On August 8, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre made an appearance in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont., that enraged journalists.
A Niagara Now reporter asked Poilievre about federal government-funded journalism initiatives. Poilievre said he’d repeal them, and urged media outlets to take care of themselves. The outlet later published an editorial calling Poilievre a liar and criticizing his comments, which was applauded by many journalists and Liberal MPs and staffers.
This skirmish continues the war between those who benefit from the Trudeau government’s media bailout programs and its opponents, including Big Tech companies and the Conservative Party.
The Maple has been in a unique position amidst this conflict due to choices we’ve made that have seemed commendable to some and foolish to others. I want to explain these choices now, how they may benefit us under a Poilievre government and why our spot in the industry is something we’re proud of — but need help to maintain.
The Perks And Drawbacks Of Our Funding Model
The Maple is 100 per cent funded by readers becoming members and/or making one-time donations. We don’t run ads, we refuse donations from anything bigger than an individual, we’ve never applied for government funding, grants or journalism tax breaks, and haven’t ever sought money from Big Tech. With more than 4,600 recurring paying members, The Maple is, to the best of my knowledge, the largest 100 per cent reader funded publication on the left in Canada.
Being exclusively reader-funded means we have an organic support base and are accountable solely to it. This has helped us gain reader trust and genuine editorial freedom. We publish what we want, constrained only by budget and legal considerations. Perhaps the greatest benefit of our funding model is that we have few pressure points. Sure, powerful forces in Canada that fear our work could try to convince our members to cut their support, but the majority of our readers detest these groups. These forces could also try to employ law-fare to shut us down, but that could happen to anyone. Outside of that, there’s not much they can do to us. The same is not true of many other publications.
For example, media outlets that enjoy government subsidies have had to apply for them. Their opponents could organize to pressure the government into cutting funding. We saw this happen with the Community Media Advocacy Centre in 2022, which had a $122,000 contract with the government rescinded after one of its senior consultants was targeted for comments made online.
The same is true of Big Tech, corporate donors and advertisers, few of which are willing to stand up to sustained political pressure. A clear recent example of this is the government and corporate sponsorship withdrawal from Capital Pride due to a statement it made.
Any one of these sources cutting funding could wreak havoc on a publication.
The Maple’s relative lack of pressure points has been especially useful throughout Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Israel lobby groups are perhaps the most eager and effective initiators of political pressure campaigns. We’ve published many articles about these groups, but have yet to be the target of any sustained effort by them to eliminate us. We suspect that’s because of the way we’re structured and funded. On the one occasion a couple years ago when I was targeted, all they could call for was for Twitter to ban me. They had nowhere else to press.
Another benefit of our funding model is that our existence does not depend on a political party or who is in power. While we care deeply about who runs Canada, it does not directly impact us in the same way as publications that have benefited greatly under the Trudeau government and potentially stand to lose a lot should it be voted out.
The current federal government funds and operates a wide range of journalism subsidy programs. In addition, in June, Google signed a deal with the newly formed Canadian Journalism Collective to distribute $100 million annually to eligible news outlets. More than 1,500 outlets applied to get a share. Google has also been giving money to outlets for years in other ways, as has Meta. These are just a few examples.
The overwhelming majority of sizeable publications in Canada, across the political spectrum, rely in some part on these and/or other programs, or have applied for them. Seriously, think of nearly any publication in the country, and you’ll find it’s receiving at least some portion of its funding from these sources, if not the majority.
As such, we feel isolated in the industry amidst the ongoing debate about journalism subsidies, and there are some clear ways we’ve been hurt by our decisions.
At the most basic level, we’re missing out on a significant amount of money for a publication with two editorial employees. For example, successfully applying for Google’s new program could earn us about $34,000 annually, while the government’s journalism labour program could get us a 25 per cent tax credit on our salaries.
Less revenue means lower pay, as well as a reduced capability to hire people, commission freelancers and start projects. This could also impact our ability to attract members, as publications who do take the money can use it to improve and consequently generate more organic support. Additionally, not being able to hand out tax credits for memberships has meant some readers have chosen to support a publication that can.
We’re also being hurt by the consequences of government decisions that other outlets support.
For example, in 2023 the government implemented the Online News Act in an attempt to force Big Tech companies to pay media outlets for users sharing its stories. Google initially refused to pay, and said it would rather remove Canadian content from its platform. This would have hurt all journalism outlets in Canada. It eventually changed its mind by agreeing to finance the subsidy mentioned above, $0 of which will go to us.
However, Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, has not given in. As a result, any content from Canadian news outlets posted to these platforms can’t be viewed in Canada. This has had a major impact on traffic for many publications, but the vast majority of them may benefit from an eventual settlement with Meta. We won’t.
To make things worse, Meta’s move may be doing more damage to us than other publications at this point. Meta blocking our articles means less traffic for us, which means fewer readers signing up for our mailing list, which means fewer people becoming members, which ultimately means less reader funding. Because reader funding is our only source of funding, the threat could become an existential one.
Support Reader-Funded Media
This article wasn’t written to disparage the publications I’ve referenced, and I hope they don’t take it that way. I’m sure they had good reason to apply for the funding they’ve received, and have thought through the implications of doing so.
Instead, I write this in part as a call for readers who have enjoyed our work to become members, which is the best way to support us, or to at least make a donation. What we publish is only possible due to people who have already made this decision, so we’d deeply appreciate it if you’d consider doing the same. If you already have, thank you.
As the possibility of a Poilievre government becomes more likely, it seems that the main contradiction between the press and the potential future prime minister will be cuts to journalism funding. This is a worthwhile fight, but I hope readers remember that we don’t stand to benefit from it, at least in any direct sense.
The title of this article questions how we’ll survive a Poilievre government. The simple answer is that it will be the same way we’ve survived the Trudeau government: building, maintaining and expanding a reader base that trusts us and values our work enough to pay for it.
This daily struggle won’t get the sort of attention a high-level battle against Poilievre for journalism subsidies will, but we think it’s an important one. If you do too, consider becoming a member. In doing so, you’ll help fund us and simultaneously give a vote of confidence to a liberated model of journalism.
Member discussion