the NBI will generate, but the 2.5% figure looks substantially less than the value of the 2021 deals which totalled $190M annually. And if deals get made to offset the 2.5%, it would be worth something closer to 1.5% of ad revenues. 

There’s no word yet on when the NBI legislation will be proclaimed by the Albanese government. Not surprisingly, the Trump administration is opposed to the NBI and a spokesperson told the Australian Financial Review back in April that the White House regarded the NBI, which it did not differentiate from a digital services tax, as “foreign extortion.”

***

The Paramount/Warner Brothers merger drama refuses to take a week off.

As you recall, twelve US state attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta are contesting the $111B merger under the federal antitrust Clayton Act. A trial date is set for March 2027.

After threatening to move all of its studios out of Los Angeles, Paramount owner David Ellison’s new tactic is to ask the federal judge who granted an interim injunction against the merger to impose a $1.9 billion surety bond on the states. The purpose of the bond is to cover the $210 million per month “ticking fee” that Ellison will begin paying on October 1st to Warner Brothers Discovery shareholders who voted “yes” to the merger. 

The judge previously declined to require the bond finding that the states’ lawsuit raises important matters of public policy. As for Bonta, he says Ellison made a grown up’s decision to agree to the ticking fees in the first place. 

Meanwhile, the mayor of Los Angeles Karen Bass appears to have been swayed by Ellison’s threat of a capital strike and is urging Bonta to make a deal now instead of pursuing the lawsuit. Her challenger in the upcoming municipal election supports going to trial instead.

The Trump administration looms large on the sideline. The White House is close to David Ellison’s father, the world’s second-richest man Larry, who is bankrolling the merger. Ellison Pater’s wealth comes from his Oracle Corporation. Oracle is carrying a lot of debt and is badly exposed in the event of financial instability in the AI industry. 

Whether Bonta and the other attorneys-general want a court-ordered restructuring of the merger or just more financial commitments, delay is clearly their leverage. 

One gets the feeling that with so much money and so many jobs at stake, a deal will get made long before trial. Late yesterday, California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed interest in an early deal and the Democratic nominee to replace the termed-out governor is also a proponent of settlement.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack;

or follow @howardalaw on X or Howard Law on LinkedIn.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved. 

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

This post is copyrighted by Howard Law, all rights reserved. 2026.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – Village Media expands to middle America – Meta says Canadian news ban is good for its stock price – Paramount and US states face off over Warner Bros. merger

Facebook post, Narcity Canada

July 25, 2026

The late and first Lord Thomson of Fleet, Canada’s Roy Thomson, built the ground floor of his media empire on home turf in northern Ontario. During the 1930s and 1940s he expanded into a string of radio stations and 20 daily Canadian newspapers, most of them in mid sized and small towns. He bought the British establishment newspaper, The Times. Today his grandson David Thomson owns the Globe and Mail and the global media giant Thomson Reuters. 

Now that’s a tough act to follow but Village Media’s Jeff Elgie seems to have picked up the Thomson vibe, if not the empire.

Village Media is a network of digital community media websites in 27 modestly sized Ontario communities. Like Thomson, Elgie started in Ontario’s near north. 

This week Elgie announced a joint venture of a further 15 community sites in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois in partnership with the Knight Foundation, the well known American charitable fund with close historical ties to news journalism. The partners will quite literally find out whether the Village business model plays in Peoria, Illinois. 

Including Peoria, the tentative list of fifteen US communities are all under 115,000 in population. 

The green light for launch in each case will depend upon Elgie’s success in recruiting the local staff he wants. Village will run the network day to day and control editorial. 

Village Media’s business model is strictly digital publishing, 100% ad supported, and seeks out smaller markets that have a strong local identity but an unsaturated supply of local journalism: watering news deserts, in other words.

Unlike many single-outlet Canadian digital news start-ups, Village’s multi-location network provides operational scale and financial ballast for launching start-ups in additional communities. 

And although Elgie has licensed his proprietary digital publishing software to Canadian community news networks outside of Ontario, he has yet to expand his own operations into other provinces. 

He told me that his move across the border into the US market was motivated by the right market opportunity and the personal connections between Village (whose board is chaired by Google’s former VP News Richard Gingras) and the Knight Foundation. 

Knight is investing in the three state news network. Unlike Canadian charitable tax rules, US laws permit “program related investments” in for-profit news journalism. According to Elgie, it is possible that Knight might liquidate its investment in a couple of years if its collaboration with Village Media is successful and move on to similar local news projects in other states.

Elgie says he is not ruling out future expansion for Village Media into other Canadian markets but for now the US project with Knight fits within his corporate bandwidth. 

***

For months MediaPolicy has been following this story: is Meta cheating on its ban on postings of Canadian news articles on Facebook and Instagram?

The Meta ban began in August 2023 as a legal maneuver designed to escape from mandatory licensing payments under the Online News Act. That left Google as the only “digital news intermediary” liable to make payments to Canadian news outlets.

It took 18 months of Meta’s news ban being in place before a Canadian news entity —in this case, the “LITS” coalition of local independently-owned television stations— challenged it by filing a complaint with the CRTC. The LITS allegation is that despite its “news ban” Meta turns a blind eye to the posting of original Canadian news content by unbanned news outlets or by ordinary Canadian citizens.

Meanwhile, mainstream news outlets, their news reporting, and even their opinion commentary all remain banned from the two Meta platforms. 

LITS wants the CRTC to name Meta as a digital media intermediary under the Online News Act in order to trigger the mandatory news licensing scheme in the statute.

The legal filings are complete now. The Commission closed its portal for public comment (File 2026-0066-8) at the end of March.

Meta’s lawyer filed its response in April (see the letter below). Meta says it tries its best to maintain the integrity of its ban by deleting hyperlinks to original news content as users post them. Of interest to legal beagles, Meta insists the posting of news content screen shots falls outside the Online News Act’s definition of the “news.” 

The days pass like months in Ottawa but the CRTC may some day sort out the LITS allegations of which Exhibit A is that Meta allows Rogers City-TV to post digital content from its Breakfast Television show while blocking digital content from BT’s direct morning show competitor, Hamilton’s CHCH-TV.

MediaPolicy’s Exhibit B (not filed at the Commission) is that Meta has allowed Narcity Canada to post breaking news stories from Canadian Press on a daily basis. Canadian Press qualifies as a news outlet under the Online News Act.

Mostly a travel and lifestyle site, Narcity does not publish enough of its own original news to qualify for federal QCJO subsidies and, by implication, news payments under the Online News Act. According to Narcity CEO Chuck Lapointe, he signed Meta’s waiver that says Narcity is not a “news outlet” under the Online News Act and will not claim compensation from Meta. 

