Opinion
The majority of voters have moved on from legacy media and legacy narratives
From EnergyNow.ca
By Margareta Dovgal
A Wake-Up Call for Political Strategists Across the Continent
For only the second time in US history, a president has lost, left office, and won re-election. For most Canadians watching the US election, the news of Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House comes with some degree of disappointment – and confusion.
Rather than getting caught up in doomsaying as there’s enough of that going around, I wanted to share some thoughts on what I would hope Canadians working in and around politics and policy come away with.
Speaking to the heart shouldn’t neglect speaking to the wallet
Biden probably should have resigned sooner, and Harris should have gone through a competitive primary race before carrying the flag. Hindsight is 20/20, and I doubt that the Democrats will make those same mistakes twice.
What I do suspect will be harder to shake is the commitment to running campaigns on social issues alone. The Democrats made the gamble that reproductive rights were a persuasive enough ballot box question to distract from Joe Biden’s lacklustre economic performance.
The clear majority of voters showed that they are more concerned with their job security, housing affordability, and tax bills.
The Democrats now have an opportunity to realign with the concerns of working Americans, recognizing that economic anxieties cannot be overlooked. A robust economic approach doesn’t preclude a moderate and fair social approach, but the latter can’t replace the former.
In Canada, this holds true for our discussions around energy and resources. I’m seeing a very similar disconnect play out on resource policy. Patently bad policies with horrible economic impacts are being advanced at all levels by governments more concerned with virtue signalling than ensuring robust economic performance – the federal Emissions Cap and the fantastical ambitions of David Eby’s CleanBC program among them.
Pre-pandemic, vibes-based economic policy seemed to work. In times of plenty, it is easy to persuade voters that taking economic hits is the right thing to do — after all, why worry about the price of something if you can afford it? Anyone still trying that in 2024 has lost the plot.
Affordability remains a paramount issue for many citizens, and the U.S. election highlighted how campaigns that overlook economic concerns and the declining quality of life risk alienating voters.
From groceries to gas prices, the rising cost of living is top of mind for Canadians, and resource policies must reflect this reality. For instance, a balanced approach to energy production can help keep costs reasonable while supporting Canadian jobs and industries.
It’s a reminder that beyond political credibility or mainstream appeal, policies that directly address financial challenges resonate most with the electorate.
For the resource sector, this means recognizing how affordable energy, resilient supply chains, and robust employment opportunities are interconnected with national policy priorities.
Truth and gatekeeping
The gamesmanship over who holds the authority to define “truth” continues in earnest, and engaging in it by discounting mass popular narratives is a risky gambit for any political movement that seeks to maintain widespread relevance.
We’re seeing a generational change, not just in the US but globally, on how people consume and produce media.
I would argue that Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter was the edge that Trump needed in this new era. Millions of Americans, and millions abroad, sought news and commentary from the platform. Political discourse on the 2024 election was shaped by the ideas generated and amplified online, faster than mainstream news could reliably pick up on.
Since Musk’s acquisition of Twitter/X, the editorial stance, algorithm, and tone of the platform have all shifted. Yes, it has gone ‘rightwards’, but rather than that serving to shrink the audience, it has instead grown, picking up swing voters and rallying the “persuadeds” more effectively.
Just look at the last debate between Trump and Harris: they weren’t even talking about the same political realities.
Research finds that as a main source of news, social media is still behind TV. Where we see the biggest difference is among younger voters.
46% of Americans 18-29 say social media is their top source of news, according to Pew Research. Beyond widespread appeal or readership, social media drives the political commentary of the chattering classes more than any one other platform. TikTok’s influence is likewise growing, with an even younger demographic relying on it almost entirely to help shape and articulate their views.
A similar dynamic around “truth” was plainly obvious in British Columbia’s provincial election last month. A good chunk of commentators couldn’t fathom that voters could accept a party that had refused to throw out candidates saying offensive or dubious things.
The BC Conservatives went from zero seats to just shy of government.
