Who knew? Plus! Online smartassery by reporters continues to curse the industry, Vancouver loves Harry Potter (shhhh!), layoffs continue and newspaper revenue now in uncontrolled descent
Journalists just love sensational political accusations and way too many of them are more than happy to spread them far and wide while shrugging aside their first obligation, the truth.
Why they put so much faith in the honesty of politicians, who have a history of being a bit, shall we say, truthy, is quite beyond me, but reporters often seem more interested in it being true something salacious was said than they are whether the scandalous thing that was said is true.
To help save journalism from bad journalism please subscribe to The Rewrite.
A fine example of this behaviour, which continues to undermine public trust in journalism, unfolded a week ago. That was when freshly-minted Liberal MP and Tory turncoat Chris d’Entremont told the CBC’s Catherine Cullen that, after publicly musing about crossing the floor, “Conservative House leader Andrew Scheer and party whip Chris Warkentin “barged” into his office, pushed open the door — almost knocking down his assistant — and yelled at him about “how much of a snake” he was.”
The Conservatives, in response, issued a statement accusing d’Entremont of telling barefaced lies and described a much calmer scenario. CBC then issued a correction after d’Entremont “clarified” an embellishment but some journalists were happy to ignore that and stick with repeating the original, more salacious version.
Stu Benson of The Hill Times enthusiastically Tweeted that ““[D’Entremont] says Conservative House leader Andrew Scheer and party whip Chris Warkentin ‘barged’ into his office, pushed his assistant aside and yelled at him about ‘how much of a snake’ he was.”
National Newswatch, despite CBC’s correction still had a Tweet up days later stating “Pushing, yelling from Conservative leadership ‘sealed the deal’ on defection: d’Entremont. MP says Conservatives felt like ‘part of a frat house rather than a serious political party.”
Frame grab of CBC correction
Ignoring the correction and “clarification,” CBC’s Power & Politics used the clip of d’Entremont’s self-confessed embellishment and repeated what both he and the CBC knew not to be true. To be fair, the segment that can be found here fully details the Conservatives’ response but, according to one of the CBC’s most diligent critics, no on air correction has been made. Instead, host David Cochrane went out of his way to point out that while his editors had used the term “correction,” the CBC was blameless for reporting d’Entremont’s admittedly false representation of the event.
The pattern of behaviour indicates to the public that news organizations do not take their obligation to the truth seriously. The public actually expects journalists to seek to establish the truth of statements they are reporting before they report them.
Edmonton City News reporter Sean Amato meanwhile managed to take foolish online smartassery to a new level when, repeating the Liberals’ Trump = Tories theme, he posted:
“Quite the press conference from (Conservative Leader) Pierre Poilievre in Calgary today. Basically…the Liberals suck, the media sucks and a lot of other stuff in Canada sucks. Hey, it worked for Trump.”
Tens of thousands of views and (at time of writing) more than 500 comments later, he replied with renewed smug smartassery:
“Never thought a tweet that says “the Liberals suck, the media sucks” would anger so many Conservatives. But here we are .”
Here we are, indeed. Amato appears to have set a new personal best for comments in response to one of his Tweets while simultaneously embedding the impression that not only he but all journalists are biased against Conservatives. And, I ask, for what? And why?
Maybe think before you Tweet or, better yet, just shut up. Many good journalists find that works just fine.
Amato, though, seems determined to prioritize personal commentary over journalism. When he recently got some pushback on lack of objectivity, his response was unrepentant.
“Bonnie…mute me, follow people you like, no hard feelings. But let me be free too. Cheers!”
Liberation awaits.
The “controversial” Harry Potter Forbidden Forest experience opened 10 days ago in Vancouver, weeks after the parks board, cowed by trans activists, vowed such an event would never happen again.
The distress of the “Qmunity” over the connection to J.K. Rowling and her vocal insistence on a traditional definition of women was well documented in the weeks leading up to the event. But there was nary a peep from CTV, CBC or Global News when organizers announced on media day that the pre-sales were the largest they had experienced anywhere in the world.
I found coverage in The Daily Hive and in Black Press papers in British Columbia. But it wasn’t until Remembrance Day that one of the city’s legacy media, the Vancouver Sun,delivered a review of any kind. CBC, CTV and Global News appear to be boycotting.
To help save journalism from bad journalism please subscribe to The Rewrite.
Operating revenue for Canada’s publishers continues to plummet – an indication the nation’s newspapers are increasingly unable to deliver the readers needed to provide results to advertisers.
Statscan reported a decline of a whopping 17.9 per cent since 2022, which compares with a drop of 7.3 percent from 2020-2022.
News Media Canada lobbyist Paul Deegan, meanwhile, confessed to a House of Commons committee that operators “cannot make a buck as a digital-only publisher,” have failed to transition their business models and still need revenue from print.
Profit margins, according to Statscan, are down to 3.2 per cent.
Postmedia, meanwhile, is later than usual in posting its annual report but has a little under another two weeks to do so.
Last week, The Rewrite noted how an extra $150 million from the government for the CBC would be bad news for everyone else in the business. This week, Groupe TVA announced it was eliminating 87 positions and laid the blame squarely at Prime Minister Mark Carney’s door.
“Repeated appeals to government authorities to support the private television industry, at a time when it faces fierce competition from the web giants and CBC/Radio-Canada, have been ignored,” a company statement explained.
Poilievre, who has been the focus lately of much of the press inclined to favour the Liberals, tried to shame media into paying some attention to dissent from the likes of Beaches-East York MP Nate Erskine-Smith within Liberal ranks.
It was left to the Toronto Star’s Althia Raj to gently explain to his Deputy Leader, Melissa Lantsman, why dissent within Liberal ranks is not a story because, unlike dissent with Conservative ranks, it’s in the best interests of the country.