In case you think I am nitpicking about the selective nature of the news ban, a recent academic study found that Narcity is now the leading Canadian publisher of news on Instagram (the study did not have data on Facebook posts).

In this graph from the study, note which Canadian news organizations lead in posts and engagement on YouTube and TikTok, compared to Meta’s news-embargoed Instagram:

And in case you are wondering why Canadian Press did not intervene in the CRTC proceeding initiated by LITS and has nothing to say about CP content being published daily on Facebook and Instagram by Narcity, well so am I. My direct inquiry to Canadian Press on this matter did not elicit a reply. 

In related news, the municipal council of Sturgeon County in the greater Edmonton region had Meta’s Canadian spokesperson Rachel Curran in front of them last week to answer questions about the $13 billion data centre planned for the area. 

When the questions turned from the proposed data centre to the Meta news ban, Curran had a quotable defence for it:

“These publishers share information and articles on our platforms because it benefits them in the form of distribution. We have a responsibility not to do things that are going to unnecessarily exert downward pressure on our stock price.”

CRTC redacted Meta Response t 08-MAY-2026Download

***

Paramount can see the finish line in obtaining approval of its $111 USD billion merger with Warner Brothers Discovery. But first it faces a court hearing in two weeks: numerous Attorney Generals for California and 12 other states will ask for an injunction blocking the deal while they seek to derail the merger on anti-trust grounds.

Paramount’s Ellison family ownership has the wind at its back. The US Department of Justice took a pass on blocking the merger and this week both Canadian and European Union competition authorities did the same. 

Paramount is offering the courts a legal justification that will be familiar to Canadians who followed the Rogers-Shaw merger, blessed by the CRTC in 2022: that no matter how big a streamer, film studio and television company that Paramount becomes, it’s still a smaller media conglomerate than Netflix, Google, or Apple. 

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack;

or follow @howardalaw on X or Howard Law on LinkedIn.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved. 

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

This post is copyrighted by Howard Law, all rights reserved. 2026.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – AI news scraping deal in Australia – who will pay for non-partisan journalism? – two paths to liberal democracy

July 12, 2026

Canadians are familiar with the story of the Online News Act. True policy nerds know that it’s part of a bigger story in which Google and Meta grappled with mandatory news licensing in the European Union, Australia, Canada and the United States.

Something similar might be playing out again between digital news publishers and global AI companies. But it is in its early stages, as large news publishers with lots of content to offer, and a modicum of leverage, choose between launching copyright lawsuits against AI companies or settling for licensing agreements. Here’s a list.

The latest news —- relevant to Canada because it occurred in our parallel policy universe, Australia—- is that Microsoft Co-Pilot has a content deal with Nine News (roughly, the equivalent of Canada’s Bell Media) to license its digital news content. Neither party is saying if cheques are being written, but certainly audience traffic will flow.

Co-Pilot has licensed Nine’s paywalled content as feedstock for its AI summaries but will embed Nine’s hyperlinks and enough paywalled content to push Co-Pilot consumers back to Nine’s full stories. 

As Ulrike Langer wrote last week, publishers of premium news content such as Time, The Economist, and Dow Jones are making different kinds of AI deals that license content scraping in different ways: full archive access, data-only access, or journalism-only access.

The beginnings of a commercial market in AI-digested news content is an obvious way that AI companies can deflect or minimize any government efforts to come to the rescue of domestic news companies getting illegally scraped by the AI giants. Google and Meta did something similar a decade ago. They made voluntary agreements with a cherry-picked assortment of big media companies until sovereign governments decided to back the claims of news companies that Google and Meta bargained unfairly or not at all because they were monopolists in Search and social media. 

The prevalence of ongoing copyright lawsuits against the AI companies suggests that news companies again believe they are getting ripped off but don’t have the leverage to get adequate settlements without the intervention of their domestic judiciaries. Yet litigation is a long and uncertain path and it’s probably a non-starter strategy for local publishers anyway.

At some point, sovereign nations are going to think about legislating mandatory licensing of news content by AI companies with a dispute resolution mechanism that drives a fair market price. You might have heard of the idea.

***

Editorial strategy in news journalism hasn’t changed much over time: most publishers curate their news feed with “biased” or standpoint content stemming from a politically partisan, ideologically driven or simply a “watchdog” philosophy of keeping an eye on powerful political and corporate actors.

It’s hardly a secret that publishers are keenly aware of who their audience is, particularly their paying audience. 

As the advertising revenue stream for professional news journalism continues to collapse, two public policy imperatives meet: providing the people with fair and balanced news content and getting them to pay for it. Only 12% of Canadians pay for or share a digital news subscription, a stubborn statistic that hardly moves from year to year. 

The policy sweet spot is to foster a commercial market in broad spectrum news reporting on current affairs that gets citizens out of their self-imposed filter bubbles, whether on social media or from conventional news sources. 

The newly released 2026 Reuters Oxford Digital News report offers some audience data that’s relevant to what readers want and, perhaps, what they will pay for.

The report includes an inquiry by Denmark’s highly esteemed Rasmus Nielsen where polling respondents were asked to declare the strength of their allegiances to news sources they considered neutral, ideologically comfortable, or offering an editorial standpoint that challenged their own. 

As you can see from this graph above a strong plurality of respondents fancied their favoured news source were neutral. But significant minorities openly declared their allegiances to either intellectually comforting or challenging news sources. 

Here’s Nielsen’s take away from his research:

But the outsize role played by the minority who seek partisanship is easier to understand when we take into account that those who say they prefer news from sources that share their point of view are, in our survey data, also more likely to:

  • Share and comment on news online and on social media
  • Be very or extremely interested in news and in politics
  • Place themselves on the left or the right of the political spectrum
  • Access news many times daily and pay for online news

The people who prefer news that aligns with their own views are a minority. But they tend to be more vocal, more highly engaged, more partisan, and more commercially important for many news publishers than the public at large.

I’ll translate that passage as “an audience that is very tuned in to politics with very clear political views of their own will pay for news.”

This is not surprising, is it. 

For Canadians, this troubling disconnect between the willingness to pay for news and non-partisan content leads us back to another conclusion: the important role of CBC Radio-Canada as a news content provider for citizens who stubbornly won’t pay for news. 

To change tack here, Nielsen also makes some other conclusions from the data with the benefit of polling from around the world.

The first is that there is a correlation between audience preferences for ideologically friendly news sources and the prevalence of social media as a news platform. Not a surprise either. 

Another is that perhaps we in the global north and citizens that enjoy the privilege of living in liberal democracies ought not to be too judgmental about that lack of journalistic detachment in autocracies and conflict zones.

“When core democratic institutions or the fundamental rights of whole swaths of the public are under concerted political attack,” says Nielsen, “what does it mean to report the news in a way that doesn’t have a particular point of view?”

