Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Media

CBC and others refuse to stop committing unmarked crimes against journalism

Published

10 minute read

Plus! How media granted celebrity status to an obscure candidate, CTV’s shocking decision to declare Israel guilty of genocide and did Lee get Spiked by the NFL?

Oops. They did it again.

It doesn’t matter how many times newsroom managers and others try to correct the record, oodles of journalists continue to bungle reporting on claims of unmarked graves adjacent to Indian Residential Schools.

Controversy has surrounded claims of this nature since they were first made in 2021 in connection with the residential school in Kamloops. This stems from the fact that, despite considerable federal financial assistance, no excavations have taken place and no bodies have been discovered.

There was no mention of that in this report by Global News, this one by a federally-funded reporter at the Coast Reporter or this one by Black Press’s Northern View in Prince Rupert.

Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach wrote in their seminal book, Elements of Journalism, that reporters’ first obligation is to truth and that their primary loyalty should be to the citizen/reader. The stories I have highlighted fail on both counts by avoiding giving readers all the information and context available.

Canadian Press also dodged mentioning the lack of bodies, but did offer a more thorough report that reminded readers the shíshálh had said in 2023 that drawing conclusions based solely on ground-penetrating radar would be inaccurate and inconclusive. But even that wasn’t enough to stop reporters from inaccurately concluding otherwise.

The masterstroke in this tale of bush league reportage was left to the CBC. Reporter Alanna Kelly confidently Tweeted out the news that “41 more unmarked graves of children” had been discovered. This was a breathtaking occasion given that, in recent months, CBC has twice issued corrections – including to a statement by one of its highest profile presenters, Rosemary Barton – clarifying that these anomalies are possibly but definitely not proven graves. After being swiftly corrected by, among others, Quillette Editor Jonathan Kay and Holly Doan, publisher of Blacklock’s Reporter, Kelly deleted the post and put her Twitter account into lock down mode.

Clearly, CBC needs to do a much better job of ensuring its staff pay attention to its own corrections even if, as appears to be the case, they disagree with them.

The public, meanwhile, is left to speculate as to why journalists persist in serving them so poorly. One possibility is that they simply lack the courageous skepticism and curiosity the job requires.


I asked around to see if there was someone actively promoting her candidacy, but the media buzz and excitement surrounding independent candidate Bonnie Critchley in the recent Battle River-Crowfoot byelection appears to be, although unusual, entirely self-generated by journos.

I am all in favour of media reporting on serious (the unserious usually self-identify) candidates. What was unusual about Critchley was the amount of coverage she generated. There was in fact, so much, that the National Observer’s Max Fawcett was predicting “Pierre Poilievre’s safe seat isn’t so safe after all” and even my friends at The Line, dedicated as they are to calling out “bullshit,” featured her.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre won the byelection with just over 80 percent of the vote and Critchley cannibalized most of the traditional Liberal and NDP vote in the riding to win just under 10 percent. This was a credible showing but hardly indicative of the threat many media implied she posed.

All in all, no harm done, but weird. As noted by Toronto Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein, media moved on to focus on those who had voted against Poilievre while Fawcett was in full Rumpelstiltskin tantrum mode on Twitter, trying to make something significant out of Poilievre’s share of the vote in the riding, which was two percent lower than the Tories won in the April general election. No one mentioned it was close to nine percent higher than in 2021.

Critchley, meanwhile, was invited on to CTV’s Alberta Prime Time program where she blamed her surprising loss on Tory “shenanigans.”

Columnist Brian Lilley had another perspective, posting;

“Bonnie Critchley didn’t get over 10% despite clear instructions from CBC and many other MSM outlets for people to go and back her.”


Speaking of CTV, its Vancouver Island news edition broke new ground when its news presenter, without batting an eyelid, declared that Israel was waging a “genocidal campaign against the people of Palestine.”

This outraged Honest Reporting Canada, an organization dedicated to seeking out anti-Israel news coverage and retired CTV journalist Alan Fryer who declared, “There was a time at CTV when that anchor and/or the writer would have been shown the door the minute she signed off.”

Months from now, maybe, we’ll get a decision from the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) regarding if it agrees with CTV. Your guess is as good as mine but the way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised if the CBSC gave two thumbs up to hyperbolic statements about genocide, which are all the rage these days. Either way, it’s unlikely legacy media will report on the decision. They don’t shame easily.


