Canadian community foundations rally to support local news, calling it essential to democracy
But I did find plenty of news from down south. While the erosion of democracy in the United States is something to pay attention to, some news outlets appear to be capitalizing on its sensational aspects.
When Donald Trump and Elon Musk get into an online fistfight, local news can seem like the less glamorous cousin.
But there's really not much we can do about American democracy.
Still, U.S. media reports have contributed to news burnout. Many Canadians are tuning out from their regular news sources. Forty per cent of Canadians responding to a survey from the 2025 Reuters Digital News Report said they were sometimes or often avoiding the news, as compared to 28 per cent eight years earlier.
Hearing about problems we can't do much about is disempowering, according to a study on solutions journalism. Researchers found that readers who were treated as active civic participants rather than passive consumers felt more empowered.
The news about my kid's school is something that profoundly impacts my family. And I can do something about it, at least in theory. I can attend public meetings and organize my neighbours to take a stand, in hopes of affecting the outcome of the discussions.
Local news can help me do that. It's the very stuff that can help rebuild frayed community ties and mis- and disinformation. Without access to quality local news, malicious entities can more easily step into communities with misinformation designed to sway or mislead.
Voter turnout is higher in places with more newspapers. Local journalists act as news brokers, ensuring the flow of information, which is essential to fulfilling the information needs of communities. We know that when less local news is present, communities become more polarized, and that polarization leads to increased sharing of misinformation.
But local news is increasingly in trouble. Local news outlets are closing - 566 across Canada, to be precise, between 2008 and April 2025. That's compared to the 283 that opened and remain in operation in that same period, according to the Local News Research Project.
My recent report for The Canadian Philanthropy Partnership Research Network, "In Defense of the Local: How Community Foundations Across Canada are Supporting Local News" describes an increasingly popular way to support these local news outlets.
Through case studies, I documented - along with my research assistant, Jessica Botelho-Urbanski, and supported by our research team at OCADU - the early signs of a growing movement of Canadian community foundations supporting local journalism.
Community foundations across Canada are becoming ever more aware that many of the issues they care about, like building just and sustainable communities, are connected to the availability of local journalism.
And some communities are starting to fund their local news outlets.
For example, the Toronto Foundation made a rare, 10-year commitment to support The Local , a non-profit news outlet founded in 2019 that describes itself as "unabashedly Toronto, reporting from corners of the city that are too often ignored or misunderstood."
Sharon Avery, Toronto Foundation's president and CEO, says the organization hadn't spent much time prioritizing journalism because "the dots have not been connected ...that a healthy local journalism equals a healthy community." But she grew convinced of the essential links between local news and democracy, and realized local news is a powerful tool.
The Winnipeg Foundation has been interested in local news for a while. Most recently, it funded the salary for one reporter, shared between Winnipeg's The Free Press , a major local newspaper, and The Narwhal , an environmentally focused digital news startup that had been looking to expand its coverage in the Prairies.
This kind of collaboration can improve the quality of work produced while also increasing the attention garnered by the resulting journalism in a way that is truly a win-win for all partners.
All of this is happening alongside government support, delivered through solutions like the Local Journalism Initiative, which funds journalists to report on under-covered topics, and the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit, which covers a portion of salaries of eligible journalists.
Our report also includes recommendations on how place-based foundations can turn these initiatives into a movement to support local journalism. Community foundations could start by getting to know their local news ecosystems. What news organizations exist? What audiences do they serve?
They should also consider policies to direct some of their ad spending to local media, following the lead of the provincial government in Ontario, which has its four largest agencies allocate at least one-quarter of their annual advertising budgets to Ontario publishers.
Perhaps the most powerful - and most challenging - of our recommendations includes working with other local players to set up a community news fund.
This would enable funders to pay into a pool allocated to local news. This approach has generated millions for local news ecosystems in the U.S., Europe and South America.
Community foundations have the power to promote journalistic collaboration, which can help to combat mis- and disinformation.