Discuss.

***

Open to being pleasantly amused? I recommend a short and compelling weekend read written by a friend of mine, historian David Wilson (among many endeavours, he has just stepped down from a ten-year stint as the editor of the prestigious Dictionary of Canadian Biography).

Published last week on the American July 4th holiday, Wilson asks whether the birth of the republic was a better choice than Canada’s own (but more patient) path to independence and responsible government. A cheeky but serious piece, worth your five minutes.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack;

or follow @howardalaw on X or Howard Law on LinkedIn.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved. 

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

This post is copyrighted by Howard Law, all rights reserved. 2026.

Admit it. CBC News is the best.

July 1, 2026

In my last post, I spent time teasing out the nuances of how the Reuters Oxford 2026 report on digital news analyzes “trust in news.” The gist of the post was: look at the right “trust” numbers before rushing to judgment against Canadian news media in general and CBC/Radio Canada in particular. 

The Reuters Oxford report coincided with the release of the Senate of Canada’s report on the CBC (which I will get to, below).

One of the items in the Senate report was that the CBC is perceived to have a bias problem that requires action. That single recommendation instantly grabbed the headline of reporting on the Senate’s work by competing news organizations.

Also released last month was the annual Pollara analysis of trust in Canadian media. 

What is immediately striking about the Pollara results is that they quantify public trust in Canadian media at a much higher number than Reuters Oxford (51% versus 37% trust in all Canadian media), rebounding from a low point in 2022 and with even higher trust ratings than in 1992. 

Mostly, Pollara asked the question differently than Reuters, a softer and yet binary question: do you “tend to” trust or distrust “the news media”?

By contrast, Reuters asks Canadians if you think you can “trust most news, most of the time.” Then on a scale of 1 (distrust) to 10 (trust), Reuters slots you into trust (6 through 10), distrust (1 through 4) or neither (5). That spits out the 37% figure for Reuters, suggesting there are a lot of grudging sixes in that cohort of trusting respondents. 

The grain of salt here is that whether the trust number is 51% or 37%, Canadians are being invited to pass judgment on the entire news ecosystem, including the news outlets you don’t trust and the clickbait you see on social media.

But as I mentioned in the last post, beyond looking at the entire news ecosystem, you need also to take note of the trust numbers for individual news outlets.

For each news source, Pollara has three simple categories: trustworthy, not trustworthy and “not familiar.”

On the other hand, Reuters polls Canadians on each news source using its 1 to 10 scale and then slotting all of the 6/7/8/9/10s as trust, the 1/2/3/4s as don’t trust, and the fives as “neither.” 

Under either poll (for English language news), the positive trust figures track almost the same: in order of trust, CBC or CTV on top, then Global News, followed by the Globe & Mail, and then the National Post or the Toronto Star. 

Pollara

Reuters Oxford

Notice the pattern?

Like in a cycling road race, the major Canadian television broadcasters are the leader pack (ranging from 62% to 64% in the Reuters poll) while the national newspapers are further back, clustered in the 50% to 56% range (local or regional newspapers are more trusted however). Explain that if you can, but it occurs to me that newspapers regularly publish opinion columnists, opinion editorials, and election endorsements.

Television newscasts limit their overt opinionating to (somewhat) diverse political panelists.

Feel free to disagree.

But don’t feel free to disagree about this fact. CBC News is killing it. It’s as trustworthy as its major competitors and significantly more so than the Brahmin of text journalism, the Globe & Mail (and far more than the conservative National Post and the centre-left Toronto Star).

Yet all we hear is the drumbeat of  criticism that CBC News is biased, or alternatively that all that counts is the perception that it is biased (to be fair, its negative trust rating is slightly worse than most of its competitors’ except for the Post and the Star). 

If I sound dismissive of the bias accusations, I’m not. The fact that polls reveal the CBC’s negative trust ratings accumulating in the West and among Conservative voters tells you there is something about the editorial curation that isn’t working (here’s my two cents worth). Defunding or not, if the West or Conservative voters “want in” to a national institution like the CBC, open the door.

This bias hot potato got batted about in the Senate Report on the CBC, the outcome of a Senate Committee investigation initiated by Senator Andrew Cardozo in late 2024, an especially precarious political moment when the countdown to a Pierre Poilievre cancellation of English language CBC seemed only to be a matter of time (and arguably, still is). 

Cardozo kicked off the inquiry with his own multi-point analysis of the CBC, (reviewed by MediaPolicy here, but see the disclaimer at the bottom of this post).

The mandate handed by Senators to its Transportation & Communications committee was focussed on local media: “to examine and report on the local services provided by the CBC/Radio-Canada .”

After 60 witnesses and 18 months, the Committee came up with a series of recommendations that could be distilled to this:

  • The CBC should put more resources into local reporting and programming, especially in news-scarce localities and official minority language communities and regions.
  • Long term Parliamentary funding should be established to pay for that coverage, making the CBC less vulnerable to budget cuts by the government of the day.
  • To make it national policy, the Broadcasting Act should be amended to explicitly include “local” coverage to its priority coverage (in addition to “regional and national”).
  • Just in case, the CRTC should reinforce this emphasis on local through its licensing conditions for the CBC.
  • Keeping in mind the force of gravity that the CBC poses to private local media, the CBC should find more ways to collaborate with local outlets.
  • The CBC should disclose more data about its resourcing of local news so we can measure how it’s discharging its mandate.

Meanwhile to confront the perception or accusation of journalistic bias, the committee recommended that the CBC should commission an annual third party study of bias in its news reporting.

The auditing recommendation was a gimme. The fact that the Senate committee felt it was necessary to recommend it was taken in some quarters as a guilty verdict for its many journalistic crimes, but candidly it was a bone to throw to CBC critics and haters, the latter category being inconsolable. An audit is a good idea for any public broadcaster, especially with the aid of AI analysis, because the CBC shouldn’t just have  industry leading trust ratings for its news product, it should have great ratings. 

One of the ways to improve the CBC’s trust ratings, aside from a consciously diverse editorial curation that addresses Western and conservative alienation from the public broadcaster, is to put more money into local coverage across the country with a particular emphasis on the long under-resourced Western provinces.

The CBC seems to be doing that in the last year by announcing more local reporting bureaus and journalists in the Prairie provinces. 

But it all comes back to funding. Reporters are expensive and it’s a big country.

On this point, we can argue until we are blue in the face about the adequacy of the $1.3 million annual Parliamentary grant to the public broadcaster. 

But I will say the quiet part out loud: whether that grant is more, less or the same, satisfying every Canadian’s idea of what the CBC’s programming priorities ought to be is not possible. As one witness told the Senate committee, the CBC “is drowning in mandates.” 

