Tag Archives: Media

Roundup: A promise to interfere with media

Posted on by

It was late in the afternoon yesterday that CTV announced that the two-person team responsible for the manufactured quote of Pierre Poilievre “are no longer with CTV News.” The breach of journalistic ethics in manufacturing a quote because you needed it to fit your narrative, despite the fact that the quote you had available wasn’t really useable, makes this understandable, and these are consequences that can happen. I’m less concerned about that as much as I am about the other signals that have been sent, particularly by the Conservatives.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1839452343596720522

The fact that Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri, a former journalist herself, is promising that Poilievre is going to “restore journalistic ethics and integrity” should be lighting up every single alarm around the country because that is a promise to politically interfere in the media and its independence. It’s not enough that they have successfully bullied and intimidated one of the largest media outlets in the country, but they are promising more of this, but they plan to ensure that media falls in line. And then there’s the hypocrisy—that they align themselves with PostMillennial, True North, and The Rebel, all of whom have demonstrated a lack of ethics, or commitment to things like facts. The fact that this is a party that has made outright lying their chief strategy shows exactly why this kind of war with legitimate media outlets is so dangerous for our democracy.

On another note, there were a number of stories yesterday about NDP MP Leah Gazan tabling a bill to make residential school denialism illegal, and that this was done in advance of National Truth and Reconciliation Day. The problem? Not one of the stories from any of the outlets (National Post, CBC or The Canadian Press) bothered to mention that Gazan has already used her private members’ business slot in this parliament for her cockamamie “basic income framework” bill, and it went to down to defeat earlier this week. That means that this bill is going to languish on the Order Paper and never see the light of day. The CP copy did note that “The chances the bill actually will be debated and pass into law are slim without it being adopted as a government bill by the Liberals,” but that obscures the fact that she used her spot, so the whole point of her tabling this legislation is performative.

Parliamentary procedure and rules matter, and if you ignore it, you wind up looking like a fool for spending your dwindling resources covering legislation that will never, ever see the light of day.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Russians launched a five-hour aerial attack on Kyiv overnight, again targeting the power grid. There was also shelling of Kherson in the south that killed one, rockets launched against Kharkiv, and more shelling in the Donetsk region that killed three.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Add another boycott to the list

Posted on by

The Conservatives have decided that they don’t accept CTV’s apology for reconstructing a Poilievre quote for a piece, and have decided to boycott them, which basically adds to the list, on the flimsiest of excuses, while Poilievre goes about trashing the company CEO and claiming that he somehow directed the journalists in the piece to mangle the quote for some unknown end (it certainly wasn’t “malicious” as they are whinging), because if there’s one thing the Conservatives love to do, it’s to drum up some elaborate but stupid conspiracy theory.

Some people have asked why exactly he’s doing this, and it’s not just rage-farming. It’s a very careful and systematic war against media outlets because one thing that authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians do is delegitimise media sources so that they can undermine the shared reality we live in. The Americans have long-since done this with Fox News being a separate and alternate reality to our own, with a whole set of separate facts and narratives that don’t correspond to objective reality. And as the joke goes, the Fox News of Canada is Fox News—people simply consume it over the border. Poilievre is taking this page out of the authoritarian playbook and is running with it to its fullest. This is deliberate, just as it’s deliberate that they want you to believe that Justin Trudeau is a censorious jackbooted dictator who has turned Canada into a communist hellhole, and they don’t want media to dispute that depiction through things like facts. Legacy media is hurting these days, but it remains important for these very reasons.

(Meanwhile, can I just point out that of course JP Tasker, who wrote the CBC piece, went to Peter Menzies for comment. Menzies recently wrote an op-ed in The Line that we need to validate the feelings of white supremacists if we want to avoid race riots like we saw happen in the UK. There were so many more qualified people to speak to the situation of journalism and politicial parties going to war with outlets, and Tasker chose him. Honest to Hermes…)

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian guided bombs hit an apartment block in Kharkiv, and Russian attacks on two other towns in the eastern part of the country, filling three more. Ukrainian forces say they dislodged Russians from a processing plant in Vovchansk after hand-to-hand combat. At the UN, president Zelenskyy called for support for their actions with their “peace plan” rather than just talks with Moscow.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Badmouthing the CBC for grift

Posted on by

Because this is occasionally a media criticism blog, I will mention that piece circulating from former CBC producer Tara Henley, who made a splash by quitting her job and starting a Substack blog (with paid subscriptions!) by badmouthing the CBC on her way out the door. While I was initially planning on not mentioning this, because the complaints she makes in the piece merely reflect poorly on her rather than the CBC, but it attracted some bizarre traction yesterday, from the likes of Jody Wilson-Raybould, and Erin O’Toole, who invited her to call him about plans to reform the CBC (as he promised to slash its budget).

But the piece itself (which I’m not going to link to, but I did read when the National Post reprinted it) was not the stunning indictment she claimed it to be, or the usual cadre of CBC-haters have been touting it as. When you get through all of her prose, it seems that her biggest complaint is that the CBC asked her, as a producer, to ensure there were more diverse guests on panels or interview segments. In Henley’s recounting, this was the booming klaxon of “The Wokes are coming!” and how this is some kind of Ivy League American brain worm/neural parasite import that has destroyed the CBC’s reporting over the past 18 months. Reality is most likely that what she considered “compromising” to the reporting was being asked not to use the same six sources on all of the panels or packages she was responsible for—because that is a very real problem with a lot of Canadian news outlets, where they have a Rolodex of usual suspects who have a media profile because they answer phone calls and make themselves available. There are a number of people, whose credentials are actually terrible and who have zero actual credibility or legitimacy, but because they are easy gets for reporters or producers, and they say provocative things, they are go-to sources time and again. That the vast majority of them are heterosexual white men is problem when a news outlet has had it pointed out to them repeatedly that they need more diverse sources. Henley appears to have balked at that.

There are a lot of problems with CBC’s reporting these days—much of it is either reductive both-sidesing, or its credulous stenography that doesn’t challenge what is being said, even if what is being said is wrong or problematic but has a sympathetic person saying it. There are a lot of questionable editorial choices being made in terms of who they are granting anonymity to and who they are not, particularly if it counters the narrative they are trying to set with the particular story (and there was a lot of this in their reporting on the allegations around House of Commons Clerk Charles Robert). There are problems with its mandate creep around their web presence, and yes, they have made very questionable decisions around some of their editorial pieces—and attempts to alter them once published. None of its problems have to do with the fact that Henley was asked to get more diverse voices. But Henley also knew that there is an audience for her recitation of the “anti-woke” platitudes, and she has a book she wants to sell, and figured that a paid Substack was more lucrative than the Mother Corp. And the fact that O’Toole and others are reaching out seems to indicate that she gambled on media illiteracy for this particular grift, in the hopes it might pay off.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The voices we privilege

Posted on by

There was an exchange over Twitter yesterday between economist Stephen Gordon that made me stop and think about what it represented. (The original tweet has since been deleted).

Why this gave me pause is because of what this exchange signals about whose voices we are privileging in the media as a matter of course. It’s rare to find a story that involves any kind of spending that does not include the CTF as a source being quoted, because they are reliable to give one “side” to the issue, whether it’s appropriate or not. And this also goes back to my Unifying Theory of Canadian Punditry, where most of the pundits and editors in this country still believe it’s 1995 and will always be 1995 on any fiscal matter – that the county is facing a debt bomb that will threaten it forevermore. That’s not the case, but these voices from the mid-nineties remain central – and indeed, that is where several of our political leaders hailed from, including Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper – and they still have sway because the editors and pundits of this country are also beholden to this era and its beliefs. It’s also about the language employed around the time, where citizens became “taxpayers” in their conception of the country. The CTF fits the ideological niche that these editors and pundits built for themselves, so their voices are privileged, regardless of whether they actually give truthful assessments or not.