Share


Tom Jones writes a solid media column for the Poynter Institute and as football season is about to blossom, I thought this little piece of scuttlebutt was worth passing along.

ESPN was all lined up to broadcast Spike Lee’s seven part documentary on “Da saga of Colin Kaepernick,” the quarterback who became famous for “taking a knee” when the national anthem was played. But now the deal is off.

Jones points to some artistic differences but raises his eyebrows because:

“Just this month, in an unprecedented deal, ESPN acquired the NFL Network and the rights to the league’s RedZone Channel in a deal that will eventually lead to the NFL owning a 10% stake in ESPN. As soon as that deal was announced, there were questions about whether the network’s coverage of the league would be affected, seeing as how they were partners.”

ESPN owns 20 percent of Bellmedia’s sports network, TSN which, other than the CFL, avoids showing Canadian sports leagues unless they bring cash and has a strong bias towards US programming that it can get at pennies on the cost of production dollar. This is despite the fact TSN was created to prevent Canada being flooded with the sort of US programming TSN now floods it with. Both it and Rogers’ Sportsnet have become what they were created to protect Canadians from. But that’s another story.


Finally, a bouquet to The Free Press for revealing how easily (willingly?) legacy media have been manipulated by photos of undernourished children in Gaza who are, as it turns out, suffering from illnesses other than malnutrition. Maybe someone at CTV should watch this:

The Free Press investigated 12 of the most viral images of an alleged famine in Gaza. They each tell a much more complicated story than that published in mainstream media.

Enjoy the week and the long weekend to come.

(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.)


Hundreds of paid subscribers
Seeking and destroying journalism doing harm to journalism

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.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Senate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship

Published on

logo

By

Lawmakers pressed Meta and Google to explain how far White House outreach went in shaping their censorship decisions.

A Senate hearing this week discussed government influence on online speech, as senior executives from Meta and Google faced questions about the Biden administration’s communications with their companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The session, titled “Part II of Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” highlighted the growing concern in Washington over what lawmakers describe as government-driven pressure to suppress lawful expression.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led the hearing, began by declaring that “the right to speak out is the foundation of a free society” and warning that “censorship around the world is growing.”
He accused the Biden administration of pushing technology companies to restrict Americans’ speech during the pandemic, and he faulted both the companies and Democrats for failing to resist that pressure.
“Today, we pick off where the story left off,” Cruz said, pointing to Meta and Google as examples of firms that “were pressured by the Biden administration to censor the American people.”
He pledged to introduce the Jawbone Act, which he said would “provide a robust right to redress when Americans are targeted by their own government.”
Markham Erickson, Google’s Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, defended the company’s approach, emphasizing that its moderation decisions are guided by long-standing internal policies, not by government direction.
“While we are a company dedicated to the goal of making the world’s information universally accessible, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have certain rules,” Erickson said, citing restrictions on “terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, hate speech, and other harmful content.”
He acknowledged that officials in the Biden administration had contacted Google during the pandemic to urge the removal of certain COVID-19 content from YouTube.
But Erickson maintained that the company “develop[ed] and enforce[d] our policies independently” and “rejected suggestions that did not align with those policies.”
Erickson also alleged that Google has a record of resisting censorship demands from foreign governments, citing its refusal to remove politically sensitive videos in Russia despite threats of imprisonment against employees and fines “that exceed more than the world’s GDP.”
Neil Potts, Meta’s Vice President of Public Policy, took a more reflective stance.
He reiterated that Meta has a “foundational commitment to free expression” and acknowledged that the company had yielded to “repeated pressure” from the Biden White House to restrict COVID-related posts, including satire and humor.
“We believe that government pressure was wrong and wish we had been more outspoken about it,” Potts said. He added that Meta “should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction.”
Potts pointed to policy changes the company has made since then, such as ending its third-party fact-checking program, reducing restrictions on political topics, and adopting what he described as “a more personalized approach to political content.”
These steps, he said, were intended to “return to our ideals about free expression” and “allow for more speech.”
Senator Cruz pressed both executives on whether their companies regretted complying with government demands.
Potts responded that Meta “do[es] regret our actions for not speaking out more forcefully.”
Erickson, however, declined to use similar language, saying Google regularly receives “outreach from a lot of actors” and evaluates flagged material independently.
The exchange grew more pointed as Cruz questioned Google’s removal of a YouTube video that compiled election-fraud claims made by both major parties. Erickson conceded, “Yes, that is news,” when Cruz asked whether statements by presidential candidates about election integrity should be considered newsworthy.
But Erickson defended YouTube’s policies during the 2020 election, saying that after states had certified results, the company acted against “claims of widespread fraud” due to potential “real-world harm.”
Cruz accused Google of ideological bias and suggested the company was “unwilling to express regret for anything at all.”
He contrasted that with Meta’s statement of remorse and concluded that Google’s position reflected “a level of contempt for free speech that does not reflect well.”
Where Erickson had insisted that Google “continued to develop and enforce our policies independently,” the company’s letter to Congress acknowledged that “Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach” urging the removal of COVID-19 content that did not violate platform rules.
This was somewhat of a departure from the defensive posture Google maintained before the Senate.
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Alberta