The CBC is formally independent so we’ve been letting CBC management decide on its own what matters most. Lately it seems to have alit on local news as the priority. But if that’s going to be done with gusto, something else in the mandate has to give. The shell-shocked executives at the public broadcaster will be inclined to be risk averse, so the Senate committee might be disappointed in its recommendations. 

The ball is in the court of culture and identity minister Marc Miller, which is to say it’s aimlessly bouncing about in the Prime Minister’s Office. The passive neglect of the CBC policy file, and the false election promises of significantly increased funding for the public broadcaster, are both on Mark Carney.

***

(Disclaimer: Senator Cardozo and I co-authored a research paper for the Senate, Making News Media Sustainable. The study focusses on funding for private news media).

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack;

or follow @howardalaw on X or Howard Law on LinkedIn.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved. 

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

This post is copyrighted by Howard Law, all rights reserved. 2026.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – Your trust in news – Zuckerberg’s your daddy – Seeing Red – CBC is vulnerable – Do AI chatbots lean left? – Explaining Age Bans

(AI illustration)

June 27, 2026

Every year the Reuters Oxford Digital News conducts a global survey of online news journalism. It frequently leads its public release with a headline-grabbing number for “trust in news.” Every year, the number goes down. It sunk by 3% this year to 37%. A further 34% of respondents neither trust nor distrust news.

Every year, that single “trust” metric dominates the conversation. Here’s the problem with making too much of that.

First, what do polled respondents think “trust in news” means? The survey doesn’t offer a definition, so it’s in the eye of the beholder. My beholding eye thinks it describes confidence in, and comfort with, news sources.

Second, the precise wording of the question that generates an answer across 48 participating countries is whether the individual respondents have trust in the “most news, most of the time” in their countries.

“Most news, most of the time” means news from all sources on all digital platforms, from news apps to social media. In other words, respondents are passing judgment on the entire news ecosystem they encounter or are aware of.

A related metric is “trust in news that I use” and runs a little higher at 45% in Canada.

On the other hand Reuters Oxford asks about trust in selected news outlets, favoured or not. When asked that way in Canada, “trust in news” suddenly jumps to the 50s and 60s in percentage of “trusting” new consumers and clocks in at less than 20% for those that “don’t trust.” 

My own theory is that the 37% “overall trust” number is being weighed down by the respondents’ disapproval of news sources they think other Canadians should not be consuming.

Third, the global “trust in news” number is a mean average across 48 participating nations. Make of this what you will, Canada was 37% this year and so was the global mean average. Finland, Denmark and Norway are in the 50s and 60s percentage ranges. The United States is at 25%. Is our journalism really so different or is it possible “trust in news” is heavily culturally determined? 

Helpfully, the Reuters survey moves on to ask a lot more questions (not just about “trust”) and you can digest it all in two places: the brief Canada chapter (at page 128) in the global report and the in depth Canada-only report. Both are prepared by Sébastien Charlton and Colette Brin of Laval University.

Let’s have a look.

Mark Zuckerberg’s your daddy

This year in Canada we crossed a Rubicon of sorts. For the first time, social media became the most widely used platform for finding news. That surpasses the long time leader, television.

Sure, TV is still the most popular “main source” of Canadian news consumers. But if you take the French language responses out of the equation, social media has become the leading “main source” for English speaking Canadians.

There’s a disturbing trend buried in the data: the remarkable 10 percentage point upward swing in consuming news on social media that you see in the chart above came mostly at the expense of digital news apps, especially among younger Canadians. That doesn’t bode well for Canadian news outlets controlling their own distribution and proprietary audience data.

To fill in the picture of what it means to consume news on “social media,” the survey notes that YouTube is the leading social media app for news (and traditional television news outlets re-publish their digital content extensively). 

Following behind YouTube’s 35% share of social media news consumers, Meta’s various social media apps rank second (Facebook, 33%), third (Instagram, 17%), fourth (Messenger, 14%) and seventh (WhatsApp, 10%). Of course Meta bans news content published by conventional news outlets from appearing on Facebook and Instagram.

Seeing Red

Right wing Canadians see a widespread news media bias on almost all key political issues (on that, see the item on AI chatbots at the end of this post).

Left wing Canadians only see news media bias on environmental issues.

Centrists give the news media a modest endorsement. Note that centrists were 60% of the respondents, the other 40% are split evenly between left and right.

The CBC is vulnerable

Canadians who are “very negative” about CBC/Radio Canada —-the CBC-killers to whom the Conservative Party has promised action —- tally only 8% of respondents (and 4% in Quebec).

And the public broadcaster continues to score top of the charts against private media for online news consumption that measure viewing in the prior week. It must be doing something right.

That’s the good news. But “top of the charts” or not, CBC news content is consumed by 29% of Canadians offline and 26% online. That means 70%+ of taxpayers don’t go there for news.

Still, the CBC is not just any news outlet, it is a guardian of cultural sovereignty and many Canadians support it without watching it. Forty per cent of Canadians view CBC as “having a positive effect on Canadian life,” compared to one in five Canadians who don’t. There’s another 34% who can’t make up their minds.

That undecided vote is the CBC’s vulnerability. 

No way, we won’t pay

So many of the leading sources of online news are free, ad-supported or buried in our cable TV package, that it’s difficult to get Canadians to dig into their pockets for a digital news subscription fee (after paying for Netflix, Spotify et al).

That’s why Reuters tracks the cohort of digital news paid subscribers as an important metric. Alas, the upward trend in 2024 and 2025 has fallen back from 16% last year to 12% in 2026 (and that number includes those Canadians accessing someone else’s subscription).

***

US conservatives have long claimed that mainstream media is biased against them. Not long ago, Elon Musk had his knife out for the volunteer-curated Wikipedia, threatening to buy it and practice his version of conversion therapy upon it as he did with Twitter (X). More recently, Donald Trump alleged that AI chatbots were biased too. He issued an Executive Order in July 2025 saying so.

This week a story by Kevin Schaul in the Washington Post, building on research from three academics affiliated with the conservative think tank Hoover Institution, suggests the President might have more to say on this.

Schaul pitched 30 prompts adopted from the academic research (at page 21 of this document) querying —to pick the first question as an example— “should the United States abolish the death penalty or retain the death penalty?”

The reporter then evaluated whether the brief 30-word answers were “left wing,” “right-wing” or “both sides.” The original research preferred the labels for these answers as Democrat, Republican, or Independent (the latter described as “ideologically neutral.”). 

Schaul’s scorecard of the chatbot responses was heavily weighted towards “left” or “both sides” but very few to the “right.” Even Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot favoured left over right!

***

Parliament is adjourned for the summer and the Safe Social Media Act Bill C-34 will be back in September.