Enough ink has been spilled on this by other commentators, but let’s recap what many have said about the explanatory factors: BC United collapsed following its disastrous rebrand, the BC NDP was stuck with having to account with the inevitable baggage of incumbency in a struggling global economy, and the rise of Poilievre and the federal Conservatives lent some additional name-brand recognition to the BCCP.
The most important piece, in my estimation, was the Conservatives’ ability to tap into a growing demographic that didn’t feel their concerns were reflected in the mainstream political discourse. Twitter was far from the only forum for this, but I think it had a large part to play in cultivating the sense among many voters that consequential narratives were not even remotely being touched on in mainstream media. It gutted voters’ trust in the media, giving the BC Conservatives whose narratives were more effective on social media a decisive advantage.
Public safety is a great example of this. Anyone with eyes and ears who has spent time in Downtown Vancouver in recent years can attest to the visible decline, with visible drug use in public spaces, frequent run-ins with people with severe untreated mental illness yelling at phantoms, and unabashed property crime.
Yet, if we were to believe a great deal of commentators just up until the eve of the election, everything was just fine.
Willful blindness only works when people can’t comment on what they see. But comment they did, and the delayed response to it nearly cost the BC NDP the election.
In a purely practical sense, the increasing role of community-driven sources of information mean that gatekeepers can no longer control the flow of information. And let’s not mince words here: anyone concerned about misinformation is talking about gatekeeping.
Subjecting ideas out there in the commons to scrutiny is necessary. We just can’t take for granted that the outlets themselves will provide that editorial scrutiny directly, if it’s not baked in the platform by design and people are actively choosing to spend time on platforms that have a radical free speech mandate.
It’s time to accept that the train has left the station: persuasiveness needs to be redefined by the mainstream, rather than taking one loss after another and crying foul because the game has changed.
Canadian narratives for Canadian politics
Our closest neighbour and trading partner is the world’s largest economy, and Canadians can’t help but look south for news and ideas. Our own politics often mirror the messages we see in the US, and there’s no use trying to pretend that won’t keep happening.
If we want to avoid falling into the trap of inheriting the dysfunction and divisions that are increasingly defining the political system next door, we have a duty to develop compelling narratives that resonate with the unique needs of Canadians, across the political spectrum.
It’s the definition of insanity to keep trying the same things expecting a different result. Rather than directing anger at voters and political movements who have moved on from old media, if you’re not happy with the result, try meeting them where they are.
And no, this doesn’t mean ceding ground to conspiracy theorists or the fringe. They are only succeeding because a) they are speaking to issues that people decide they care about (like them or not) that are panned by the center and the left, and b) most crucially, there isn’t enough emotionally resonant, persuasive substance being put out to win hearts and minds.
These are not inevitable outcomes. Voter preferences and media technologies are constantly evolving. We need to evolve with them by subjecting our leaders to real scrutiny and demanding better.
Margareta Dovgal is Managing Director of Resource Works. Based in Vancouver, she holds a Master of Public Administration in Energy, Technology and Climate Policy from University College London. Beyond her regular advocacy on natural resources, environment, and economic policy, Margareta also leads our annual Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase. She can be found on Twitter and LinkedIn.
Just in time for Christmas, the Liberals make a deal with the Bloc that will suppress religious expressions of belief
(The Rewrite will return to its usual format in 2026. In the meantime please enjoy this republication of Peter Menzies’s take on Bill C-9 and its threat to free speech and freedom of religion. And, please, have a Merry Christmas)
If you want to get some sense of what life in Canada could be like if the federal government’s new hate speech law passes, check out Finland.
There, Päivi Räsänen, a medical doctor and Member of Parliament, and Bishop Juhana Pohjola of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland are awaiting the verdict of their third hate speech trial – all for the same issues – since 2019.
The prospect of a similar future “Bible Trial” now hangs over Canada thanks to the minority government’s openness to making a deal with the Bloc Quebecois to get Bill C-9 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places) – passed.
