Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Federal government’s latest media bailout another bad idea

Published

4 months ago

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

If the value of local radio stations, as measured by how much revenue they generate, is higher than the costs of running those stations, no subsidies are needed to keep them going. Conversely, if the costs are higher than the benefits, it doesn’t make sense to keep those radio stations on the air.

The governmentalization of the news media in Canada continues apace. According to a recent announcement by the Trudeau government, the “CRTC determined that a new temporary fund for commercial radio stations in smaller markets should be created.” Now, radio stations outside of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa-Gatineau will be eligible for taxpayer subsidies.

Clearly a bad idea. Firstly, there’s no obvious market failure the government will solve. If the value of local radio stations, as measured by how much revenue they generate, is higher than the costs of running those stations, no subsidies are needed to keep them going. Conversely, if the costs are higher than the benefits, it doesn’t make sense to keep those radio stations on the air.

The government said the new funding is “temporary” but as economists Milton and Rose Friedman famously observed, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Taxpayers may can reasonably expect that subsidies to local radio news stations will become an ongoing expense instead of a onetime hit to their wallets.

Indeed, the Trudeau government has a history of making temporary or “short-term” costs permanent. Before coming to power in 2015, the Liberals proposed “a modest short-term deficit” of less than $10 billion annually for three years; instead this fiscal year the Trudeau government is running its 10th consecutive budget deficit with the cumulative total of more than $600 billion.

Secondly, the governmentalization of media will likely corrupt it. Here again an observation from Milton Friedman: “Any institution will tend to express its own values and its own ideas… A socialist institution will teach socialist values, not the principles of private enterprise.” Friedman was talking about the public education system, but the observation applies equally to other sectors that the government increasingly exercises control over.

A media outlet that receives significant government funding is less likely to apply healthy skepticism to politicians’ claims of the supposed widespread benefits of their large spending initiatives and disbursements of taxpayer money. The media outlet’s internal culture will naturally lean more heavily towards government control than free enterprise.

Moreover, conflict of interest becomes a serious issue. To the extent that a media outlet gets its revenue from government instead of advertisers and listeners, its customer is the government—and the natural inclination is always to produce content that will appeal to the customer. Radio stations receiving significant government funding will have a harder time covering government in an unbiased way.

Finally, as a general rule, government support for an industry tends to discourage innovation, and radio and other media are no exception. When new companies and new business models enter a sector, the government should not through subsidies try to keep the incumbents afloat.

“The media, like any other business, continually evolves,” noted Lydia Miljan, professor of political science at the University of Windsor and a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, in a recent essay. “As each innovation enters the market, it displaces audiences for the legacy players. But does that innovation mean we should prop up services that fewer people consume? No. We allow other industries to adapt to new market conditions. Sometimes that means certain industries and companies close. But they are replaced with something else.”

To summarize—there are three major problems with the Trudeau government’s new fund for radio stations. First, it will impose costs on taxpayers that, despite the government’s label, may not be “temporary” and the compensating benefits will be lower than the costs. Second, increased government funding will damage the ability of those radio stations to cover the government with neutrality and healthy skepticism. And third, the new fund will discourage innovation and improvement in the media sector as a whole.

Author:

Matthew Lau
Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 2 hours ago

Canada may escape the worst as Trump declares America’s economic independence with Liberation Day tariffs

2025 Federal Election / 2 hours ago

‘I’m Cautiously Optimistic’: Doug Ford Strongly Recommends Canada ‘Not To Retaliate’ Against Trump’s Tariffs

Business / 3 hours ago

Trump says wave of reciprocal tariffs will go into effect at midnight

Alberta

Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith

Published on April 2, 2025

By

Premier Danielle Smith issued the following statement on the April 2, 2025 U.S. tariff announcement:

“Today was an important win for Canada and Alberta, as it appears the United States has decided to uphold the majority of the free trade agreement (CUSMA) between our two nations. It also appears this will continue to be the case until after the Canadian federal election has concluded and the newly elected Canadian government is able to renegotiate CUSMA with the U.S. administration.

“This is precisely what I have been advocating for from the U.S. administration for months.

“It means that the majority of goods sold into the United States from Canada will have no tariffs applied to them, including zero per cent tariffs on energy, minerals, agricultural products, uranium, seafood, potash and host of other Canadian goods.

“There is still work to be done, of course. Unfortunately, tariffs previously announced by the United States on Canadian automobiles, steel and aluminum have not been removed. The efforts of premiers and the federal government should therefore shift towards removing or significantly reducing these remaining tariffs as we go forward and ensuring affected workers across Canada are generously supported until the situation is resolved.

“I again call on all involved in our national advocacy efforts to focus on diplomacy and persuasion while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Clearly, this strategy has been the most effective to this point.

“As it appears the worst of this tariff dispute is behind us (though there is still work to be done), it is my sincere hope that we, as Canadians, can abandon the disastrous policies that have made Canada vulnerable to and overly dependent on the United States, fast-track national resource corridors, get out of the way of provincial resource development and turn our country into an independent economic juggernaut and energy superpower.”

Continue Reading

Business

Canada may escape the worst as Trump declares America’s economic independence with Liberation Day tariffs

Published on April 2, 2025

By

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

On Wednesday, President Trump declared a national emergency to implement a sweeping 10% baseline tariff on all imported goods, calling it a “Declaration of Economic Independence.” Trump said the tariffs would revitalize the domestic economy, declaring that, “April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn.”

Key Details:

  • The baseline 10% tariff will take effect Saturday, while targeted “reciprocal” tariffs—20% on the EU, 24% on Japan, and 17% on Israel—begin April 9th. Trump also imposed 25% tariffs on most Canadian and Mexican goods, as well as on all foreign-made cars and auto parts, effective early Thursday.

  • Trump justified the policy by citing foreign trade restrictions and long-standing deficits. He pointed to policies in Australia, the EU, Japan, and South Korea as examples of protectionist barriers that unfairly harm American workers and industries.

  • The White House estimates the 10% tariff could generate $200 billion in revenue over the next decade. Officials say the added funds would help reduce the federal deficit while giving the U.S. stronger leverage in negotiations with countries running large trade surpluses.

Diving Deeper:

President Trump on Wednesday unveiled a broad new tariff policy affecting every imported product into the United States, marking what he described as the beginning of a new economic era. Declaring a national emergency from the White House Rose Garden, the president announced a new 10% baseline tariff on all imports, alongside steeper country-specific tariffs targeting longstanding trade imbalances.

“This is our Declaration of Economic Independence,” Trump said. “Factories will come roaring back into our country — and you see it happening already.”

The tariffs, which take effect Saturday, represent a substantial increase from the pre-Trump average U.S. tariff rate and are part of what the administration is calling “Liberation Day” for American industry. Reciprocal tariffs kick in April 9th, with the administration detailing specific rates—20% for the European Union, 24% for Japan, and 17% for Israel—based on calculations tied to bilateral trade deficits.

“From 1789 to 1913, we were a tariff-backed nation,” Trump said. “The United States was proportionately the wealthiest it has ever been.” He criticized the establishment of the income tax in 1913 and blamed the 1929 economic collapse on a departure from tariff-based policies.

To underscore the move’s long-anticipated nature, Trump noted he had been warning about unfair trade for decades. “If you look at my old speeches, where I was young and very handsome… I’d be talking about how we were being ripped off by these countries,” he quipped.

The president also used the moment to renew his push for broader economic reforms, urging Congress to eliminate federal taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits. He also proposed allowing Americans to write off interest on domestic auto loans.

Critics of the plan warned it could raise prices for consumers, noting inflation has already risen 22% under the Biden administration. However, Trump pointed to low inflation during his first term—when he imposed more targeted tariffs—as proof his strategy can work without sparking runaway costs.

White House officials reportedly described the new baseline rate as a guardrail against countries attempting to game the system. One official explained the methodology behind the reciprocal tariffs: “The trade deficit that we have with any given country is the sum of all trade practices, the sum of all cheating,” adding that the tariffs are “half of what they could be” because “the president is lenient and he wants to be kind to the world.”

In addition to Wednesday’s sweeping changes, Trump’s administration recently imposed a 25% tariff on Chinese goods tied to fentanyl smuggling and another 25% on steel and aluminum imports—revoking previous carve-outs for countries like Brazil and South Korea. Future tariffs on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and raw materials such as copper and lumber are reportedly under consideration.

Trump closed his remarks with a message to foreign leaders: “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors… I say, ‘Terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers.’” He declared April 2nd “the day America’s destiny was reclaimed” and promised, “This will indeed be the golden age of America.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X