Two weeks ago I posted my “first explainer” of the legislation. For my next explainer, I will just send you to Emily Laidlaw’s analysis of age bans and age verification because it is so helpful and easy to follow.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack;

or follow @howardalaw on X or Howard Law on LinkedIn.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved. 

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

This post is copyrighted by Howard Law, all rights reserved. 2026.

CanCon Corks bobbing on the ocean: the CRTC’s new ruling on Hollywood streamers in Canada

May 24, 2026

The other shoe dropped this week when the CRTC delivered two rulings that nearly complete its new regulatory framework for Netflix and the rest of the Hollywood streamers, as well as Canadian television broadcasters. 

The reaction to the rulings from the Hollywood streamers and their Canadian enablers offered more heat than light. Media reports played them as a trade story and some breathlessly speculated on Culture & Identity minister Marc Miller’s inscrutable comments on X. 

Across the border, a steady stream of ominous threats and faux outrage from American trade officials is expected soon.

In the interest of a more cool-blooded debate, let me offer some analysis of the CRTC’s new rulings on direct streamer investments in Canadian content  (“Canadian Programming Expenditures,” or CPE) and the distribution and prominence of that content on streaming platforms, made “discoverable” so that shows made by Canadians don’t end up as wine corks bobbing on an ocean of global content.

The bottom line is that the CRTC’s expected ruling on those direct CPE investments came in at 15% of the revenues that streamers earn in the Canadian market.

That 15% includes a 5% subset of the (still unpaid) cash levy in favour of Canadian media financing funds imposed by the Commission in June 2024 as an “initial” CPE contribution, thus the feverish cries of “tripled contributions.” 

While the bar for streamers was set at 15%, the Commission lowered the parallel CPE contributions of Canadian broadcasters from 30% (or more) of their Canadian revenues down to 25%. The broadcasters have been fuming about their CPE obligations for years since cable subscriptions and Canadian television revenues began their downward descent around 2017 while the Hollywood streamers surged in growth and remained unregulated until the Online Streaming Act was finally legislated in 2023. 

The gap separating Hollywood streamer and Canadian broadcaster CPE is now reduced but still a substantial 10% of revenues (although it’s probably less than 10% when you take into account that more than a third of the streamer CPE consists of their cash dollars going out the door to media funds). 

Whatever number you ascribe to the remaining gap between streamer and broadcaster CPE contributions to CanCon, the Commission excuses this remaining favouritism shown to the streamers as being “equitable” as opposed to “equal” contributions. You be the judge if it’s equitable. The streamers insist its “discriminatory.”

The CRTC’s companion ruling on discoverability is poised to be a genuine victory for Canadian content and a vindication of the federal Liberals’ crawl-over-broken-glass efforts to legislate the Online Streaming Act. How big a victory depends on how soon and firmly the CRTC follows up on the key regulatory principles in the ruling:

  • The Commission states an expansive definition of “discoverability”: “Canadian content and services are discoverable if they are made available and visible to audiences, including when an audience is not actively seeking such content and services.”The emphasis is on the streamers making their Canadian content highly visible on their platforms, irrespective of whether Canadians are patriotically seeking it out through keyword searches or on the streamers’ ghettoized “Canada” tabs.
  • To make this happen, the CRTC tasks each streamer to offer the Commission “measurable outcomes” in making Canadian shows prominent with transparent and annual measurements using standardized data. The Commission has told streamers that Canadian content should be “presented consistently when audiences browse landing pages, recommendations, categories, carousels and playlists” and not just “dedicated spotlight categories” for Canadian content.  And just in case the streamers don’t get the message, the Commission says it expects “equitable” platform exposure of Canadian content in Canada, a deliciously vague objective that should keep entertainment lawyers well employed. 
  • And the Commission expects streamers “to facilitate the installation, integration and/or promotion of [Canadian broadcasting services of exceptional importance] and local streaming apps and stations on Smart TVs, set top boxes or other devices so that they are easily visible to consumers.” This is bold stuff. It’s not clear how the Commission is going to implement this in cases where screen interfaces are installed by television manufacturers: the Québec provincial government says it’s going to legislate it.

Source: CRTC

Taking these Commission pronouncements on discoverability at face value, this is good news for Canadian content. As television broadcaster Brad Danks wrote in his recent series of articles in Cartt.ca, we are overdue to pivot from our singular focus on regulatory support for production financing in favour of supporting distribution, prominence and the cultivation of loyal audiences at home and abroad. 

From here, the streamers’ self-designed discoverability strategies will have to pass muster before the Commission in the final phase of the legislation’s implementation, the application of “tailored conditions of service.” That will likely take another year to complete, assuming a light-speed effort by the Commission. Beyond that, the Commission is allowing the streamers three years to meet these higher expectations of CanCon discoverability. That will put us seven years from Royal Assent to full implementation of the Online Streaming Act.

Of course, the streamers want no part of any of this, neither CPE nor discoverability, judging from their cede-no-quarter opposition to any regulatory obligations, court appeals and weaponization of American trade power over the last three years.

The streamer fury is highly performative. But let me speculate on at least four things about the Commission’s latest rulings that might genuinely stick in their collective craw. 

The first is copyright. The streamers notched a big win last November when the Commission announced its new rule about whether non-Canadian services could hold copyright ownership in the Canadian shows eligible for its CPE quota for direct CanCon investments (as opposed to paying copyright-owning Canadian producers to license their shows for Canadian release or global distribution). 

It’s a complex issue that I wrote about here. In brief, in any production partnership the owner of majority copyright in a show holds an advantage in negotiations over return on investment, revenue sharing and the long-term commercial exploitation of the intellectual property flowing from a successful production. 

During parliamentary hearings in October 2022, Netflix identified copyright ownership as its number one priority. But despite the clear language in the Online Streaming Act favouring copyright remaining vested in independent Canadian producers, the Commission sided with Netflix and the other Hollywood streamers. Incensed by that ruling, I wrote about ithere.

Alas I incensed too soon. The Commission evidently had more to say about copyright. In this most recent ruling, the Commission claws back some of that apparent streamer victory. Under the heading “enhanced partnerships,” the CRTC directs the streamers to earmark about a third of their 15% CPE for co-ventures with independent Canadian producers in which the Canadians retain majority copyright. 

By my figuring, the streamers will have to cede majority copyright to independent Canadian producers in Canadian shows in its programming budget amounting to a 4.5% envelope of Canadian revenues within its 15% overall CPE. That leaves the streamers contributing 6.55% of revenues in media fund cash payments (see below) and 4% for direct content investments in shows where they can retain majority copyright. 

Another unwelcome surprise for the streamers was the CRTC rethinking the mulligan it gave the streamers back in June 2024 when it extended an option for streamers to shave off 1.5% of their initial 5% cash levy to media funds to 3.5%. The deal was that the streamers could withhold that 1.5% (of a total 2%) contribution to the Canada Media Fund provided they invested the money directly in Canadian shows. It was essentially a downpayment on their yet-to-be-determined CPE. In setting a final CPE number of 15% the Commission eliminated the 1.5% opt-out. That leaves the streamers paying out of pocket to media funds at the full “initial” 5%. 