Already contentious, the contemplated amendment that would remove the current protections for sincerely held religious belief, could very well stifle the ability of Christians, Muslims, Jews and others to freely refer to their most sacred texts.
As the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops puts it: “the removal of this provision risks creating uncertainty for faith communities, clergy, educators, and others who may fear that the expression of traditional moral or doctrinal teachings could be misinterpreted as hate speech and could subject the speaker to proceedings that threaten imprisonment of up to two years.
“Eliminating a clear statutory safeguard will likely therefore have a chilling effect on religious expression, even if prosecutions remain unlikely in practice.”
Rasanen, Finland’s former Interior Minister, was charged under a section of the Finnish criminal code titled “war crimes and crimes against humanity” after jointly publishing a 2004 pamphlet with Pohjola that described traditional religious views on marriage and sexuality. Also involved were a 2019 live radio debate and a Tweet in which she questioned a decision by Finland’s majority church, the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church, to formally support a Helsinki Pride event.
Both she and Pohjola were acquitted at their initial trial and, again unanimously, upon appeal. The prosecution, determined to get convictions, then took the case all the way to Finland’s Supreme Court, where the third trial wound up on Oct. 30. At the time of writing, a verdict is pending. The accused face up to two years in prison if convicted.
Given that a total of six judges have, so far, not been convinced thay quoting Bible passages constitutes a hate crime, that level of punishment seems unlikely. But as Rasanen has written “the greatest danger is the threat of society-wide censorship and the crushing effect on freedom of speech and religion. A judgment against me would open the floodgates to a broad ban on the public expression of religious views or other beliefs and the threat of modern book burnings.”
While that may alarm those of us who still adhere to increasingly old-fashioned views on freedom and liberal democracy, there’s no doubt that the move to suppress religious expression – and some of its very unfashionable concerns regarding sexuality – has a strong fan base.
Quebec, where a crucifix inexplicably remains mounted in the National Assembly, appears particularly keen on this approach. Its Bill 21 banned the wearing of religious symbols or clothing by certain public employees and is now being extended to daycare workers and others. Its “burka ban” also insists a person’s face must be uncovered when receiving public services and is making it illegal to pray in public without government permission.
Prompted by the mass Islamo-Leftist coalition demonstrations that have occupied Montreal’s streets for the past two years, it seems unlikely that one would be busted for bowing one’s head to commune with the Almighty while sitting on a park bench. But the fact that it might be possible could just be enough to discourage one from doing so.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is so keen to assert its leverage within a minority Parliament and stands ready to assist its passage if the exemption (“if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”) within current hate speech legislation for people sincerely motivated by their faith is removed.
Indeed, Bloc leader Yves-Francois Blanchet believed he had a deal but that the Liberals, led by a regular attendant at Roman Catholic Mass – Prime Minister Mark Carney – “fear a backlash” and may try to find another dance partner. That hesitance, according to Blanchet, may have motivated the suspension of a (Dec. 4) House of Commons Justice Committee.
Conservative MP Andrew Lawton also wondered on X if the committee was putting the bill on hold, stating “The Liberal chair of the Justice Committee says he cancelled today’s Bill C-9 meeting so MPs could “regroup.” He refuses to say whether he’ll call next Tuesday’s meeting.”
The deal now appears to be locked in, although Justice Minister Sean Fraser promised concerned faith groups he would hear them out over the winter.
Meanwhile, the very idea that the exemption might be removed has lit up Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who, already opposed to Bill C-9 because of its restrictions on free speech, declared that it would “criminalize sections of the Bible, Qur’an, Torah and other sacred texts.”
I don’t know that it would. But it could. And that should be enough to alarm all those who believe in a God greater than the state. Just in time for Christmas, or whatever our politicians call it these days.
We note with sadness the passing Wednesday of Peter Arnett, whose work will be remembered vividly by those old enough to recall the first Gulf War and CNN’s hey day.
