Media Room Meltdown: Old vs. New Media at the Federal Leaders' Debate

The 2025 federal election debate in Ottawa wasn't just a battleground for party leaders, it turned into a clash between Canada's traditional media establishment and its newer, internet-first challengers.

A dust-up erupted in the post-debate media room between journalists from The Hill Times, a long-standing Parliament Hill publication, and Rebel News, a digital outlet often at odds with legacy institutions.

The Flashpoint

According to multiple reports, including the National Post and Toronto Star, tensions flared when it was revealed that Rebel News had secured five press credentials for the post-debate scrums—more than any other outlet.

Traditional media organizations, including The Hill Times, Canadian Press, and other MSM (mainstream media) journalists, were reportedly limited to one journalist each.

Why the exception for Rebel News? According to Toronto Star, the Debate Commission's unusual decision was likely prompted by a legal threat from Ezra Levant, Rebel News’ founder.

Levant has a history of challenging media accreditation policies, including a successful 2019 Federal Court injunction that forced the Commission to allow Rebel and another outlet, True North, access after they were originally rejected on grounds of being involved in "political activism."

A Legal Legacy

That 2019 court decision has set a precedent: you can't ban a media outlet for being opinionated, at least not without violating procedural fairness.

That case ultimately forced the Commission to rethink its approach to alternative media, especially after the court sided with Rebel News and True North in an injunction.

After giving Rebel News more access than any other outlet, and taking flak from traditional journalists for doing so, the Commission cancelled the post-debate English media scrum altogether, likely in an attempt to defuse the growing blowback. Ironically, the scrums were meant to enhance transparency and accessibility for the press.

Ezra Levant vs. the Press Gallery

During a scrum following the incident, Ezra Levant publicly challenged journalists from The Canadian Press and MSN, accusing them of hypocrisy.

His point? Mainstream newsrooms shouldn't attack Rebel News for its fundraising and third-party advertising ties when they themselves receive various forms of government support, including the Journalism Labour Tax Credit, Local Journalism Initiative funding, and access to special media subsidies.

Levant argued that these forms of support blur the lines between journalistic independence and government funding, raising concerns about bias and credibility. This is a point Rebel and similar outlets have hammered for years: that government support undermines the neutrality of legacy media, even if those supports are technically available to any qualifying organization.

Is There Truth to the Accusations?

Yes, partially.

Many traditional media outlets do receive government subsidies, especially through:

• Journalism Labour Tax Credit (up to 25% of salary costs)

• Canada Periodical Fund

• Local Journalism Initiative (LJI)

These programs were launched to sustain journalism during a time of economic upheaval—but critics argue they create the appearance of media co-dependence on government.

Meanwhile, Rebel News funds itself through merchandise sales, crowdfunding, and advertising, which also raises questions about editorial independence, especially when covering politically charged issues.

Critics, including legacy reporters, accuse Rebel of acting more like a political organization than a newsroom.

The Real Issue: Defining Journalism in 2025

This incident highlights a deeper battle: who gets to define journalism in the digital age? 

Traditional media prides itself on standards, codes of ethics, and editorial transparency.

New media has been criticized for sometimes rejecting those boundaries, instead prioritizing direct audience engagement and activist-style reporting.

For the Commission, the challenge is growing. Should it block new media and face lawsuits or include them and face uproar from the legacy press.

What’s Next?

With journalism in Canada increasingly polarized between government-supported legacy outlets and independent digital operations, future events like national debates will likely continue to be flashpoints.

The public deserves transparency from both sides. But unless clearer accreditation standards and consistent access policies are developed, the battle between old and new media will keep overshadowing the stories they’re there to cover.

Media Room Meltdown: Old vs. New Media at the Federal Leaders' Debate