Poliviere’s Distaste for traditional media: Will it work in the long run?

Patrick Gossage • November 2, 2023

The Leader of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, Pierre Poilievre is well known for avoiding traditional print, radio and TV media represented by the Parliamentary Press gallery. In fact, the most durable part of this national platform which gets cheering support whenever he speaks is a promise to defund the best staffed media group of them all, the CBC – not Radio Canada but CBC English. At times he has even refused to take questions from CBC reporters. His preferred direct-to-Canadians avenue for his well-developed anti-Trudeau views is his finely produced YouTube mini documentaries and social media feeds. 

Yet, Angus Reid Institute polled our news consumption habits in July showed an ongoing decline in use of traditional media, but nevertheless showed its ongoing influence: “…as recently as 2016, two-in-five (42%) Canadians said they read a print publication daily for their news. Now that figure has halved (19%). Television (71% to 52%) and radio news (57% to 45%) have also declined in prominence, though they remain important sources of information for majorities of Canadians over the age of 54. In their place, nearly all (89%) Canadians turn to the internet for news.” 


So, TV and online is where it is at despite the threats from Google and Facebook to block Canadian news as a response to the government’s attempt to force them to pay news outlets for using their material. Fear not, Poilievre's powerful well-crafted clips always make the evening and national TV news even if he rarely scrums with reporters. Admittedly the clarity and force of his TV personality contrasts with Trudeau’s more complex and diffuse manner of answering questions or performing in the house. 


Questions remain about the long-term effectiveness of this strategy. The first relates to which news organizations actually can set the political agenda. There is no doubt that the veteran, well-staffed bureaus of the Globe and Mail, Star, Canadian Press and CBC and CTV wield an out-of-proportion influence in setting the political agenda, whether the breaking of the SNC Lavalin affair or the influence of the Chinese. It is also their reporters who comment on widely watched daily political broadcasts. For Poilievre's office to ignore this fact is to cede to the Liberal’s their strategic use of these influencers. When I was in the Prime Minister's Office, I quickly became aware of the enormous national reach of Canadian Press (CP) into every newsroom in Canada. We advantaged them whenever we could, ensuring they were well briefed or even got valuable interview opportunities.  Poilievre ignores CP.


Another question relates to how Poilievre interacts with journalists when he in his irregular media availabilities. It goes without saying that Ottawa journalists don’t particularly like him, or Trudeau for that matter. But in Poilievre's case their distrust has a lot to do with his ill thought out and outspoken views, and thin policy solutions, not the least of which is endless blaming the Bank of Canada and Trudeau’s overspending for the crisis in affordability. Not only that, he has engaged in direct media baiting. This is the recent subject of a whole opinion article by the influential Globe and Mail columnist and television commentator Andrew Cohen. The video of him nonchalantly eating an apple while a local reporter stumbles through accusatory questions such as, “people say you are taking a page out of Trump’s book” to which Poilievre retorts “which people?” and so on, thereby demolishing the journalist. It has gone viral. The poor journalist becomes a “media baiting prop” as Cohen says.


It’s a given that in political media relations which I practiced, a government has an advantage in denying the opposition – the government can actually announce new policies that affect people’s lives like the three year moratorium on heating fuel carbon tax. Nevertheless, there are proven ways of turning confrontational interviews to one’s advantage without demeaning the questioner. I had notable success with the grouchy BC TV personality the late Jack Webster. The gruff Scotsman’s morning TV show had a huge audience and I persuaded Pierre Trudeau that it could be a good experience if he set out to enjoy it and humour him. It worked and my boss’s bemused asking of Jack’s first tough parry “Jack do you really believe that?” set the tone. He became a regular whenever we were out west. 


The elder Trudeau became a patient professor when asked a tough question, taking the journalist into his thinking. This would be a good lesson for his son, who is regularly nontransparent and vague in his answers. I tried to teach his father to have respect for the serious journalists of which there are always several. And in years of training politicians and businessmen for media appearances, I always advised them to listen seriously to the question and respect where it was coming from, even if I also advised them to bridge to key messages. 


I was also convinced that if you did not treat the Ottawa press gallery with respect, the gang mentality could turn against you and help defeat you – which it did in its mockery of Joe Clark. If I was advising Poilievre I would take seriously veteran Star columnist Robin Sears who said that his media bashing and CBC threats “…is a very dark hole that Poilievre is taking his party down…Attacks on Canadian journalists so far are mainly restricted to insults and death threats on social media. Inciting hate for the media makes it a small step for an enraged partisan to act on those threats.” In June, National Post’s Michael Taube compared coverage by major media of the four by-elections that split between Liberals and Conservatives and concluded that the media couldn‘t wait for Poilievre to fail. Poilievre is unlikely to get many breaks from influential national media and over time this could affect public perceptions. 


Radio and television producers still are influenced in their choices of guests and news lineups by what the national print and TV are featuring. You either are attuned to their world or you’re not. Poilievre is not and in the end it could cost him. His distaste for traditional media signals a major change in how a would-be PM interacts with them, and in the long run could benefit Trudeau.   