A New Zealander and later American too, Arnett made his name in war zones reporting for Associated Press, beginning in Vietnam. He won a Pulitzer prize for his sins, experienced controversy and lived to be 91. He tried and that’s all you can ask. Farewell, faithful servant.
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. This commentary originally appeared in Epoch Times Canada)
The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It’s been nearly a year since I last wrote about the CBC. In the intervening months, the Prescott memo on bias at the BBC was released, whose stunning allegations of systemic journalistic malpractice “inspired” multiple senior officials to leave the corporation. Given how the institutional bias driving problems at the BBC is undoubtedly widely shared by CBC employees, I’d be surprised if there weren’t similar flaws embedded inside the stuff we’re being fed here in Canada.
Apparently, besides receiving nearly two billion dollars¹ annually in direct and indirect government funding, CBC also employs around a third of all of Canada’s full time journalists. So taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing what we’re getting out of the deal.
Naturally, corporate president Marie-Philippe Bouchard has solemnly denied the existence of any bias in CBC reporting. But I’d be more comfortable seeing some evidence of that with my own eyes. Given that I personally can easily go multiple months without watching any CBC programming or even visiting their website, “my own eyes” will require some creative redefinition.
So this time around I collected the titles and descriptions from nearly 300 stories that were randomly chosen from the CBC Top Stories RSS feed from the first half of 2025. You can view the results for yourself here. I then used AI tools to analyze the data for possible bias (how events are interpreted) and agendas (which events are selected). I also looked for:
- Institutional viewpoint bias
- Public-sector framing
- Cultural-identity prioritization
- Government-source dependency
- Social-progressive emphasis
Here’s what I discovered.
Story Selection Bias
Millions of things happen every day. And many thousands of those might be of interest to Canadians. Naturally, no news publisher has the bandwidth to cover all of them, so deciding which stories to include in anyone’s Top Story feed will involve a lot of filtering. To give us a sense of what filtering standards are used at the CBC, let’s break down coverage by topic.
Of the 300 stories covered by my data, around 30 percent – month after month – focused on Donald Trump and U.S.- Canada relations. Another 12-15 percent related to Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Domestic politics – including election coverage – took up another 12 percent, Indigenous issues attracted 9 percent, climate and the environment grabbed 8 percent, and gender identity, health-care worker assaults, immigrant suffering, and crime attracted around 4 percent each.
Now here’s a partial list of significant stories from the target time frame (the first half of 2025) that weren’t meaningfully represented in my sample of CBC’s Top Stories:
- Housing affordability crisis barely appears (one of the top voter concerns in actual 2025 polls).
- Immigration levels and labour-market impact.
- Crime-rate increases or policing controversies (unless tied to Indigenous or racialized victims).
- Private-sector investment success stories.
- Any sustained positive coverage of the oil/gas sector (even when prices are high).
- Critical examination of public-sector growth or pension liabilities.
- Chinese interference or CCP influence in Canada (despite ongoing inquiries in real life).
- The rest of the known galaxy (besides Gaza and the U.S.)
Interpretation Bias
There’s an obvious pattern of favoring certain identity narratives. The Indigenous are always framed as victims of historic injustice, Palestinian and Gazan actions are overwhelmingly sympathetic, while anything done by Israelis is “aggression”. Transgender representation in uniformly affirmative while dissent is bigotry.
By contrast, stories critical of immigration policy, sympathetic to Israeli/Jewish perspectives, or skeptical of gender medicine are virtually non-existent in this sample.
That’s not to say that, in the real world, injustice doesn’t exist. It surely does. But a neutral and objective news service should be able to present important stories using a neutral and objective voice. That obviously doesn’t happen at the CBC.
Consider these obvious examples:
- “Trump claims there are only ‘2 genders.’ Historians say that’s never been true” – here’s an overt editorial contradiction in the headline itself.
- “Trump bans transgender female athletes from women’s sports” which is framed as an attack rather than a policy debate.
