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

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts