Nunavut needs good, reliable information — quickly
Media and government must work together to combat misinformation
Premier John Main speaks to MLAs in November, shortly after the start of the seventh legislative assembly. The early days of a new assembly are an ideal time for MLAs and the Government of Nunavut to review how it provides information to the news media in the territory. (File photo by Jeff Pelletier)
There’s an old expression that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth puts on its shoes. In the internet age, that lie now travels at the speed of light.
That’s why it’s increasingly important for people to get good information from reliable sources quickly.
Combating the spread of misinformation was one of the topics that came up a month ago when Nunavut’s MLAs met with representatives of five news organizations that report on the territory, including Nunatsiaq News.
The early days of a new legislative assembly are an ideal time for MLAs and the Government of Nunavut to consider how it gets information to the public through the news media.
It often takes up to 48 hours for the GN to respond to media requests. When it takes that long to answer reporters’ questions, three things can happen: inaccurate information gets a two-day head start; the public’s interest in an issue wanes; and circumstances can change.
Everyone knows the Government of Nunavut is understaffed. But in the 21st century — with the prevalence of social media and artificial intelligence — it’s essential that public bodies treat their communications with the public with the sense of urgency they would handle a plane crash or a water main break.
Another issue the media routinely encounter is that the GN is reluctant to make its experts available for interviews. Reporters too often must settle for written responses to their questions from spokespeople, instead of program managers or deputy ministers.
Spokespeople are hard-working government employees in a challenging environment. They’re often very effective in communicating fundamental information about government programs, laws or the spending of public money.
But sometimes, professionals like doctors, nurses, accountants, engineers or teachers bring a depth of experience in their field that communications advisers can’t.
In government, spokespeople act as surrogates for experts, including ministers, deputy ministers and managers who — rightly — don’t have time to answer all the questions reporters have. Because they’re ultimately acting on behalf of a minister, government spokespeople should be subject to the same transparency and accountability we expect of cabinet ministers.
Too often, GN spokespeople make it hard to identify them by not signing emails or by telling reporters to “just attribute that fact to ‘the department.’”
Nunatsiaq News has long held the view that departments and buildings don’t say things; people say things. We hold public servants to a higher standard, expecting them to give their names to reporters to be published and to stand behind what they say in the same way a cabinet minister does.
Finally, as Nunavut’s seventh legislative assembly gets underway, we encourage new MLAs to talk to reporters about what’s going on in their communities and about what’s going on in the legislature.
In the past, we’ve found some — especially regular MLAs — were hard to contact when reporters want their opinions.
All MLAs were elected to represent their communities and to be leaders. Part of that role involves sharing their opinions and reflecting their community’s perspectives with the news media.
Truly, good journalists are not “out to get” politicians.
As reliable and trusted sources of information, what we’re out to get is accurate information as quickly as we can get it.
Yes, Nunavut needs reliable, timely information—but that also requires media organizations willing and able to do the work properly. Nunatsiaq News positions itself as a key source of information in the North, even describing itself as a “newspaper of record” for Nunavut and Nunavik. That comes with responsibility.
Right now, that standard isn’t consistently being met.
There’s a clear gap between the expectations being placed on governments and the quality of reporting being delivered. Many stories lack depth, fail to incorporate all available information, and lean heavily toward surface-level or attention-grabbing headlines rather than thorough analysis. In small, complex northern communities, that approach doesn’t just fall short—it actively undermines public understanding.
You cannot demand transparency and accountability while “phoning in” coverage.
Professional, trained journalism matters—especially in the communities where context, relationships, and cultural understanding are critical. Yet coverage often suggests limited on-the-ground presence in communities and insufficient investigative follow-through. That weakens credibility and fuels frustration on all sides.
And that’s the bigger problem: this dynamic contributes to the very breakdown the article is criticizing.
When reporting is perceived as incomplete or sensationalized, governments become more guarded, not less. Trust erodes. Engagement declines. The media then points to lack of access—without acknowledging its own role in creating that environment.
If Nunavut truly needs better information flow, then accountability has to apply across the board.
Government needs to communicate more effectively—but media outlets also need to raise their standards, invest in proper reporting capacity, and commit to fully informing the public, not just attracting clicks.
Until that happens, they remain part of the problem—not just observers of it.
Speaking as someone who has worked for organizations and departments that been involved in stories that have been reported on, there’s a tradition that I’ve seen played out time after time and which has arisen independently among them.
You find out there’s been a story published about something you’re involved with. The first question inevitably asked isn’t “Did they get it right?” it’s “What did they get wrong/omit this time?” Then the next question asked is “How badly did they get it wrong? Is it minor enough to let slide, or do we need to break out the official complaint, for all the good that does?”
The fact that the default assumption is that something is going to be wrong isn’t a good look.
I have lived in Nunavut for close to two decades and have followed NN that entire time. It has been sad to observe the precipitous decline in quality of reporting over that period, I don’t expect this to change until we get a new editor.