The Canadian government is deciding who’s a journalist now

In a functioning democracy, the relationship between the media and the government involves constructive tension. It’s what allows us to hold power to account. Journalists ask difficult questions; governments, however reluctantly, answer them. This symbiotic relationship relies on a simple premise: The state does not get to decide who qualifies as a journalist; who gets to ask it questions. But when that relationship becomes increasingly controlled by the state, accountability is replaced by favouritism. We are now seeing this play out in real time. In 2019, when the Trudeau government introduced sweeping payroll subsidies for private Canadian media, with tens of millions channeled through a designation called a Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization (QCJO), those involved assured the public this was merely a fiscal mechanism. “Our goal was to clearly identify the news outlets eligible for this particular government program and not to try to determine some kind of status as an ‘approved journalism organization,’” wrote those who built the program. It would not, they promised, become a press badge. It would not determine who gets access and who is left out. Critics, meanwhile, warned we were at the peak of a slippery slope that would see a tax measure become a journalism licensing regime. Today, we are rapidly sliding down that slope. Visit the media pages for two of Canada’s largest federal departments—Global Affairs Canada or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)—and you will see media accreditation guidelines stating that public servants will only answer journalists who fall under QCJO designation, or criteria similar to it. From the media accreditation page of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. In other words, the government is using a subsidy program administered by the Canada Revenue Agency to decide which reporters get their calls returned. Let that sink in. The same government that writes the media cheques also acts as the bouncer for who is allowed in to have their questions answered. Cabinet appoints the members of the (so-called) independent advisory board that recommends which outlets receive the designation. It then makes the final decision as to who is funded. In doing so, the government defines the criteria for what constitutes journalism. Therefore, the government is not just subsidizing the press, it is defining it and accrediting it. From the media accreditation page for Global Affairs Canada. The consequences are concerning. First, this creates a two-tier media system. Outlets that play by these rules and accept its money get better access. Those that do not are relegated to the status of supplicants, filing freedom-of-information requests, while subsidized competitors enjoy the velvet-rope treatment. It can be hard to hold power to account when you cannot get through the door. Second, it incentivizes further dependency. If access to government is contingent on holding the QCJO label, then even skeptical outlets (like The Hub, which qualifies but does not use government funds to support its journalism) will feel pressure to seek the designation and the subsidies that come with it. The result is a gradual creep toward a media ecosystem that is increasingly state-funded and state-sanctioned. View reader comments (1) Third, it stifles innovation. The QCJO process, with its bureaucratic mainstream traditional definitions, moves at the pace of a glacier. Journalism today moves at the pace of a lightning bolt. By the time the bureaucracy has decided what “counts” as legitimate news, the public has already moved on to new platforms. Said differently, the government is using its accreditation power to freeze in place a particular model of journalism—one increasingly ill-suited to how Canadians, especially young Canadians, consume information. All of this is happening with barely a murmur from the mainstream press. Why? Because the mainstream press is, in large part, the beneficiary of these subsidies. News organizations receive $65 million a year from the public purse. They may not like to talk about it, but they have come to rely on it for their survival. When your payroll depends on the government, you undoubtedly think twice before biting the hand that feeds. Meanwhile, the truly independent outlets, the dwindling few that have refused subsidies on principle, are left to do the job journalism is supposed to do: ask uncomfortable questions. It is sad that it has fallen to small outfits like The Hub and Blacklock’s Reporter to surface stories like these. The major outlets that should be leading the charge are silent. What is to be done? The first step is for the government to recognize the fundamental problem. The CRA’s designation was never meant to function as a press pass. The Carney government should state clearly that QCJO is nothing more than a category on a tax form. Their departments should open the door to a variety of journalistic outlets, not just those on the government payroll. While Global Affairs Canada and the CRA won’t answer my questions on this, after receiving some media attention, it appears IRCC may be realizing the error of their ways. More broadly, Canadians need to ask an uncomfortable question: Do we want a media ecosystem funded by, defined by, and privileged by the state? Or do we want a press that is truly independent—messy, uneven, undefinable…but free? Government has an obligation to answer to the public. It does not have the right to decide who speaks for the public. This story draws on a Hub video. It was edited with the use of NewsBox AI. Full program here. The Canadian government’s Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization (QCJO) designation, initially presented as a fiscal mechanism for payroll subsidies, has evolved into a de facto press accreditation system. This system, where government departments prioritize answering questions from QCJO-designated journalists, creates a two-tiered media landscape. This incentivizes media dependency on government funding, potentially stifling independent journalism and innovation. The government is effectively defining and accrediting journalism, leading to a media ecosystem that is increasingly state-sanctioned. How does the QCJO designation create a two-tiered media system, and what are the potential consequences for independent journalism? What are the potential long-term implications of the government defining the criteria for what constitutes journalism? Why are mainstream media outlets largely silent about the QCJO program, according to the author, and what does this suggest about media independence? Comments (1) The Hub has become one of my regular sources of daily news and info. And this story exemplifies why. It appears trusted journalism in Canada is dying a slow death. How could this be in a first world democratic country with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication? I recall one of my constitutional profs saying some 27 years ago, and with a smirk, ‘The Charter guarantees us all kinds of rights…Until we need them.’