Echoes of Control

We often think of the media as a pillar of democracy - an institution meant to challenge power, question authority, and bring truth to light. But what happens when that institution becomes dependent on the very power it’s meant to hold accountable?

Welcome to Part II of Silencing A Nation - a series examining the slow erosion of free speech and open discourse in Canada. In Part 1, we looked at Bill C-63, a bill dressed as protection against online hate but carrying the weight of ideological control. Today, we turn our eyes to another troubling trend: the increasingly symbiotic relationship between the Canadian government and the mainstream media.

When Journalism Becomes an Echo Chamber

Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of any functioning democracy. At its best, journalism speaks truth to power, exposes corruption, and ensures the public remains informed enough to hold its leaders accountable. But in Canada, that cornerstone is cracking - and it’s being eroded not by hostile foreign agents or rogue actors, but by the very people elected to protect our freedoms.

On the surface, recent government actions seem to support public interest in journalism. In truth, they threaten its independence. We’re witnessing a shift from a free press to a subsidized press - and from diversity of thought to narrative control, cleverly disguised as policy.

Propping Up the Press - But at What Cost?

In 2019, the federal government introduced a sweeping $595 million media bailout. This five-year package included tax credits, subscription incentives, and the ability for certain outlets to register as qualified donees eligible for charitable donations. The stated goal? To help save journalism, which had been gutted by collapsing ad revenues and a rapidly changing digital landscape.

To be fair, the crisis was real. Canadian newspapers had lost nearly 60% of their ad revenue over the prior decade, and dozens of local newsrooms shuttered. Fears of “news deserts” across the country weren’t unfounded.

But the solution raised serious concerns. Critics immediately flagged the conflict of interest inherent in subsidizing the very outlets meant to keep the government in check. When the state becomes the press’s landlord, can we really expect hard-hitting investigative journalism? And when the funding framework is shaped by heavy lobbying from media corporations, who benefits most - the public or the publishers?

Many of the “expert panels” and gatekeepers appointed to decide which outlets qualify for funding were criticized for lacking ideological diversity. The result: major legacy institutions stayed afloat while many alternative and independent voices were left behind.

The Rise of Bill C-18 and the Meta News Ban

The next act in this troubling drama came in the form of Bill C-18, the Online News Act. Passed in 2023, it was billed as a fairness measure - forcing Big Tech to compensate Canadian news outlets for sharing or linking their content. The government claimed this would create a more just digital economy. What they didn’t say was that this legislation, modeled on Australia’s code, was designed with full knowledge that Meta (Facebook and Instagram) would almost certainly respond by blocking all news access on their platforms in Canada.

That’s exactly what happened.

Rather than strike a deal or amend the law, Meta pulled Canadian news entirely - crippling the public’s access to trusted information sources on the country’s most used social platforms. During the wildfires in BC and Quebec, Canadians couldn’t share or access vital safety updates. Yet even amid public outcry, the federal government refused to amend the legislation.

Why? Because the goal wasn’t just compensation. It was about control.

Bill C-18 gave the government the power to define which outlets are eligible for compensation. It shifted influence over the media from the private marketplace to the public bureaucracy. And it paved the way for further centralization of media messaging - ironically leaving Canadians with less access to news, not more.

Google eventually reached a deal with the government, agreeing to pay $100 million annually through a fund managed by the CRTC. Meta, however, held its ground, citing the impracticality of the legislation. To date, the ban on news sharing on Facebook and Instagram in Canada remains in place.

And just FYI, if they went after our news and media, you can bet streaming (both music and television/movie content) isn’t far behind. Just look up Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act. I’d get into it, but that’s for another post or series.

Narrative Control Masquerading as Support

It’s becoming increasingly clear that dissenting perspectives - particularly those critical of the government, mainstream narratives, or politically inconvenient truths - are being marginalized or outright silenced. That’s not an accident. It’s policy.

