I would say two things in response, Ms. Chair.
First of all, we can talk about the risks to the public's trust of media organizations, which, on one hand, are responsible for holding to account governments and big tech for many of the reasons outlined by the two other witnesses. One can't help but think that, either in fact or in perception, their ability to carry out that accountability function will be undermined. I think that is something that policy-makers need to take seriously. Indeed, the industry does.
To the broader question, though, I would say that one of the biggest concerns of a model that doesn't follow consumer signals or market signals but instead has either the government or, in this case, an industry association or industry interlocutor between the individual media organizations and, in this particular case, Google, is that someone is ultimately going to adjudicate the distribution of those resources. I think the fear of start-up organizations like The Hub is that those resources will be disproportionally directed to legacy media companies and not the parts of the sector that are growing and innovating.
One of the challenges, of course, is that it is not an inadvertent consequence of the policy framework that has been established; it is inherent in it.
That's why I said in my statement that, if indeed the government or the committee is of the view that action needs to be taken to support the sector, I think the preference ought to be that public funding follows, at least when possible, consumer preference or market signals to minimize the extent to which either government or, in this case, some sort of industry representative ultimately decides the allocation of resources.