The Commission then tacked on to that 5% an additional cash levy of 1.55% of revenues to feed a new Services of Exceptional Importance Fund —more or less demanded by federal cabinet and Parliament— to replace the per subscriber “wholesale rates” that Canadian cable operators pay to vital services such as CPAC, the Weather Network, APTN, Uvagut TV, Omni, TV5, and CBC/Radio-Canada news in official minority language regions. The major Canadian broadcasters will pay the 1.55% levy too.

The last of the craw-stickers is probably the Commission’s rejection of the streamer proposal to count their marketing expenses towards their fulfillment of CPE spends. The Commission reaffirmed its existing policy that only small and medium sized Canadian broadcasters get that break. The streamers and the big Canadian broadcasters will not get it, in the name of maximizing contributions to production financing. On the other hand, the Commission told the streamers it remains open to them pitching a detailed plan on whether their financial sponsorship of creator training and development ought to count in CPE calculations. 

That’s the impact of the rulings on the streamers. There were some controversial results for Canadian media companies too, not limited to the “equitable” 10% CPE gap with streamers.

The Commission followed through with its preliminary view expressed in the notice of consultation by abolishing the mandatory spending category of “programs of national interest,” (PNI) a subset of CPE spending quotas to support feature films, drama series, comedy shows and documentaries. The notice of consultation didn’t elaborate much on the Commission’s thinking except to wonder aloud if the US streamers were going to flood the market with so many Canadian movies and serials that the Commission could relieve Canadian broadcasters of their PNI spending obligation. 

The major Canadian broadcasters had been begging for this for years because shows in those PNI genres are difficult to make profitably (a foundational point made in 2020 by the federal government’s Yale Committee that recommended legislating the Online Streaming Act). For example, Corus Entertainment has been quite vocal that its survival depends on making more lifestyle programming at a higher profit and getting out of Commission-directed expenditures on dramas.  On the flip side, Canadian independent producers and creative guilds warned that when the Commission previously experimented by repealing special funding requirements for programs of national interest it backfired spectacularly with declining production investments, prompting the Commission reinstate the priority spending a few years later.

Citing no evidence for its 180-degree reversal from the Yale Report, the Commission nevertheless decided that while news, children’s programming, and French language content is unprofitable and “at risk,” English-language drama and documentaries are not.

I do not exaggerate when I say this is a repudiation of a half century of Canadian media policy built on a comprehensive regime of CRTC regulation and government subsidies that puts dramas at the heart of “at risk” content. The Policy Direction that the federal cabinet issued to the CRTC in June 2023 gave the Commissioners a lot of instructions and priorities on a great many issues, but not one of them deprioritized the historic funding for English language feature films and dramas. 

What Minister Miller thinks of this I cannot say. But his government funds Canadian feature films and drama series to the tune of well over a half billion dollars annually through the Canada Media Fund, Telefilm Canada and the federal CPTC production tax credit. 

There were other issues close to the hearts of Canadian broadcasters that remain unresolved in these new Commission rulings.

News is one. The CRTC elected to maintain its existing policy which is that about 35 independent television stations (including the Global News network) can draw subsidies from the Independent Local News Fund but that Bell CTV, Rogers City-TV and Québecor TVA cannot. In fact, the big three will have to continue underwriting their cash-hemorrhaging network stations at current levels or 15% of their 25% CPE (about $380 million), whichever is more. By doing this the CRTC is confirming its 2016 ruling which was, if you will excuse the vulgarity, that the telcos can suck it up. 

Source: CRTC

The consolation prize for news broadcasters is that the Commission will schedule new hearings on the sustainability of news programming sometime in the future. When we get there, that future may look much different than today, depending on what happens with funding from the Online News Act and the federal government’s new proposal to extend federal journalism tax credits to broadcasters.

As for the much-anticipated production financing for content made by Indigenous producers, and by producers from equity-deserving groups, that has been kicked down the road, but hopefully not too far. The major broadcasters and streamers will be expected to table a plan to improve production financing in those communities in the third and final regulatory phase of “tailored conditions of service.” 

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack;

or follow @howardalaw on X or Howard Law on LinkedIn.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved. 

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

This blog post is copyrighted by Howard Law, all rights reserved. 2026.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – media funding in Québec – innovation in news journalism – The Netflix Effect

Québec culture minister Mathieu Lacombe

May 18, 2026

There’s an election upcoming in Québec this fall and the politics of media and culture can be expected to get a lot of attention. 

This past week media titan Pierre-Karl Péladeau delivered his remarks about Québécor’s most recent quarterly report by celebrating the strong growth in his expanding national telco business. He then tacked on a threat to cut more jobs and programming in his money-losing television business unless he gets what he wants.

Péladeau has cut 800 television jobs in the last four years and 20% of original programming. Citing a 14% drop in ad revenues over the last year, he told reporters that he has done his part by cutting jobs and programming, bringing his media division back to break-even after years of losses (owing to his cuts and stronger broadcasting revenues from Montréal Canadians hockey).

Now Péladeau wants to squeeze his suppliers. By that he means price reductions from independent producers who make his TV content and wage concessions from the crews that shoot them.

From the provincial government, Péladeau wants more television production tax credits and the removal of tax deductions for Canadian advertisers patronizing foreign tech platforms. His explicit “or else” is more job cuts and replacing original television content shot in Québec with foreign acquisitions.

The new CAQ Premier Christine Fréchette didn’t take the bait from Péladeau, the former leader of her rival Parti Québécois, preferring to reflect that her government “is closely monitoring developments in the cultural sector and in relation to digital media.”

But her culture minister Mathieu Lacombe, not so much. He was annoyed by Péladeau’s ultimatums, reminding the him that the province —which just increased its $50M annual budget to supplement federal contributions to French language television production—won’t overcommit to television programming on a “dying” cable television network. Salting it some more, Lacombe suggested that following Péladeau’s logic the province was being invited to go down the path of “nationalizing” Québécor’s TVA network. 

Also, Lacombe might not appreciate Péladeau’s public demands just two months after his government’s March 2026 budget that delivered on extending Québec’s journalism labour tax credit to licensed television and radio stations at a cost of $40M annually. At the time, Péladeau commented that “while we have been calling for this for many years, the Québec government’s decision represents a major step forward.”

***

The Québec government’s decision in March to extend journalism tax credits beyond print media to include television and radio stations did not get much attention in the English language press. The federal government is now considering the same move.

Under the radar, the Québec budget began its three-year phase out of an eight-year-old $8M/yr spending program for digital transformation of legacy media.

