Article content continued

It would be scandalous to support such odious agitprop out of public funds. And yet to exclude it – to involve the government in rewarding publications it approves of and punishing those it does not – would be the greater scandal. Mind you, as there is no requirement to make public which organizations applied for funding, or which were rejected, or on what grounds, there will be no way of knowing if they did.

God knows we would be in no position to lecture anybody on conflict of interest

Worse would be the effect on those that did receive funding. So far as we were relieved of the obligation to find willing readers, we would become even more pompous and self-absorbed than we are already. As the beneficiaries of a bailout ourselves, we could never again criticize any other industry seeking to be rescued from its own mistakes. God knows we would be in no position to lecture anybody on conflict of interest.

For an industry whose chief shortage is less cash than credibility, this is a dire turn. The mere prospect of government funding has already opened us to accusations, on any occasion we are less than critical of the government, of singing for our supper. And not entirely without cause: whatever our claim to impartiality in other matters, there is no doubting our views on the supper.

If any such concerns occurred to the panel, they are not reflected in its report. Indeed, if anyone was under any illusion the bailout was intended to be a temporary or transitional measure, the report should dispel that. Far from merely advising on how the program should be run, it is full of suggestions for how it should be expanded.