How one major media torqued its coverage – in the take no prisoners words of a former Alberta premier

Published on

Frame grab from CTV News website

(Editor’s note: I was going to write on the media’s handling of the Alberta government’s decision to order striking teachers back to work and invoke Section 33 of the Charter in doing so. But former Alberta premier Jason Kenney provided such a fulsome dissection of an absence of balance and its consequences in terms of public trust on X that I asked him if The Rewrite could publish it. He said yes and here it is – Peter Menzies.)

By Jason Kenney

This👇”story” is an object lesson for why trust in legacy media has plummeted, and alt right media audiences have grown.

Here CTV “digital news producer” @AngeMAmato (she/her) writes a story about “experts” calling the use of Sec. 33 “a threat to democracy.”

Who are the experts?

A left wing academic, and a left wing activist. The latter, Howard Sapers, is a former Liberal MLA (which the article does not mention) for a party that is so marginal, it has not elected an MLA in over a decade.

For good measure CTV goes on to quote two left wing union bosses, who of course are predictably outraged.

A more accurate headline would be “Four people on the left angry about use of Notwithstanding Clause.” Which is the opposite of news. It’s the ultimate “Dog Bites Man” non-story.

Did the CTV producer make any effort to post a balanced story by asking for comment from academics / lawyers / think tanks who support use of Sec. 33? Did she call the @CDNConstFound or the @MLInstitute’s Judicial Power Project? Did she attempt to reach any of these four scholars, who just published their views in a @nationalpost op-ed last week?

Did she have an editor who asked why her story lacked any attempt at balance?

And did anyone at CTV pause for a moment to ponder how tendentious it is to accuse a democratically elected legislature of acting “undemocratically” by invoking a power whose entire purpose is to ensure democratic accountability?

She provides some historical context about prior use of Sec. 33. Why does that context not include the fact that most democratically elected provincial governments (including Alberta under Premier Lougheed, and Saskatchewan under NDP Premier Blakeney) agreed to adopt the Charter *only if* it included the Notwithstanding Clause to allow democratically elected Legislatures to ensure a democratic check and balance against the abuse of undemocratic, unaccountable judicial power?

Why does she not mention that for the first 33 years of the Charter era, the Canadian Courts ruled that there was no constitutionally protected right to strike?

Why doesn’t she quote an expert pointing out that Allan Blakeney defended the Saskatchewan Legislature’s 1986 use of Sec. 33 to end a strike as “a legitimate use of the Clause?” Or refer to Peter Lougheed’s 1987 commitment to use Sec. 33 if the courts invented a right to strike?

Share

Many thoughtful criticisms can be levelled against Section 33. Being undemocratic is not one of them.

So why do we see so much agitprop like this masquerading as news from so many legacy media outlets?

IMO, there are two possible answers:

1) They are blind to their own biases; and / or

2) People like @AngeMAmato believe that they have a moral imperative to be “progressive journalists” which trumps the boringly old fashioned professional imperative to be objective and balanced.

Whatever the reason, “journalists” like this have no one to blame but themselves for growing distrust of legacy media, and the consequent emergence of non traditional media platforms.

Donate

A guest post by

Jason Kenney

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Rewrite, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X