Public broadcasters like the CBC now receive over $1.2 billion in annual federal funding. And while some CBC journalists work with integrity, the perception of bias is unavoidable when government money keeps the lights on. Canadians have noticed. Trust in the media continues to erode, and the term “state-sponsored media” has become more than just a partisan insult - it’s a legitimate concern.

This is not how a free press functions. This is how an echo chamber is built: fund the voices that align with your message, ignore or discredit the rest. And even more than an echo chamber, these are the echoes of control.

The Real Danger

The government claims it’s defending journalism. In reality, it’s picking winners and losers in the information economy - and reshaping the press to serve a more compliant, curated narrative.

Let’s be honest: there was a time when Canadians could disagree - passionately, publicly, and without fear of being de-platformed or discredited. Today, alternative viewpoints are quickly labeled as disinformation, even when they raise valid concerns. Satire is misinterpreted as hate. Criticism is treated as conspiracy. And media gatekeepers - many of them propped up by government funding - are the ones deciding who gets to speak.

What happens when the fourth estate stops questioning power and starts protecting it?

We end up here: a country where access to news is blocked, where government funding props up a failing press, and where dissent - once a proud pillar of democracy - is treated as a threat to unity.

When opposing viewpoints are systematically sidelined or distorted, honest public discourse stops being a marketplace of ideas - it becomes an echo chamber. Nuance is replaced by narratives; dissent is recast as disloyalty. In Canada today, we see this in action.

Rebel News, a legally recognized media outlet in Canada, has frequently been denied access to government media events, especially under Liberal administrations that perceive the outlet as peddling divisive rhetoric and conspiracy-laced narratives.

For example, ahead of the 2021 federal election, the Leaders’ Debate Commission refused Rebel News accreditation for both English and French debates - suggesting their work was not consistent with journalistic standards. The decision was later overturned by the Federal Court, which ruled that Rebel News had a right to ask questions in a democratic process. They are, after all, a new media outlet.

When Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre stated on January 22, 2025, “I’m not aware of any other genders than man and woman,” Canadian media, including public broadcaster CBC and national outlets, reacted swiftly. His comment was widely labeled as bigoted, narrow-minded, and even a potential threat to queer and trans communities. Coverage heavily emphasized the offensive tone, Poilievre’s facial expressions, and protests from transgender advocates, framing his stance as emblematic of a broader conservative attack on minority rights.

By contrast, shortly after becoming Prime Minister, Mark Carney was asked the same question - how many genders exist. He responded by affirming there are two and mentioning biological distinctions in context like changing rooms - virtual echoing of Poilievre’s point. But instead of condemnation, the media largely gave Carney a pass. Reports noted his acknowledgement of LGBTQ2S+ rights and emphasized his support as defender of Charter values.

The tone could not have been more different:

• Poilievre’s version was framed as offensive, fearing it might fuel “real-life consequences” for trans people.

• Carney’s version was reported matter-of-factly, with a focus on his broader commitment to LGBTQ2S+ protections and human rights.

This isn’t just about one repeated statement. It’s about how context, speaker identity, and media framing shape public perception. When the same basic claim - “only two genders” - is treated as hate under one politician and as measured opinion under another, we don’t have neutral reporting; we have an editorial stance. That asymmetry erodes trust, suppresses nuance, and narrows public space for genuine debate.

If we can’t have consistent coverage based on statements - and instead censor ideas based on who says them - then freedom of expression truly is under siege.

What Comes Next

This isn’t just a media issue. It’s a democracy issue.

In the next instalment of the Silencing A Nation series, I’ll examine how social media laws and speech regulations, such as Bills C-63 and C-18, are expanding the government’s role in policing not just what Canadians say - but who is allowed to say it.

Because if we lose the ability to speak freely, we lose the ability to think freely. And from there, everything else starts to crumble.

Ⓒ July 2025. Beki Lantos. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted in any form by any means without prior written permission of the author.