An Open Letter to The Hub: Take the Media Subsidies

Sean, Rudyard,

The Hub has tied itself into a knot on these media subsidies. On your podcast to subscribers and fellows today, you asked, quite candidly, what do your most invested stakeholders think you should do: How to untangle the knot?

The visceral tension makes total sense, if we examine the Hub’s very own words - we can see the origins of the dissonance.  From that page, we can note that you believe in economic competition, free markets, and free speech. Subsidies run afoul of these. They are anti-competitive, make the market markedly less free, and absolutely could lead to a path that puts free speech at risk. What’s more, they just feel icky. 

Let’s think about a similar ick - with a thought experiment: Would you criticize Pierre Poilievere if he took a floor crosser? Would supporters of the Conservative Party of Canada accept a floor crosser if it removed the Liberal majority? Probably not. They can still be against floor crossing generally while also accepting a floor crosser for practical purposes. Does that make them immoral? No. What else are they supposed to do? In other words, don’t hate the player, hate the game. 

Two things can be true. You can want floor crossing to end, propose or support a motion that forces byelections after defections, and also still benefit from one when it happens as it is within the bounds of the rules. It's no different than saying you want to tax everyone more, but want to pay as little tax as possible yourself. That's not hypocrisy. Those are cogent claims that can coexist. 

To be sure, let’s dive into the reasons that I can see why you want to refuse subsidies at this point in time.1.It feels immoral. 

It feels immoral because it is against your values. The implication though, if we follow this string, is that if they take subsidies, the entire Canadian news industry is immoral. But you don’t really believe that. Maybe you believe that there is an unbenign influence tipping the scales of coverage and fairness. But influence has always been a part of the media going back generations. Candidly, this is something you're going to just have to get over. It is the growing pains of running and scaling a successful business.

2. It’s accepting you’ve lost the argument. 

Listening to you discuss this on your pod, I think you’re already at this point. You are the last soldiers on the ramparts. You have fought valiantly. You acquitted yourselves well. Be proud of the fight. Rest easy knowing you did what you could. 

3. You're worried it will compromise your editorial integrity.  

This is the real crux of this discussion. How can you credibly analyze, criticize, discuss, and report on a government if they are actively paying you. Well, the Conservatives do it every day in question period.  

It is absolutely a real risk that subsidy money will influence the way your organization operates and some of the opinions you hold. But you know whether or not your internal culture is mature enough to handle that new subconscious (I hope) editorial input. There is absolutely risk there, only you know if you are strong enough to accept and manage that risk. 

While I would recommend making your choice on those grounds alone, here is my personal, biased take: The Hub has done everything reasonable and frankly possible to demonstrate that it won't let this impact its journalistic integrity. I am a Hub fellow, which isn't quite the same as being a shareholder, but it's about as close as one can get. I am a Hub fellow because the Hub has always been sober, realistic, and genuine about its business and its approach to media. 

There are things I disagree with you on and things I agree with you on. But what inspired me to pull out my credit card and become a fellow was a genuine feeling that there's something about The Hub that you just don't get with any other news organization. Your integrity shines through. It doesn't feel like you have a hidden agenda. The very fact that you're putting this question to your audience is in and of itself extremely salient and meaningful. From my vantage, that suggests that you are a group that can stick to its moral compass while also not being so proud to accept a little help. 

That’s why I believe The Hub should take the subsidy. I believe so because right now, you are fighting with one hand tied behind your back in order to try and stick to your mission. You should turn this around, and instead think of these subsidies as a way to enhance and stay true to your mission. When you are competing at a disadvantage, you will eventually lose your best people. Their self-interest and duty to their own families and careers will outpace their idealism and commitment to the organization. If you can give your employees a (well deserved) raise, put funds into advertising to spread your message, and invest in capital projects that build a strong foundation for your business, then that is in service of the higher goal. You can take the philosophical L on this one, and be better off in the long run. The Hub is still in its early stages, don’t deny it those essential nutrients while its bones are still growing. 

You can also always change your mind later. If you really want, you can keep track of what you’re taking from the feds, and plan to give it back or donate it down the road when you’ve climbed to the top of the media mountain.Moreover, the biggest problem with these subsidies might not be that they exist, the bigger problem is that very few Canadians actually understand what they are or that they are in place at all. I spoke with a 65-year-old physician today, someone who is informed about politics and the world. I asked if they knew the government was funding news organizations in this country. That person had no idea. So consider using some of the subsidy to socialize the fact that they exist at all. 

Educate the public. Make sure that citizens understand that their government is funding their news, and that there are potential conflicts of interest that can arise from that arrangement. This is not to accuse anyone or say that any particular rival organization is compromised. It is simply a call to inform Canadians. They deserve to know and that is entirely consistent with your mission.

This is agonizing, yes. It is a growing pain on the way to greatness. Sean and Rudyard, you have tied yourselves into a knot by sticking to your principles. It’s the kind of knot that gets tighter the more you struggle with it. 

Your self-described bywords are independence, free speech, and original thinking. These subsidies totally create tension with those values and your mission, but instead of looking at them as dissonant and detracting, you can leverage subsidies to promote your ideas and further your mission.

You believe in economic competition, so stay competitive. You aren’t cheating.  Keep pace with everyone else. You believe in free markets. But you understand, that you are not in one. No moral stand will change that. Meet the moment as it is, not as you would like it to be. You believe in free speech. Be honest with yourselves, determine if this will compromise that aspect of your publication. Put in quarterly checks to make sure that subsidies aren't preventing you from exercising the free speech of your staff and authors.

Fundamentally, you care about freedom. Fine. Stop worrying about untangling this Gordian knot. Be like Alexander, and just cut it. Use the subsidies to build the Hub bigger and better. When you do, and your influence expands, then you can revisit the conversation from a place of strength. 

You won’t lose sleep over this. Your integrity is intact. Take the money. 

Jacob Citron, Hub Fellow circa ‘24