The Hill Times, a prominent Canadian weekly, has come under scrutiny after publishing an article critical of Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre's proposal to abolish media subsidies without disclosing its own substantial federal funding. Blacklock's Reporter says despite being one of Canada’s most heavily subsidized publications, the newspaper did not mention the $120,734 in federal grants it received over the past 18 months, nor the $898,567 sole-sourced federal contract it holds for news clippings, set to expire in 2025.The article, titled “He Doesn’t Play By The Rules,” lambasted Poilievre for his opposition to media subsidies, quoting critics who accused him of “pandering,” “lying,” and “misleading” the public. Critics also charged the Conservative leader with “challenging poor, underpaid local journalists” and perpetuating a “false narrative about journalists being government shills.” However, the Hill Times failed to disclose its own reliance on government funds, including undisclosed amounts from a payroll rebate program that pays up to $29,750 per newsroom employee.The story, written by Ottawa freelancer Christopher Guly, also neglected to mention Guly’s past work as a $750-a-day federal media consultant. This consultancy included training government officials on how to handle media interactions, such as scrums and interviews. Additionally, former Hill Times news editor Bea Vongdouangchanh has similarly been employed as a media consultant by the government.Poilievre has consistently promised that a Conservative government would eliminate media subsidies, arguing that they compromise journalistic integrity and waste taxpayer money. “We are going to make sure the government does not use tax dollars to leverage news coverage in its favour,” Poilievre stated in January.Despite the Hill Times' criticism of Poilievre, public sentiment appears to align with his position. Privy Council research indicates that a majority of Canadians oppose media subsidies, with many feeling that there are more pressing issues, such as housing affordability and the cost of living, for the government to address.
The Hill Times, a prominent Canadian weekly, has come under scrutiny after publishing an article critical of Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre's proposal to abolish media subsidies without disclosing its own substantial federal funding. Blacklock's Reporter says despite being one of Canada’s most heavily subsidized publications, the newspaper did not mention the $120,734 in federal grants it received over the past 18 months, nor the $898,567 sole-sourced federal contract it holds for news clippings, set to expire in 2025.The article, titled “He Doesn’t Play By The Rules,” lambasted Poilievre for his opposition to media subsidies, quoting critics who accused him of “pandering,” “lying,” and “misleading” the public. Critics also charged the Conservative leader with “challenging poor, underpaid local journalists” and perpetuating a “false narrative about journalists being government shills.” However, the Hill Times failed to disclose its own reliance on government funds, including undisclosed amounts from a payroll rebate program that pays up to $29,750 per newsroom employee.The story, written by Ottawa freelancer Christopher Guly, also neglected to mention Guly’s past work as a $750-a-day federal media consultant. This consultancy included training government officials on how to handle media interactions, such as scrums and interviews. Additionally, former Hill Times news editor Bea Vongdouangchanh has similarly been employed as a media consultant by the government.Poilievre has consistently promised that a Conservative government would eliminate media subsidies, arguing that they compromise journalistic integrity and waste taxpayer money. “We are going to make sure the government does not use tax dollars to leverage news coverage in its favour,” Poilievre stated in January.Despite the Hill Times' criticism of Poilievre, public sentiment appears to align with his position. Privy Council research indicates that a majority of Canadians oppose media subsidies, with many feeling that there are more pressing issues, such as housing affordability and the cost of living, for the government to address.
