Canadian research finds that, no, government support doesn’t skew news | The Free Press Initiative

Published 11:00 am Tuesday, August 4, 2026

Canadian journalist turned professor Chris Arsenault just proved two things.

One is that some of the best article ideas come from spirited conversations with friends during a barbecue.

At one of these events, Arsenault mentioned to pals that some of his students were getting jobs funded by government grants. That prompted a discussion of whether those reporters would pull punches and weaken government coverage.

“Instinctively these folks were like, ‘yeah, I don’t like the sound of that, of the government funding reporters. Aren’t you guys supposed to be independent’ and that kind of thing,” he said.

The friends asked a legitimate question. It’s also one that comes up often as state and federal governments consider subsidies to help sustain a local-news industry that’s considered a public good and essential to a healthy democracy.

My usual answer is that in the U.S., the press has been subsidized in various ways since the nation was founded without compromising its independence. That began with the Postal Act of 1792 that subsidized delivery of newspapers and continues with tax breaks and other programs that have benefited most every newspaper and broadcaster.

One of the fiercest government watchdogs is now the nonprofit investigative outlet ProPublica. Like every nonprofit, it’s subsidized by the government, which waives its tax obligation in return for public benefit it provides.

The question remains, though, especially as governments do more to preserve a news industry battered by economic and technological disruption.

Arsenault set out to provide a more definitive answer.

A second-generation journalist and veteran correspondent, he’s worked for Thomson Reuters, Al Jazeera and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Two years ago he joined Western University in London, Ontario, where he’s an assistant professor and chair of its Master of Media in Journalism & Communication program.

Arsenault promptly began researching whether government funding skews news coverage.

Canada is a good place to do that work. Since 2019 it provided more than $128 million Canadian in grants to support civic reporting, through its Local Journalism Initiative.

Arsenault surveyed reporters funded by these grants and none could name an instance in which they wanted to pursue a story but couldn’t, or had to change the framing of their story.

“Not one could point to any actual conflict,” he said.

He did find that roughly two-thirds of reporters were concerned that grant money could create perceptions of a conflict.

A greater risk was conflict with advertisers, which at some smaller papers led to pressure on reporters.

Results were published in a July 22 article in Journalism Practice.

“The study found no evidence of local journalists deciding not to produce stories critical of government based on receiving this funding, but it did find several examples of advertiser interference in local watchdog coverage,” the article states.

Arsenault said it’s important to note the research is based on surveys of “almost exclusively, very localized reporters working for small-town newspapers, the kind of feedstock of democracy, the first step in the news ecosystem.”

Asked if the research might ease concerns about government funding, Arsenault said he actually thinks skepticism of that and any other funding source is healthy.

“So far this program, based on my research, hasn’t led to direct conflicts of interest, or critical coverage getting spiked or not getting done,” he said. “But I think the concerns about this funding stream are legitimate. Just like I think the concerns about advertising funding are legitimate, just like the concerns about Big Tech’s influence on the information ecosystem are legitimate.”

Too much dependency on a single funder is risky.

Arsenault favors outlets being funded by a mix of revenues, including advertising, subscriptions, grants and government support.

“I think if you are drawing from a bunch of different pools, you build up the foundation of the industry in a stronger way, and each one of those pillars or scaffolding means that the industry and the journalists on the coalface of it are less likely to have their independence compromised by any one of those things,” Arsenault said.

That’s basically the current model for local news businesses, now that tech companies get most advertising dollars.

Ideally government support will be a short-term bridge, until the news business recovers. For now, though, more is needed to save what’s left.

The article said Canada’s experience provides principles for designing policies “to safeguard democratic information ecosystems without compromising journalistic integrity.”

“Arm’s-length governance with diversified, industry-led administration is essential to prevent capture by any single political or corporate interest,” it said.

Transparency requirements are also necessary, including funding disclosures, public reporting of grant decisions and access to subsidized content. It said this transparency becomes a mechanism of accountability.

Lastly, the article said funding should prioritize civic impact and not output volume. That was in response to problematic quantity quotas used by Canada’s program that “risk incentivizing ‘churnalism’ at the expense of investigative depth.”

Wonky details probably won’t convince skeptics around the barbecue, or policymakers wary of funding the media.

But as Arsenault said, that skepticism is healthy. Instead of blocking policies, it should make them better. It should push legislators to design programs that clearly provide no opportunity to influence coverage or disproportionately benefit preferred outlets.

It’s also reassuring that reporters are so concerned about the appearance of conflicts of interest. That should add to their determination to prove their independence by aggressively reporting on government.

I’m also glad to hear that people care so much about this issue.

People may distrust “the media,” read fewer newspapers and even believe the unhinged rants of First Amendment-trampling politicians. But the skeptics still want the news reported without fear or favor.

Canada’s journalism grants aren’t perfect and more research is needed into the effect of such programs.

But Arsenault makes a strong case that well-designed, public support isn’t making reporters beholden to the government, compromising their independence or letting any politicians off easy.

Keep on grilling.

This is excerpted from the free, weekly Voices for a Free Press newsletter. Sign up to receive it at the Save the Free Press website. Seattle Times’ Brier Dudley is the editor of the Free Press Initiative, which aims to inform the public about issues facing newspapers, local news coverage, and a free press. You can learn more about the Free Press Initiative, or sign up for a newsletter, at https://company.seattletimes.com/save-the-free-press/.