And your choice of wording counts more than you might realize. Verbs like “slams”, “blasts”, and “warns” are used almost exclusively describing the actions of conservative figures like Trump, Poilievre, or Danielle Smith, while “experts say”, “historians say”, and “doctors say” are repeatedly used to rebut conservative policy.
Similarly, Palestinian casualties are invariably “killed“ by Israeli forces – using the active voice – while Israeli casualties, when mentioned at all, are described using the passive voice.
Institutional Viewpoint Bias
A primary – perhaps the primary job – of a serious journalist is to challenge the government’s narrative. Because if journalists don’t even try to hold public officials to account, then no one else can. Even the valuable work of the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be wasted, because there will be no one to amplify their claims of wrongdoing. And Canadians will have no way of hearing the bad news.
So it can’t be a good sign when around 62 percent of domestic political stories published by the nation’s public broadcaster either quote government (federal or provincial) sources as the primary voice, or are framed around government announcements, reports, funding promises, or inquiries.
 |
In other words, a majority of what the CBC does involves providing stenography services for their paymasters.
Here are just a few examples:
- “Federal government apologizes for ‘profound harm’ of Dundas Harbour relocations”
- “Jordan’s Principle funding… being extended through 2026: Indigenous Services”
- “Liberal government announces dental care expansion the day before expected election call”
Agencies like the Bank of Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, and Transportation Safety Board are routinely presented as authoritative and neutral. By contrast, opposition or industry critiques are usually presented as secondary (“…but critics say”) or are simply invisible. Overall, private-sector actors like airlines, oil companies, or developers are far more likely to be criticized.
All this is classic institutional bias: the state and its agencies are the default lens through which reality is filtered.
Not unlike the horrors going on at the BBC, much of this bias is likely unconscious. I’m sure that presenting this evidence to CBC editors and managers would evoke little more than blank stares. This stuff flies way below the radar.
But as one of the AI tools I used concluded:
In short, this 2025 CBC RSS sample shows a very strong and consistent left-progressive institutional bias both in story selection (agenda) and in framing (interpretation). The outlet functions less as a neutral public broadcaster and more as an amplifier of government, public-sector, and social-progressive narratives, with particular hostility reserved for Donald Trump, Canadian conservatives, and anything that could be construed as “right-wing misinformation.”
And here’s the bottom line from a second tool:
The data reveals a consistent editorial worldview where legitimate change flows from institutions downward, identity group membership is newsworthy, and systemic intervention is the default solution framework.
You might also enjoy:
Is Updating a Few Thousand Readers Worth a Half Million Taxpayer Dollars? |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| Plenty has been written about the many difficulties faced by legacy news media operations. You might even recall reading about the troubled CBC and the Liberal government’s ill-fated Online News Act in these very pages. Traditional subscription and broadcast models are drying up, and on-line ad-based revenues are in sharp decline. | ||||||
|
Subscribe to The Audit.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Argentina’s Milei delivers results free-market critics said wouldn’t work
‘Almost Sounds Made Up’: Jeffrey Epstein Was Bill Clinton Plus-One At Moroccan King’s Wedding, Per Report
Saskatchewan woman approved for euthanasia urged to seek medical help in Canada rather than US
Danielle Smith slams Skate Canada for stopping events in Alberta over ban on men in women’s sports
-
Business2 days ago
Argentina’s Milei delivers results free-market critics said wouldn’t work
-
Health20 hours agoFDA warns ‘breast binder’ manufacturers to stop marketing to gender-confused girls
-
espionage1 day agoCarney Floor Crossing Raises Counterintelligence Questions aimed at China, Former Senior Mountie Argues
-
Daily Caller20 hours agoTrump Reportedly Escalates Pressure On Venezuela With Another Oil Tanker Seizure
-
Business1 day agoTaxing food is like slapping a surcharge on hunger. It needs to end
-
Energy1 day ago75 per cent of Canadians support the construction of new pipelines to the East Coast and British Columbia
-
Business11 hours ago
There’s No Bias at CBC News, You Say? Well, OK…
-
Health1 day agoAll 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Found the Same Thing: Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier