When Poilievre takes Radio-Canada for a piñata

It is an obsession that often wins over politicians. When they are told “Radio-Canada”, they see a pinata.

Unsurprisingly, Pierre Poilievre is the last in line to take out his stick.

In an interview this week with host Patrick Masbourian, the Conservative Party leadership candidate reiterated his desire to cut funding for CBC, the English-language component of the public broadcaster.

“CBC is a big waste of money,” he said. Everything CBC does is already done by the private market. […] When I see CBC news, for example in Washington, what CBC publishes is exactly what we see on CNN. »

Certainly aware of Quebeckers’ greater attachment to their public broadcaster, Mr. Poilievre said he wanted to spare “RDI” (we don’t know if he really meant the continuous information network or the entire French-language component of Radio Canada).

In any case, this umpteenth attack against the public broadcaster is to be denounced.

Done with shortcuts, it denotes a disturbing misunderstanding of the media universe on the part of a man who aspires to lead the country. It also comes at a funny time.

The war in Ukraine shows the importance of having strong media groups, capable of deploying people on the ground to bear witness to the atrocities committed. Both CBC and Radio-Canada have correspondents in Ukraine, and no other Canadian broadcaster has a permanent office in Moscow.

If the pandemic has illustrated one thing, it is also how the disinformation relayed by social networks can have serious consequences. Radio-Canada is not the only bulwark against these abuses. But it is certainly an essential brick.

It’s not yesterday that we tap on Radio-Canada for the pleasure of the crowds. The reflex is often associated with conservatives, not without reason. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper slashed the budgets of the Crown corporation. His successor Andrew Scheer wanted Radio-Canada to limit itself to “Canadian coverage”.

After him, Erin O’Toole described the state corporation as “out of control”.

We forget, however, that it was the Liberal Jean Chrétien who dealt it the hardest blows, imposing drastic cuts of $400 million in 1995.

The thesis that Canadians spend too much on CBC/Radio-Canada does not, however, hold water. Its public funding amounts to $33 per capita, much less than in almost all comparable countries.

The British, for example, spend $104 per capita each year on the BBC. The French, $79 at France Télévisions. Germany, Switzerland and the Nordic countries invest even more.

Mr. Poilievre is right to say that francophones particularly need to have news, public affairs and cultural programs in their language. But to say that English-speaking Canadians only have to watch CNN to get informed is incredibly stupid.

CNN is an American network, which looks at things through an American prism. In fact, English-speaking Canadians face the obvious danger of drowning in American media culture. Hence the importance of a strong Canadian public broadcaster.

By affirming that the private media can replace Radio-Canada, Mr. Poilievre also forgets the importance of the plurality of voices in journalism. A plurality that takes for its cold since Facebook, Google and the others have seized the majority of the advertising pie.

According to The Local News Research Project, no less than 250 Canadian media organizations closed their doors in Canada between 2008 and 2018¹. The pandemic has caused at least 67 additional closures².

That we intelligently discuss the orientations and budgets of Radio-Canada, which uses 1.3 billion in public funds annually, is perfectly legitimate. But throwing darts at the circular logo of the state corporation without solid arguments, with the sole aim of pleasing a section of the population who no longer trusts the media, is a dangerous game.