To improve the quality of life and information for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, supporting local journalism is a must.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
37 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Trump administration revokes terrorism designation of group led by Syria's new president
The Trump administration is revoking the terrorism designation of a group led by Syria's new president as part of a broader U.S. engagement with the transitional government since the ouster of former leader Bashar Assad late last year. In a statement released Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the move, which will take effect Tuesday, 'recognizes the positive actions taken by the new Syrian government' under President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Earlier Monday, the Federal Register published an advance notice, which said Rubio made the decision on June 23 in consultation with the Attorney General and Treasury Secretary. The decision had not been previously announced, although it was made as the Trump administration has been moving to ease or end many U.S. sanctions that had been imposed during Assad's rule. There is hope in post-Assad Syria, but also strife and skepticism of the new rulers The step looks to further end Syria's isolation since a lightning rebel offensive ousted the Assad family from decades of rule and give the new government a boost as it tries to rebuild a country shattered by 13 years of civil war. President Donald Trump, before having dinner Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, repeated that he previously had been told that Syria's new leader 'comes from a very tough background.' 'I said, 'Well, you know, I'm not that surprised. It's a tough part of the world,'' said Trump, who met with al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia in May. 'But I was very impressed by him. But we took the sanctions off because we want to give them a chance.' The brief notice offered no details about the revocation of the foreign terrorist organization designation for the al-Nusra Front, also known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Al-Nusra was originally designated a foreign terrorist organization for its previous affiliation with al-Qaeda. In 2017, it split and changed its name to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which the first Trump administration added to the initial designation. Syria has been improving relations with the United States and other Western countries following the fall of Assad in December in an offensive led by al-Sharaa's group. On June 30, seven days after Rubio signed the revocation, Trump inked an executive order ending many U.S. economic sanctions on Syria, following through on a promise he made to al-Sharaa when they met. 'This FTO revocation is an important step in fulfilling President Trump's vision of a stable, unified, and peaceful Syria,' Rubio said in his statement. Netanyahu, speaking across the table Monday from Trump and Rubio, agreed that the change of leadership in Syria 'presents opportunities for stability, for security and eventually for peace.' 'There's a lot to lose by going back to conflict,' the Israeli leader said. 'And there's a lot to gain by moving towards peace.' Trump's executive order did not rescind sanctions imposed on Assad, his top aides, family members and officials who had been determined to have committed human rights abuses or been involved in drug trafficking or part of Syria's chemical weapons program. It also leaves intact a major set of sanctions passed by Congress targeting anyone doing business with or offering support to Syria's military, intelligence or other suspect institutions. While the Trump administration has passed temporary waivers on those sanctions, known as the Caesar Act, they can only be permanently repealed by law.
Canada Standard
an hour ago
- Canada Standard
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. Read more: The complicated history of building pipelines in Canada The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.
Canada Standard
an hour ago
- Canada Standard
China buying up mines globally FT
Beijing is reportedly racing to lock in critical mineral supplies as the West restricts Chinese investments Chinese companies are buying more mines abroad than they have in over a decade to secure key raw materials as Western countries restrict their investments, the Financial Times has reported. Ten deals each worth more than $100 million were signed last year, the highest since 2013, the outlet reported on Sunday, citing an analysis of S&P and Mergermarket data. "The rise in dealmaking partly reflects China's efforts to get ahead of the deteriorating geopolitical climate, which is making it increasingly unwelcome as an investor in key countries such as Canada and the US," the FT quoted analysts and investors as saying. Major deals reportedly included gold mines in Kazakhstan, Ghana, and the Ivory Coast, a copper mine in Zambia, a copper-gold mine in Brazil, and a 50% stake in a rare-earth project in Tanzania. China is the leading refiner of rare earths, responsible for 90% of global processing capacity, and holds the world's largest reserves of the critical elements. Beijing has made mineral security a national strategic priority, as the global demand for lithium, cobalt, and nickel rises with the growth of clean energy and high-tech manufacturing. Western governments have been trying to curb China's access to key minerals and processing technologies, aiming to secure their own supply chains and reduce dependency. The US and its allies have blocked Chinese investments, imposed export restrictions, and launched new partnerships to source minerals elsewhere. US President Donald Trump has framed mineral access as a strategic priority, tying it to diplomacy and conflict resolution. Last month, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo signed a US-brokered peace deal, which Trump said secured American rights to Congolese mineral wealth. In April, Washington also signed a minerals agreement with Ukraine, presented as partial repayment for military aid. In June, Washington and Beijing reached a deal to resume rare-earth exports. China previously imposed export restrictions on these materials in retaliation to US tariffs, disrupting global supply chains. (
