(Version française disponible ici)
When I was a young journalist, my role was to share stories and create spaces where audiences learned about the world outside their everyday lives. Over the span of two decades, I had an inside view of an era when news organizations began making a concerted effort to diversify their newsrooms, recognizing they needed to broaden the communities they covered and the stories they told.
The media is not perfect, and mainstream news often continued to reflect mainstream Canada’s reality. But over the years, there has also been detailed coverage of crucial issues such as residential schools and the need for reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. Not everyone has agreed on the issues or potential solutions but the media has generally presented facts in a balanced way.
Today, that approach is threatened by social media, algorithms, and search results now shaped by artificial intelligence (AI). Independent media is losing its reach. It’s increasingly shut out by social media and its lucrative closed-thinking ecosystems, which are steadily becoming a prime source of news for many people.
But we need a free, strong media to build the kind of Canada where tough conversations lead to good policy and legislation that benefits us all. Important issues cannot be solved without open and public spaces where people can get accurate information, hear diverse views and have an open dialogue.
Reconciliation is one of the country’s most important efforts. For all Canadians to prosper, Indigenous Peoples also need to prosper. We need to level the playing fields and close the gaps in health, education and justice. And for that, we need a healthy media ecosystem.
The vital role of coverage
Consider the coverage of residential schools. The first stories from survivors were published or broadcast in the early 1990s. Not long after that, the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples confirmed those news reports.
Journalists – not just commissions and bureaucrats – then worked hard to uncover and share this tragic colonial legacy. The efforts of journalists to give voice to the voiceless and speak truth to power cannot be understated.
It is true that the coverage often reinforced stereotypes of Indigenous Peoples or focused on negative issues without the proper context.
Countering the threat of AI manipulation by authoritarian states
Who governs the digital sphere? How U.S. proxy lobbying erodes Canada’s digital sovereignty
AI threatens Indigenous data sovereignty and digital self-determination
But many stories were the result of journalists trying to understand the challenges these communities faced, to show the truth to the general public and to get it on the radar of elected leaders across the country to push them to make changes.
The credibility of these journalists, the people they spoke with, the research they did: it all helped to combat early denialism.
There is a significant body of research in public policy and media/communications fields that demonstrates how the sharing of news stories can help pressure elected officials and lead to changes in legislation and public policy.
This can be seen in the work of academics such as Carmen L. Robertson, Stuart Soroka, myself and many others. The bulk of this work is focused on the role of media before AI-generated searches and algorithm-influenced social apps, but it is extremely valuable for considering our current reality.
A perfect storm for news coverage
When social media companies arrived on the scene, the appeal was immediate. People could share user-generated and unfiltered content on any event in real time. It was also incredibly advantageous for news organizations.
They had a space where they could share links to their stories to drive traffic back to their websites. They could find sources, connect with a larger audience, generate greater conversations about issues, increase their reach and find new audiences.
But as social media sites further monetized their platforms, they became more sophisticated in their efforts to keep users engaged and engrossed rather than clicking away. Audiences clicked on fewer and fewer external links while social media companies shared mainstream media’s content without paying for it. Advertisers moved from traditional media to social media.
Media outlets then sought to get these social media giants to pay for the news they were using. In Canada, this resulted in the Online News Act (2023). Facebook and Instagram reacted by blocking all news stories from Canadian media outlets, mainstream and alternative alike.
Social media channels didn’t need help attracting users. They had their algorithms, feeding users content they will like, agree with or react to. That includes misinformation, disinformation, memes and reels. Profit, not the greater good, is the driver.
A further blow to news organizations has been the launch of AI-enabled search tools and AI summaries, which blend information from many sources, including social media, without the need for users to click through to news sites. Chatbots like ChatGPT and Gemini now casually answer questions by drawing on content amassed without permission.
For news organizations in Canada, it’s been a perfect storm: loss of audiences, clicks, and advertising revenue. For Canadians, it’s a loss of exposure to solid, meaningful reporting that properly informs them and can lead to serious research.
A lawsuit’s worst-case scenario
Copyright and compensation are one thing. But what happens when there are fewer or no journalists or quality media sites left for AI to even draw from?
Take the example of the unmarked graves discovered near former residential schools. Many Canadians were horrified when they heard about them, though these graves sites were well-known through Indigenous oral history, as well as the stories of survivors and those who worked in the schools. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report in 2015 discussed their existence.
Yet, there are people who still deny these graves exist, and they are easy to find in search. For example, I searched the words: “Are Indian residential school graves real?” The first hit I got was titled: “No evidence of ‘mass graves’ or ‘genocide’ in residential schools.”
But when I prompted AI Mode – Google’s AI-powered search tool – it came back with: “Yes, graves at residential sites are real, including many that are unmarked.” The results drew on solid reporting and other trusted sources.
In 2024, several news outlets, including CBC/Radio-Canada, Postmedia, The Globe and Mail, The Canadian Press, Metroland and Torstar, launched a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement for sharing their information in answers to users’ questions.
If OpenAI loses, the suit will put a stop to the free use. In a best-case scenario, OpenAI would compensate media sources for their content and continue using it.
However, given the Facebook example, it is more likely that ChatGPT would exclude trusted media sites in the information it rounds up for users, ignoring the fair, high-quality and balanced news stories they produce.
If this happens, people will be exposed to fewer news outlets that have actual standards and practices – invaluable sources we need for strong democracies and informed citizens.
Who will challenge beliefs?
It is difficult to predict what this changing media landscape mean for reconciliation and the very real debate over the lack of progress around it.
But with ever-shrinking newsrooms, how will Canadians even continue to have this conversation amid the rise of AI and the Facebook news ban? Who will be in the audience? Who will challenge misinformation, disinformation, or the sponsored content that promotes only one particular view?
Social media algorithms are designed to make users comfortable. They reinforce their beliefs and never challenge assumptions because the status quo keeps users’ eyes on their screens and their credit cards at the ready.
But having difficult conversations is essential. Trusted media and accurate reporting are essential. People need joy in their lives, but they also need to be well-informed enough to feel outrage and shock and to be curious.