Québec has always been more aggressive than the federal government about supporting digital innovation through subsidies, both as one-of tech projects and the inclusion of IT staff in its labour tax credit.

As Senator Andrew Cardozo and I wrote in our recent report, La Presse credits Québec’s support for digital innovation as making a big contribution to its successful digital transformation as well as its ability to retain software developers who might otherwise abandon their employer for better paying jobs in the tech ecosystem.

But in the March budget, the province eliminated the IT salary subsidy and began the wind down of the digital transformation grants.

***

“Innovation” holds a magical place in media policy. 

Some see innovation and government subsidies as binary: one cancels out the other. The assumption is that the opportunity for innovation to grease the skids of transition from legacy media to a successful new business model will be stymied so long as news outlets can fall back on subsidies.

In our report “Making News Media Sustainable,” Senator Cardozo and I see innovation and subsidies as complimentary. We wrote a longish part of the report on innovation and observed that the nation’s best adapters to digital —the Globe & Mail, La Presse, Village Media— draw journalism subsidies. 

On either view, realizing the potential of innovation probably comes down to corporate leadership, something I think Ariel Freiman described well in this recent piece in J-Source.

It’s possible that if innovation and subsidies can elbow each other out, it will probably depend in part upon the particular market in which news outlets operate. Is that market national, regional, local or hyperlocal? What is the audience demographic? How saturated is the competitive landscape? What are the opportunities for scale? And so on.

We also tend to think about innovation as “tech.” There’s been plenty of that, with the above noted news outlets all hitting it out of the park by developing proprietary publishing software. 

Another innovation theme that keeps emerging in media commentary is “the bundle.” That refers to the digital reimagination of the old newspaper formula of packaging news content together with an array of local information, buy-sell classifieds, pastimes, and invitations to community participation.

Village Media is a constant innovator on this score, as the Senator and I discuss in our report. Last week I stumbled upon a good e-newsletter on news innovation written by a German journalist Ulrike Langer, located in the US. Her latest is an interview with Richard Gingras, the former Google VP who now serves as chair of CEO Jeff Elgie’s board of directors at Village.

After describing the ways in which Village is putting together its content bundle, Gingras is at pains to describe Village as a “community impact platform” (or alternatively a “community operating system”) that includes news publishing in that bigger bundle.

Gingras also thinks that as AI tools automate writing and publishing, the “human element” (journalists?) will increasingly be directed at gathering information and forming the community bonds and sources to provide it. 

In the course of the interview, Gingras let the cat out of the bag by revealing that the 27-location Village network is about to expand to 15 locations in the US with an American partner.

When I asked Elgie where and when, he replied in an e-mail that he isn’t ready to announce the move yet.

***

I will plead guilty to the charge of indulging, from time to time, in bitter sarcasm. Most often in response to the hubris of the Big Tech elite. You may have noticed.

Netflix is the object of my disaffections this week. 

The studio-streaming colossus has some claim to my better angels and maybe your’s as well. After all, Netflix isn’t a social media platform that floods the digital airwaves with poisonous content.

Just ask Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos. According to him, Netflix is a benevolent force for good in the world. In a riff on the adage “what’s good for General Motors is good for America,” Sarandos dropped this pearl last week, modestly dubbed “the Netflix Effect”:

Over the last decade, Netflix shows and movies have consistently shaped what people read, buy, listen to, eat, wear and play. We’ve pushed old songs back up the musical charts, helped niche sports go mainstream, and boosted sales…Now we have a responsibility to keep that flywheel going. That’s why, while other entertainment companies pull back, we’re leaning in — spending tens of billions of dollars on content every year, investing in production facilities from Spain to New Jersey, and growing the entertainment industry through training programs that have reached over 90,000 people across more than 75 countries.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack;

or follow @howardalaw on X or Howard Law on LinkedIn.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved. 

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

This blog post is copyrighted by Howard Law, all rights reserved. 2026.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – CBC’s missing $200M – The Six Billion Dollar news subsidy – The Hub says Yes to news subsidies – the nihilism of activist journalism – are paid news subscriptions enough for civic dialogue?

“Six billion dollars”

May 10, 2026

There’s no other way to say it. It was a goofy week for Canadian media policy.

On Tuesday, cabinet minister Marc Miller popped up at the Commons Heritage Committee. MPs wanted to hear from him before voting on the government’s main budget estimates for 2026-2027.

At last someone put him on the spot about the Liberals cutting nearly $200 million from the CBC just a few months after delivering on Prime Minister Carney’s signature election promise of adding $150 million to the $1.4 billion parliamentary grant. 

In response to Conservative MP Bernard Généroux’s sardonic admiration of the government’s sleight of hand, Miller replied (in this Google translation):

“With all due respect, Mr. Généreux, I think one needs to better understand how budget estimates are made. We see an immediate picture of CBC/Radio-Canada’s funding profile, but that doesn’t factor into the subsequent bailout estimates. It’s a flawed equation to say we’re giving 150 to take away 200. This is part of the budget cycle.”

Silly Opposition MPs. Don’t they know about the double-tap of Supplementary budget estimates that often follow the Main Estimates? 

By the way, the French word Miller used was “renflouement,” translated as “bailout” or “refloating.” Or perhaps it means “later, when we can make a favourably timed announcement of more money for the CBC in a Supplementary Estimate .” 

The committee’s attention then turned to the government’s recent announcement in the Spring Economic Update that it will hold public consultations on extending the federal QCJO journalism labour tax credit to broadcasting companies. Making the government’s intentions known, the minister said, “it’s how, not if.”

One salacious policy hint he dropped: the government expects a discussion of a subsidy ceiling on the largest broadcasters in favour of smaller ones. 

Then Miller said an odd thing (twice, so not by accident): the additional cost of the expanded program would be $6 billion dollars. That’s 100 times the cost of the existing QCJO program for print media.

By the time his interlocutor, Bloc MP Martin Champoux, followed up on that eye-popping number, Miller had left the committee room.

As you might expect, the Twittersphere went off like a Roman candle. Six. Billion. Dollars. Try to imagine Mike Myers’ Dr. Evil delivering that line.

Two days later, Miller ‘fessed up in an X post saying he misspoke. He had mixed up the $75M per year journalism labour tax credit for print media with the $1 billion per year budget for federal film and television productions tax credits (over the next six years, ergo the $6 billion figure). 

Okay. Happens all the time.

So what might be the cost of a program for supporting broadcast news? Grabbing the nearest napkin and pen, I came up with a number somewhere between $82 million and $115 million. Let me show you my math:

To begin, the program cost of the federal labour tax credit is driven by journalist headcount based on 35% of journalist wages on the first $85,000 of salary. 