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

By Patrick Gossage July 7, 2025
When I was at university in the sixties, it was easy to love being Canadian. Patriotism was easy in the era of Pearson, peacekeeping and his Nobel Prize. He introduced defining landmark social programs like the Canada Pension Plan and universal health care. He also was crucial in launching the new Canadian flag, promoting bilingualism, and fostering a more inclusive immigration policy. His government got into the business of Canadian cultural promotion with the establishment of Telefilm Canada in 1967 to fund Canadian filmmakers. (The crown corporation, the National Film Board, was established in 1939.) The Pearson era went out with a proud Canadian bang at Expo67. Canada was prosperous, our identities, either largely British and French, were secure. The writer and philosopher George Grant, put it this way: “English speaking Canadians have been called a dull and costive lot. In these dynamic days, such qualities are particularly unattractive to the chic. Yet our stodginess has made us a society of greater simplicity, formality, and perhaps even innocence than the people to the south.” This is the society in which most anglo seniors today grew up. Not chic, looking with some envy at the glamour of Hollywood and Broadway, but modest and content. But the seeds of change were there. In Toronto. Italian and Portuguese laborers were being brought in to build subways and suburbs. Canada was about to add to the core French and English culture, and value assumptions far more diverse, and multicultural influences. Multiculturalism became official government policy in 1988. In his speech to the House of Commons, Trudeau stated that no singular culture could define Canada, and that the government accepted “the contention of other cultural communities that they, too, are essential elements in Canada.” A policy of multiculturalism was implemented to promote and respect cultural diversity, and to in fact fund ethnic efforts to preserve and develop their cultures within Canadian society, the opposite of the US “melting pot” objective. Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms officially recognizes multiculturalism as a Canadian value. In a 1971 speech in Winnipeg to a Ukrainian audience, Trudeau said: “What could be more absurd than the concept of an “all Canadian boy or girl! “ Trudeau greatly enlarged the makeup of the body of immigrants by expanding the ‘family class’. In 1978 immigration act changes allowed new Canadians to sponsor their parents of any age. Those from less-developed nations found this particularly appealing. Trudeau senior’s major accomplishment which ensured the protection of all minority rights was the repatriation of our constitution woth the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Now In Canada, approximately 23.0% of the population are first-generation immigrants, meaning they were born outside of Canada. This figure represents the highest proportion of immigrants in Canada in 150 years and is the highest among G7 countries. Over half of our population are either of English or French heritage. The torch of openness to refugees and immigrants and “diversity is our strength” has been taken up by Justin Trudeau in a big way. He told the New York Times Magazine in October 2014 that Canada could be the “first post national state”. He added: “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” Many would argue that, yes, there is a core set of Canadian values. Often not recognized, they are regularly reflected in government policies. They set us apart from the United States, form part of our identity, and enrich our life experiences. Pearson and the Trudeaus have been instrumental in implementing Liberal values, ensuring equality of opportunity across the country and that no minority is trampled on. Foremost is universal publicly funded health care, whatever its problems. His son will be remembered for the Canadian Child benefit which today grants parents up to over $6,000 per child, which greatly reduced child poverty and $10 a day daycare. Justin Trudeau also launched publicly funded denticare and started a pharmacare program. Recipients of these programs obviously see them as essential parts of being Canadian. The generally shared values of Canadians include the importance of collective wellbeing, co-operation and social equality and a belief that active governments can improve our lives. Justin Trudeau’s self-declared “feminism” and his making cabinet one half women showed a dedication to equal rights for women which he tirelessly promoted. He was forever promoting the value of “diversity is our strength”. We genuinely welcome immigrants and show a high degree of tolerance for differences. Perhaps the best indication of this is the late seventies welcoming of over 60,000 Vietnamese boat people. As well, after 2015, over 44,000 government and privately sponsored Syrian refugees were settled and helped to establish themselves in Canada. Prime Minister Trudeau personally welcomed the first arrival in Toronto. While seemingly uncontrolled immigration of foreign students and refugees has become more controversial recently, it is accepted that we need immigrants, and the flow is now more rationally controlled. His father also ruled over a Canada that was very pro-Canadian and even anti American – not hard when the United States was immersed in the nightmare of Vietnam. He was well aware of the dangers signaled by George Grant in Lament for a Nation, which predicted the virtual integration of the Canadian and US economies. He established the Foreign Investment Review Agency to break the wholesale takeover of Canadian businesses by US firms. He established Petro Canada to get a window into the largely foreign owned oil and gas sector. And his government was very active in supporting and encouraging Canadian culture. The CRTC mandated Canadian content on our airwaves, spawning a healthy music industry. His son substantially increased funding for the public broadcaster CBC. Then in 1988 came a major shift in our identity and sovereignty. Prime Minister Mulroney wanted a free trade deal with the US and John Turner, the defeated Liberal leader, finally found his voice: “I will not let Brian Mulroney sell out our sovereignty. I will not let this great nation surrender its birthright. I will not let Brian Mulroney destroy a 120-year-old dream called Canada, and neither will Canadians”. But Turner lost, and a new deal sealed the situation we are in today with over 70% of our exports going stateside and Trump determined to wage economic warfare with a country he feels does not have a right to exist and should be the 51 st state: “Economically we have such power over Canada.” In fact, we have inadvertently given him “all the cards” as Trump likes to say. Turner might well say from the grave, “I told you so!” Sovereignty means more than building our own economy more independent of the United States. It means rebuilding the pride we have as Canadians and actually knowing and cherishing its values so different from those south of us. And this seems to be happening ironically, thanks to Trump’s trumpeting us as a 51 st state. Flags are everywhere and as we celebrate our 158 th birthday there is a new patriotism bursting out across the nation. The national anthem is being enthusiastically sung by audiences at all sorts of gatherings and performances. And worry as we may about the diverse cultures and beliefs of the hundreds and thousands of immigrant adults from every corner of the Globe, we know their children going to public schools will become knowledgeable, committed Canadians. There is a Canadian soul which will not be destroyed.
Doug Ford in a suit and tie is talking into a microphone
By Patrick Gossage June 11, 2025
Who is the is the real Doug Ford? Is it the smiling man walking beside Premier of Alberta Danielle Smith into the meeting of the Premiers with the PM intoning “love is in the air”(!) or the inept initiator of the Green Belt scandal which sold protected land to his developer friends – for which he apologized while reversing the order?
More Posts