“Should the government get involved?”

It’s a question that’s been floating around ever since Canadian journalism decided to spiral down into a black hole of unemployment and goodbye columns. The argument: the loss of print media will create a void where important stories will go, along with the very basis of democracy—accessible information and accountability. And while the Paul Godfreys of the industry don’t seem to care, government and journalism have always been implicitly tied together in an “it’s complicated” relationship—they need us to inform voters; we need them to make news.

The government should get involved, say many, or at least start an investigation to inquire into the ethical nature of this black hole. “The crisis in journalism is too important to be left to a laissez-faire approach,” says Lawrence Martin in a column for The Globe and Mail. “What good is a new voting system if the voters don’t have the information on which to make an informed decision?”

Yet, at the same time, “the Internet has blown away whatever feeble ideological reeds underpinned the leftist view of corporate control of newspapers as contraptions of power,” writes Terence Corcoran in a column for the National Post. To all the calls for government subsidies, Corcoran writes,”No thanks.”

Both sides of the argument are much too dramatic—cries of panic in moments of despair that have yet to end. First, there is no proof that government subsides can help a dying print news industry. Second, journalists are watchdogs, not lapdogs. Third, while the massive job cuts in newsrooms are nightmare-inducing, entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well, as can be seen in the work done by Buzzfeed Canada, Vice Canada and their friends south of the border. Lastly, when news has branched out to multiple formats and mediums, subsidies would only be hindering innovation and progress in an industry begging for it.

I’m not suggesting that the option for government subsidy be taken off the table completely. It’s just that there is an opportunity here for change—change that no one is considering. The industry is looking outward at a moment when it should be looking inward. What should be a light bulb for innovation is instead a dying fire signalling help from the government.

It’s been nearly a month since the federal election, and journalists are still feuding over editorial endorsements. To recap, Postmedia CEO Paul Godfrey forced all of the chain’s papers to endorse the Conservative Party of Canada. Former National Post editorials and comment editor Andrew Coyne wrote a column endorsing another party and resigned from his position as an editor after he was barred from publishing the article.

On November 9, Torstar chair John Honderich wrote an article in the Toronto Star arguing that “Postmedia let down readers by dictating election endorsements.” Honderich responded to an earlier claim from Godfrey stating, “Since God made babies, I think [endorsement editorials] were always made that way” by arguing, “No one can dispute the tradition of an individual publisher or owner calling the election shots for their local paper. Godfrey did that regularly when he was publisher of the Toronto Sun. But to dictate the choice across an entire chain–and nation. That is an entirely different tale.”

Honderich writes:

“The firestorm of criticism on social media, the rumours of discontent in Postmedia newsrooms and even a damning story in Britain’s Guardian newspaper all reflect a pervasive discontent [regarding Godfrey’s decision]. Even more worrisome is the negative impact this affair is having on the newspaper industry in general. At a time when the relevance and impact of newspapers are under attack, this doesn’t help.”

The ongoing feud continued today with an article by Financial Post editor Terence Corcoran calling for the Star to “step off its high horse.” Corcoran starts his column by complaining that the Star doesn’t have the same bias as the Post. After accusing the Star of flirting with “Stalinist Russia” over the years, Corcoran gets to his main point, which is to accuse Honderich of hypocrisy.

Corcoran argues that Honderich’s argument against Godfrey’s forced endorsement is hypocritical because Honderich supports owners determining editorial endorsements for their local paper. Corcoran does have a point, as an owner determining the content of their paper limits autonomy of editors and other staff regardless of whether it is done at a local or national level.

At the same time, imposing your will on one newspaper does significantly less damage than imposing it on 16 newspapers scattered throughout the country. As such, while Honderich is wrong to say that Godfrey’s decision was “entirely different” from his own, he is right to point out the varying implications of each decision.

Although the columns from both Corcoran and Honderich are relatively self-serving, they are useful because they will spark discourse on the way newspapers in Canada are operated. The fact that these debates are being conducted in public, for readers to digest, is especially important and a trend that should continue.