What, if anything, should voters make of Pierre Poilievre’s attitude toward journalists?

What should voters make of Pierre Poilievre’s criticism of journalists?

All politicians disagree from time to time with the way they’re depicted by journalists. Any number of them have been vocal about it, publicly or privately. (The late Brian Mulroney, who has been fondly remembered over the past week, was known to harangue journalists on the phone when he disagreed with their coverage.) Sometimes their complaints have been justified.

In the hothouse atmosphere of Parliament Hill, tiny struggles are being waged almost constantly. In Scrum Wars, his 1993 book on the relationship between prime ministers and the press gallery, Allan Levine suggested the scrum — the uniquely Canadian tradition, which takes its name from rugby, of journalists pressing around politicians outside the House of Commons to ask questions — was a symbol of “the test of wills, the contest of wits, and the battle for control that have characterized the relations between Canadian prime ministers and journalists” for more than a century.

In many cases, those battles are tedious and easily ignored.

WATCH: Poilievre spars with reporter over ‘terrorist attack’ question     

Poilievre spars with reporter over Rainbow Bridge ‘terrorist attack’ question

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, in a back-and-forth with a reporter, says he was citing media reports when he described the Rainbow Bridge vehicle explosion as a ‘terrorist attack.’

But perhaps no Canadian politician in recent memory has criticized, questioned and mocked the media with as much zeal as Poilievre. The potential implications of his approach to journalists for a future Conservative government may be as worthy of consideration as any other aspect of the Conservative offer in the next election.

Poilievre’s combative exchanges with reporters in recent months are arguably the manifestation of a rhetorical drumbeat he has been playing since his leadership campaign two years ago.

“The media, the pundits, the professors all say I shouldn’t attack Justin Trudeau as strongly as I do,” he told supporters in a fundraising email in May 2022.

The next month he reported that “the corporate media and established interests are spending a lot of time trying to stop me.”

That fall, after a contentious exchange with a reporter on the Hill, Poilievre wrote that “the media” were “no longer interested in even pretending to be unbiased. They want us to lose.”

What explains Poilievre’s loud criticism of the media?

Some of this no doubt speaks to those Conservatives who have long felt that “the media” leans to the left and tends to take a dim view of conservative ideas and perspectives. On a practical level, it might also be a potent rallying cry.

“We need your support to broadcast Pierre’s common sense message over and around the Liberal-funded biased media,” the party told supporters in a fundraising appeal last December.

Last month, the Conservatives warned that “we are facing an unprecedented amount of attacks by the mainstream media.” A subsequent email claimed that “every single dollar you donate today will strengthen our war chest and spread our message to counter Trudeau and his media allies.”

Poilievre’s criticisms of and attacks on the media also can be viewed as an extension of a political style that sees everyone as either a friend or an enemy: for Poilievre, if you’re not with him, you must be against him.

In a democracy, no public institution is beyond question or criticism. Journalists, like all humans, are imperfect. But when a politician makes a concerted effort to disparage media coverage, it’s fair to ask whether they’re laying the rhetorical groundwork to dismiss any critical coverage, no matter how factual or accurate.

Poilievre’s rhetoric is also tied to some clear policy positions.

One of Poilievre’s first policy commitments was a promise to defund the CBC — a proposal that he says would save $1 billion. He has described the Crown corporation as a “billion-dollar propaganda arm” of the Liberal government. (A commitment to the CBC’s journalistic independence is written into the Broadcasting Act.)

Based on the applause Poilievre receives at his rallies when he repeats that promise, the idea is popular with his supporters. But Poilievre’s objections are not limited to the CBC. He also has said that Global and CTV, the other two major broadcast networks in Canada, are biased against him.

Beyond the public funding given to the CBC, Poilievre’s objections extend to the support the Trudeau government has made available to private media companies in recent years.

The media industry in Canada and elsewhere has been struggling for years to deal with the challenges to its traditional business model brought on by the Internet. Amid mounting concern about the future of journalism, the Liberals responded in 2018 and 2019 with a series of policies, including specific support for local journalism, a tax credit to subsidize the salaries of journalists, a digital subscription tax credit and the Online News Act, which is meant to facilitate funding agreements between major Internet platforms and media companies. 

Last month, the Conservative Party posted a Valentine’s Day message that mocked the CBC, the Toronto Star and the Canadian Press wire service and called on the prime minister to “stop buying off the media to gain himself favourable coverage.” The post on X (formerly known as Twitter) linked to a “petition” that called on the government to “stop funding Trudeau’s media allies with taxpayers’ dollars.”

Though the Conservatives singled out the CBC, Star and Canadian Press, those three are not the only major media organizations to receive public support. Postmedia, which owns the National Post, Toronto Sun and several other major newspapers, reported receiving money through the journalism tax credit in its most recent quarterly report. Its chief executive officer has also expressed support for the Online News Act.

A spokesperson for Poilievre did not respond to an email this week asking whether the Conservatives were committed to repealing all of the measures that currently exist to support Canadian media.

What would this mean for a Conservative government?

So what might this amount to if the Conservatives form the next government? There are at least a few possible implications worth considering.

First, there is the future shape and character of the Canadian media industry. As a matter of public policy, what would be the result if the federal government withdrew its funding from both the CBC and the private media sector? Would that result in more journalism or less? Better journalism or worse?

Even among journalists, there is disagreement about the value and design of existing federal programs. Are there better or different ways to support the industry? Or is it simply not the place of government to do so?

Reasonable people can differ on these points.

The other question that might be raised by Poilievre’s attitude toward the media is how, as prime minister, he would approach other independent checks and balances. There are inevitably occasions when an officer of Parliament or the courts or some other institution raises a concern about something the government has done. How would Poilievre respond?

There is already some evidence to suggest Poilievre is willing to personally and directly criticize those who disagree with him. In 2014, when the chief electoral officer persisted in raising concerns about legislation that Poilievre, as the minister of democratic reform, was sponsoring, Poilievre responded by questioning the non-partisan official’s motivations before a Senate committee.

Again, reasonable people can differ on the question of how, or how much, political leaders should criticize other institutions.

At the very least, it’s not hard to imagine that Poilievre’s attitude toward much of the media will remain unchanged. 

For now, he can point to the existence of public funding as a reason to question the journalists who question him. If he becomes prime minister and manages to repeal that support, he’ll be able to claim that the media is aligned against him because he took it away.