Part of the reason also has to do with the media’s general preference to both-sides issues, and when you have a group that reliable offers one “side” – especially because they will always pick up the phone and have a quote for you when you’re on a deadline – then they get amplified. And it’s not just the CTF – it’s also Democracy Watch, and certain professors who are guaranteed to give an outraged quote on no matter the subject, and because they are reliable, they keep getting quoted, and get standing that they would not otherwise be afforded if we subjected their views to actual scrutiny. But this is one of the trade-offs that comes with the twenty-four-hour news cycle and constant deadlines to publish to the web. Journalists start to rely on voices who they know will always answer the phone and give a quote to one of the both-sides, so half the job is done.

This is one of the tells that I look for with many stories I read now – which voices are being privileged? Is it the CTF? Is it Dr. Jack Mintz? Is it Democracy Watch? The inclusion of those voices will pretty much indicate to you how much value to place on the story, because that helps outline what the framing of the piece is – and media literacy goes hand-in-hand with civic literacy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Playing into Ford’s framing

Posted on by

While Ontario Premier Doug Ford doubles down on his assertion that a carbon tax will drive the economy into recession, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. And it’s not just Ford’s doubling down on this assertion – the Saskatchewan government is also insisting that the report it commissioned on the effect of carbon taxes is correct, despite the fact that the other experts who’ve looked it over say that the report vastly overestimates the effect by orders of magnitude. But as with Ford (and Andrew Scheer), it’s not about truth – it’s about taking any crumb of data that they think will fit with their narrative and blowing it so far out of proportion that it becomes an outright lie.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1087768772436463617

But beyond that, the way in which this issue is being framed in the media should be questioned – something economist Mike Moffatt did over the Twitter Machine yesterday.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1087670357757227009

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1087673953819287552

And he’s got a point – the CBC’s own story to debunk Ford’s claims is headlined “Economists cool to Doug Ford’s warning of ‘carbon tax recession’,” which again frames this as Ford versus economists – something that plays directly into Ford’s hands because he can turn around and claim that this is just the out-of-touch elites in their ivory towers and not “real folks,” a populist construction that is again built on a foundation of lies. And yet we in the media can’t seem to help ourselves because we don’t want to be seen as being biased, even when we are subjected to bald-faced lies, and again, we need to look like we’re being fair to the liars who are lying to our faces, which they take full advantage of. We’re hurting ourselves, but we can’t seem to help ourselves.

Continue reading →

QP: Inventing a conflict from whole cloth

Posted on by

With the Easter long weekend upon us, it was Friday-on-a-Thursday in the House of Commons, and Question Period was no exception — only slightly better attended than a regular Thursday. Candice Bergen led off with a disingenuous framing of the Raj Grewal non-story, and Bardish Chagger noted that everything was cleared with the Ethics Commissioner, and that Grewal’s guest at the event registered through the Canada-India Business Council. Bergen demanded to know who in the PMO authorised the invitation, and Chagger reiterated her response. Alain Rayes was up next, and demanded the prime minister to sign off on a human trafficking bill from the previous parliament, to which Marco Mendicino noted that there was a newer, better bill on the Order Paper (but didn’t mention that it has sat there for months). On a second go-around, Mendicino retorted with a reminder that the previous government cut police and national security agencies. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led off for the NDP, and raised the fact that Stephen Bronfman and a government board appointee were at a Liberal fundraiser last night, to which Andy Fillmore reminded him that they have made fundraisers more transparent. Charlie Angus carried on with the same topic in a more churlish tone, got the same answer, and on a second go-around, François-Philippe Champagne praised the appointment to their Invest Canada agency. Brosseau got back up to list allegations of harassment at Air Canada, to which Roger Cuzner reminded them that Bill C-65 will cover all federally regulated industries.

Continue reading →