“Nate has normalized independent thought so it isn’t new/s,” she wrote. “IMO it would be nice to see this from other MPs. Those outside of cabinet, their job is to hold the govt to account. More independent thought means better reports, better debate, better policy. Better social cohesion too.”
Take that, you silly Tories! The narrative is entrenched.
Some of you will remember how last fall, CTV Newsterminated two employees following the doctoring of Poilievre’s quotes in a fashion not too dissimilar to that used by the producers of a Panorama documentary at the BBC. Two of the BBC’s senior executives walked the plank there when it was revealed its team had intentionally misrepresented a speech by US President Donald Trump, who then threatened to sue the organization for $1 billion.
Don’t forget to check out this week’s Full Press podcast and, if you haven’t done so yet, click at least one of the Subscribe, Share or Donate buttons provided.
Readers will notice a new DONATE button has been added. Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)
To help save journalism from bad journalism please subscribe to The Rewrite.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
Quoting the Bible, Quran, or Torah to condemn abortion, homosexuality, or LGBT propaganda could be considered criminal activity
Conservatives are warning that Canadians should be “very afraid” of the Liberals’ proposal to punish quoting Scripture, while advising religious leaders to voice their opposition to the legislation.
During a December 6 session in Parliament, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Larry Brock warned Canadians of the very real threat to their religious freedom thanks to proposed amendments to Bill C-9, the “Combating Hate Act,” that would allow priests quoting Scripture to be punished.
“Do Christians need to be concerned about this legislation?” MP Bob Zimmer questioned. “Does it really threaten the Bible and free speech in Canada?”
“They should be very afraid,” Brock responded. “Every faith leader should be very afraid as to what this Liberal government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois wishes to do.”
“As I indicated, religious freedom is under attack at the hands of this Liberal government,” he declared.
Brock stressed the need for religious leaders to “speak out loud and clear” against the proposed amendment and contact their local Liberal and Bloc MPs.
Already, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops penned an open letter to the Carney Liberals, condemning the proposed amendment and calling for its removal.
As LifeSiteNews reported earlier this week, inside government sources revealed that Liberals agreed to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate speech laws as part of a deal with the Bloc Québécois to keep Liberals in power.
Bill C-9, as reported by LifeSiteNews, has been blasted by constitutional experts as empowering police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.
Now, the Bloc amendment seeks to further restrict free speech. The amendment would remove the “religious exemption” defense, which has historically protected individuals from conviction for willful promotion of hatred if the statements were made “in good faith” and based on a “religious subject” or a “sincerely held” interpretation of religious texts such as passages from the Bible, Quran, or Torah.
As a result, quoting the Bible, Quran, or Torah to condemn abortion, homosexuality, or LGBT propaganda could be considered criminal activity.
Shortly after the proposed amendment was shared on social media, Conservatives launched a petition, calling “on the Liberal government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.”
Already, in October, Liberal MP Marc Miller said that certain passages of the Bible are “hateful” because of what it says about homosexuality and those who recite the passages should be jailed.
“Clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful,” Miller said. “They should not be used to invoke or be a defense, and there should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.”
His comments were immediately blasted by Conservative politicians throughout Canada, with Alberta provincial Conservative MLA and Minister of Municipal Affairs Dan Williams saying, “I find it abhorrent when MPs sitting in Ottawa – or anyone in positions of power – use their voice to attack faith.”
US Vice President JD Vance criticized the European Union this week after rumors reportedly surfaced that Brussels may seek to punish X for refusing to remove certain online speech.
In a post on X, Vance wrote, “Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.”
His remarks reflect growing tension between the United States and the EU over the future of online speech and the expanding role of governments in dictating what can be said on global digital platforms.
Vance was likely referring to rumors that Brussels intends to impose massive penalties under the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a censorship framework that requires major platforms to delete what regulators define as “illegal” or “harmful” speech, with violations punishable by fines up to six percent of global annual revenue.
For Vance, this development fits a pattern he’s been warning about since the spring.
In a May 2025 interview, he cautioned that “The kind of social media censorship that we’ve seen in Western Europe, it will and in some ways, it already has, made its way to the United States. That was the story of the Biden administration silencing people on social media.”
He added, “We’re going to be very protective of American interests when it comes to things like social media regulation. We want to promote free speech. We don’t want our European friends telling social media companies that they have to silence Christians or silence conservatives.”
Yet while the Vice President points to Europe as the source of the problem, a similar agenda is also advancing in Washington under the banner of “protecting children online.”
This week’s congressional hearing on that subject opened in the usual way: familiar talking points, bipartisan outrage, and the recurring claim that online censorship is necessary for safety.
The House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade convened to promote a bundle of bills collectively branded as the “Kids Online Safety Package.”
The session, titled “Legislative Solutions to Protect Children and Teens Online,” quickly turned into a competition over who could endorse broader surveillance and moderation powers with the most moral conviction.
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) opened the hearing by pledging that the bills were “mindful of the Constitution’s protections for free speech,” before conceding that “laws with good intentions have been struck down for violating the First Amendment.”
Despite that admission, lawmakers from both parties pressed ahead with proposals requiring digital ID age verification systems, platform-level content filters, and expanded government authority to police online spaces; all similar to the EU’s DSA censorship law.
Vance has cautioned that these measures, however well-intentioned, mark a deeper ideological divide. “It’s not that we are not friends,” he said earlier this year, “but there’re gonna have some disagreements you didn’t see 10 years ago.”
That divide is now visible on both sides of the Atlantic: a shared willingness among policymakers to restrict speech for perceived social benefit, and a shrinking space for those who argue that freedom itself is the safeguard worth protecting.
.”
The narrative is entrenched.
