No Questions Please: We Should Be Wary of Pierre Poilievre’s Media Strategy

Undermining press freedom isn’t just bad politics—it’s a dangerous step toward authoritarian rule.

“We have seen some very tough message control from the party… we have not been allowed to ask any questions… We’ve also seen some heavy-handed treatment by Conservative party staffers, including some pushing and shoving… It’s difficult to get the same level of accountability from the Poilievre campaign as it has been from past Conservative campaigns or from the other parties in this election campaign.” - Evan Dyer, Reporter

---

The 2025 federal election is underway in Canada, and Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre is facing growing criticism—not for his policies, but for his media strategy. Poilievre’s campaign has repeatedly denied access to certain reporters, controlled which questions are allowed, and sought to stage-manage his appearances to prevent unscripted interactions with the press. This is not just a matter of media etiquette. It is an early warning sign of the kind of leader Poilievre may become if elected, and it poses a serious threat to Canada’s democratic health.

Video from CBC News

A Warning Sign of Authoritarianism

At its core, democracy relies on transparency, accountability, and a free press. When a political leader actively undermines journalistic access and attempts to control the flow of information, it is a red flag. In political science, these tactics are widely recognized as early indicators of authoritarian governance. Leaders who fear questions often have something to hide—not necessarily a scandal, but an unwillingness to be scrutinized, corrected, or challenged.

This tactic is not new. Contemporary examples abound. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has systematically hollowed out the country’s democratic institutions, starting with a campaign to delegitimize the free press and consolidate media under his control. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has criminalized dissent, imprisoned journalists, and turned public broadcasting into a propaganda machine. These moves didn’t come all at once—they began with small gestures: a dodged question, a refused interview, a disinvited reporter. This is the pattern that Poilievre’s media strategy increasingly mirrors.

The Canadian Conservative Playbook

The Canadian conservative movement has shown growing hostility toward media in recent years. From Stephen Harper’s tightly controlled press conferences to Poilievre’s social media-fueled campaign that bypasses journalists altogether, there is a discernible trend toward avoiding scrutiny and framing journalists as enemies. This is no accident. Authoritarian-leaning leaders often seek to sow distrust in the media, academia, and other arbiters of fact, weakening the public’s ability to distinguish truth from propaganda. By undermining the credibility of the press, leaders can position themselves as the sole source of “truth”—a classic authoritarian move.

Narrative control, when used by political leaders, is a powerful and dangerous tool that operates on a deep psychological level. By limiting media access, dismissing critical journalism, and curating only favorable questions, leaders like Pierre Poilievre engage in a form of mass gaslighting—undermining public trust in independent sources of truth and encouraging people to doubt their own perceptions. This tactic fosters a psychological state akin to learned helplessness, where citizens begin to feel that dissent is futile and that only the leader’s version of reality is legitimate.

Sociologically, this aligns with what Pierre Bourdieu called symbolic violence: the subtle imposition of meaning and legitimacy by dominant actors, conditioning the public to accept silence, exclusion, and distortion as normal. Over time, this narrative control erodes democratic dialogue and reinforces structural oppression, particularly against marginalized voices who are most likely to be excluded from the curated narrative. The result is not just misinformation—it is a slow, suffocating distortion of reality that weakens civic confidence, fragments social cohesion, and opens the door to authoritarian rule.

The camel’s nose is under the tent.

What Could Happen If This Continues?

If elected and this trend continues, Poilievre’s approach could lead to a long-term erosion of Canada’s democratic norms. Without a free and independent press to hold government accountable, corruption becomes easier, public trust declines, and citizens lose their ability to make informed decisions. Transparency International and Freedom House have both documented how countries that suppress the media experience democratic backsliding, growing public cynicism, and even democratic collapse.

What Should a Healthy Media-Politician Relationship Look Like?

In a healthy democracy, politicians don’t hide from journalists—they engage with them. Press conferences should allow for unscripted questions. Journalists should be given equal access, regardless of whether they are critical or supportive of the government or representative in question. Politicians should respect the role of media as a check on power, not a megaphone for their talking points.

The media is often called the Fourth Estate for a reason. It is not a participant in elections, but it is an essential referee. It holds power to account, exposes abuses, and ensures that the electorate can make choices based on facts, not fiction.

What Can Voters Do?

Canadians must not become passive consumers of curated political messaging. Voters can:

1. Demand transparency—write to candidates, attend town halls, and ask why media access is being limited.

2. Be critical thinkers—don’t just follow influencers or party-approved messages. Seek multiple perspectives.

3. Use your vote—elect leaders who respect democratic norms and value an open, free press.

At a broader level, media literacy should be taught in schools to equip future generations with the tools to distinguish between propaganda and journalism. We must protect ourselves with education and awareness, so that no politician feels emboldened to use media access or public funding as a weapon to punish or reward journalists based on their political alignment.

Conclusion

Pierre Poilievre’s campaign tactics are not merely a quirk of political branding—they reflect a deeper discomfort with accountability and an alarming willingness to manipulate public discourse. History shows us that these behaviors are not harmless—they are the first steps on a well-worn path to authoritarianism. Canada must decide now whether it wants to walk that path, or whether it will stand up for the core democratic values that have defined the country for generations.

The time to act is before the damage is done.