Another news media bloodbath this month. After accepting millions in public money, Bell Media announced that it is slashing 4,800 jobs at all levels — including hundreds of journalists, and selling 45 of 103 radio stations.

The news was swiftly followed by Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge pointing out that the company was granted $40 million by the government under the Online Streaming Act to continue its operation. This injection by the federal government is in addition to the estimated $30 million that (big) news outlets in Canada can expect to receive through a new deal with Google. With all this financial assistance facilitated by government initiatives, Bell showed their appreciation for receiving piles of money by blaming the federal government for its layoffs.

Considering the amount of public money funneled into private corporations, it’s important that Canadians can ask questions about these decisions — and they deserve some clear answers.

The idea that the federal government shares blame for journalism layoffs is an interesting one. Are we supposed to pretend as though the government hasn’t done everything in its power to send wads of cash, hand-over-fist, to giant legacy news media companies — funding that’s awarded to companies without any condition on job security? Canadians know that the federal government has facilitated an environment prime for corporate layoffs.

However, the one entity that should not be making the argument that the government isn’t supplying these funds with a stipulation to not cut jobs is the company that directly made devastating cuts.

Let’s not forget that Bell Media, in particular, is infamous for mass layoffs. Last year, they ended 1300 positions and cut nine radio stations loose. Where was the performative outrage then? Time and time again public funds are shoveled into private coffers with no attempt to mandate its spending on journalism projects.

This latest round of destruction wasn’t done due to lack of government support. It was done because Bell Media wanted to increase short-term profits at the expense of journalism. It’s that simple.

Yet elected officials passionately play-act as though they expect large corporations to behave otherwise.

The posturing began in earnest with BC premier David Eby, who really laid into the company. Calling them “corporate vampires” who are overseeing an “encrapification” of local news (referring to the concept of “enshittification” in a broadcast-friendly terms). Eby qualified these “reprehensible” layoffs with one important term: “corporate responsibility.”

The “corporate responsibility” line was also the lifeblood of Prime Minister’s Trudeau’s “pissed off” speech.

“We need those local voices, and over the past years corporate Canada, and there are many culprits in this, have abdicated their responsibility towards the communities that they have always made very good profits off of in various ways.”

It’s not that Eby or Trudeau didn’t make salient points, it’s that they’re firing surface-to-air stinger missiles in glass mansions.

For someone referencing enshittification, you’d almost forget the BC NDP, of which Eby is now party leader, introduced a financial cost to Freedom of Information requests, a critical tool for journalists.

Meanwhile, Trudeau’s passionate condemnation didn’t actually answer one question asked of him, mainly, “what is your commitment to future government support with that company?” Other than a vague promise that his government will be “demanding better,” he gave little indication that subsidies from the government, or redirected funds from Google, won’t go to large (and dishonest) media companies like Bell Media.

Why should we expect something different? A completely oppositional entity like Postmedia, which is majority-owned by a U.S. hedge fund, previously admitted to its shareholders that one of the “key pillars” of their business strategy was government support and bailouts, and yet still proceeded with massive layoffs.

Trudeau’s words also ring hollow when you look at recent cuts at CBC. Our official public broadcaster recently announced they would layoff 10 per cent of their staff to meet financial targets that the federal government can set. Since parliamentary appropriations are the bulk of funding that the CBC receives, perhaps it’s time to explore requirements such as limited executive salaries and bonuses, or layoff limits. This is something the federal government has indirect control over. Why even propose bringing a corporation like Bell under public ownership when our public broadcaster is being cut off at the knees?

But that’s because both Trudeau and Eby’s discussion of “corporate responsibility” is completely devoid of what that phrase actually entails. The actual responsibility of a corporation is to increase profits for their shareholders, investors, or owners. Our governments know this, which is why they work so hard to maintain an economic system that maintains their dominance.

Profits for legacy media outlets have suffered due to social media and the internet age, to be sure. But for an entity that’s sole purpose is to generate the maximum amount of money possible, less profits might as well equal no profits. The goal of companies like Bell is growth. To obtain that, they need to post the maximum amount of earnings possible each quarter. If layoffs and shutterings provide that short-term relief, that’s what will happen without hesitation. Our government leaders know this.

They shouldn’t be “pissed off,” they should be filled with shame. Leave the righteous anger to the rest of us: the workers and communities subsidizing our own loss of jobs, information, and democracy.