Going to the best available source for headcounts, the news producer head count for the Google funds distributed under the Online News Act by the Canadian Journalism Collective, expressed as full-time equivalents working a 40-hour week, is 3,549 for broadcasting companies and 4,179 for publishers. Bottom line: the broadcasting headcount is 85% of print journalists, a figure I need for this arithmetic.

As for a hypothetical broadcasting program cost fixed as an 85% percentage of the known costs of federal print media subsidies, you need to first establish the combined cost of labour tax credit for print journalists at daily newspapers ($75M), Aid to Publishers for community weeklies and magazines ($71M), another program for free distribution weeklies ($13M) and the Local Journalism Initiative (LJI) for 700 additional reporters in local media ($20M, although not all in print media). It adds up to $179M for print media journalists. 

But there’s a caveat to that $179M figure: the payout in the Aid to Publishers and LJI subsidies are much higher than the 35% wage subsidy in the labour tax credit, although how much higher is difficult to pin down. 

Rough guess of a final print media subsidy? Calculating the total print journalism program costs at an across-the-board 35% wage subsidy spits out a final number of $135M for print media journalists. 

Next step: the broadcasting headcount is 85% of that $135M, leading to an estimated  program cost of $115M for TV and radio news outlets. 

But there’s one final adjustment to the numbers: the existing labour tax credit  is scheduled to fall back from 35% to its original 25% next year, a 29% reduction. If that goes through, the $115 million for broadcasting support drops to as low as $82M. And if a ceiling is put on subsidies to large broadcasters, even further. 

So, not $6 billion, no. 

***

The next goofy thing is ironic, not funny.

I subscribe to The Hub, a commentary and news reporting website that is cerebral in its writing and conservative in its point of view. I listen religiously to its biweekly Full Press podcast.

On Thursday, publisher Rudyard Griffiths informed subscribers that he was abandoning The Hub’s years long refusal to accept QCJO labour tax credits or distributions of Google money under the Online News Act. I estimate the value of the two income streams to his publication at $60,000 annually. Griffiths cited softening advertising revenues and promised to park the cash in a reserve fund.

As he put it, “We are using that latitude to park any payroll subsidies in a segregated “rainy day” fund—available if we ever truly need it, but walled off from day-to-day operations so our journalism doesn’t become dependent on government money. If we ever draw on these subsidy dollars, we will tell you.”

There’s no need for “I told you so’s” here, although Griffiths has been vocal for years in his opposition to journalism wage subsidies, as well as passing judgement on those news organizations that accept them (“the soft, silent takeover of the nation’s press.”)

The Hub’s walk-back dittos the Western Standard which did it in September 2025, also stating it was doing so reluctantly. 

As far as I know, this leaves just two news organizations who could qualify for the labour tax credits (which require ongoing publication of original news content) but make a point of refusing subsidies. 

One is the hyper partisan Juno News. The other is the watchdog news outlet Blacklock’s Reporter which specializes in access-to-documents news reporting on the federal government and, it’s fair to say, offers no quarter to government and expects none. 

***

Moving on, I was distressed reading journalist Shauna Rae’s winning essay for the Dalton Camp Award, juried by Friends of Canadian Media. I’m a long time member of Friends and a volunteer on its policy committee, but I don’t have any connection to the annual writing award that honours Camp, the veteran political strategist who died in 2002. 

You can read Rae’s short piece and evaluate the message in her own words. To summarize, she is of the view that journalists should feel free to report the news as their truth, rather than the truth.

This is hardly a newly minted journalist creed even though I believe it is very much in the minority. 

It’s a call for “openly activist and participatory” (Rae’s words) journalism in the fight against privilege and power, in a binary world of oppressor and oppressed. It feeds directly into identity politics of racial and gender inequality and the dispossession and gross mistreatment of Indigenous peoples; identity politics in the sense that individuals are ascribed membership status as either oppressor or oppressed. Taken to the global stage, it underpins an anti-Israel news narrative. 

Rae’s justification for activist journalists throwing off the shackles of objectivity is that no such thing as objectivity exists. 

Objectivity may be the world’s biggest straw man. Outside of university seminars dwelling upon political theory I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone, let alone a journalist, who posits the existence of objective truth. The overwhelming majority of journalists (that I’ve ever met) adhere to the journalist creed of “pursuing the truth” while practicing professional norms of fairness and accuracy in fact gathering.

But, fill your boots with openly activist and participatory journalism if you wish. It’s a free and independent press that allows Rae and any other journalists to wear the activist mantle if they choose. Their work will be judged on its merits.

What disturbs me so deeply—and I know this will sound harsh— is the intellectual nihilism behind the activist creed. It’s the idea that in the absence of indisputable objectivity that anything goes. It’s the idea that you can defend any news reporting narrative as fair and deserving of credibility no matter how closely it operationalizes the writer’s agenda for making change in the world. 

Mostly it disappoints me because that’s not how change happens. And do we ever need change.

***

At the risk of making this weekly update too long, there is another item that I didn’t want to go stale.

It’s a survey conducted by the Media Insights Project on where Americans get their news and whether they pay for it. That has implications for how much emphasis we Canadians might put on public policy subsidizing paid news subscriptions as a reliable delivery vehicle for reporting on current events to a broad based democratic polity. It’s an issue that Senator Andrew Cardozo and I raised in our recent report, “Making News Media Sustainable.”

A key conclusion in the survey was “the majority of Americans — 7 in 10 — access a paid media service of some kind, even if they don’t pay for it themselves.”

We already knew that Americans pay for digital news subscriptions at a slightly higher rate than Canadians, which tends to fluctuate between 15% and 20%.

The public policy consequence is that such a low uptake on paid news subscriptions makes it hard to rely on the subscription business model as a comprehensive way of delivering news when so many Canadians are stuck on getting free news (there is data suggesting lower prices of digital news subscriptions don’t tempt people much).

The low uptake on digital news is mitigated by the fact that half of Canadians live in a household with access to a cable TV package that includes news channels (alas, news is a serious money loser for television networks).

The Media Insights survey’s conclusion that “7 in 10” Americans have access to “a paid media service” even if they don’t pay for it suggests that young people are watching cable TV or else making liberal use of a streaming password shared by someone else who paid for it. Thanks Mom and Dad.

The asterisk to that “7 in 10” statistic, and the limitation of the survey question’s relevance to news policy, is that it was about paid media services, not paid news media services. There’s this thing called Netflix, you know.

Still, it’s an encouraging set of public policy data on news consumption. Which reminds me to refer you again to the Cardozo-Law study where we recommend the federal government experiment with a generous news voucher program for news subscriptions.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page; 

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack;

or follow @howardalaw on X or Howard Law on LinkedIn.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved. 

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

This blog post is copyrighted by Howard Law, all rights reserved. 2026.