Media
Why are our journalists so deathly afraid of reporting facts on gender identity science?
When the going gets tough, it seems our news organizations just run away
I am travelling this week to help my mother celebrate her 100th birthday but to ensure readers continue to be served, here’s a column I wrote for The Hub that stayed among its most read pieces for the better part of two weeks. Be assured we will be getting after the CBC/Sean Feucht debacle in due course.
There are some topics that Canada’s media are clearly very afraid to touch, leaving the public that funds them through federal subsidies not fully informed.
This, for reasons suspected but unexplained, is not good if we are to rely upon the Fourth Estate to ensure the nation’s population is equipped with the information citizens need to form perspectives and organize their lives. That, after all, is the alleged purpose of the government’s subsidization of the media in the first place.
Blind spots
Many news organizations, if not most, still haven’t come to terms with their 2021 reporting on suspected and unmarked graves at and adjacent to Indian Residential Schools, for instance. That poor performance led to headlines referencing “mass graves”—a term not used by Indigenous leaders at the time—across the country and the world. Flags were lowered, statues toppled, churches burned, demonstrations held, a new federal holiday instituted, yet no bodies have yet been discovered where it was alleged they were buried. But the old false headlines still linger (including on the New York Times), setting back—as journalist Terry Glavin and others have argued—the cause of reconciliation. Actions, or shall we say, inactions, have consequences.
I was at the abandoned cemetery at the former site of the Regina Indian Industrial School (1891-1910) when it was designated a provincial heritage site, and I am deeply conscious of the sad reality of this part of our history. All 38 graves there are now quite poignantly marked with metal feathers. The matter is a delicate one for the media, for sure. But it is one they must deal with.
As is the issue of how to treat minors struggling with gender dysphoria.
The most recent news on that front—the Supreme Court of the United States upholding a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone treatments for teens—triggered a lot of coverage across the U.S. and on foreign platforms such as the BBC.
But in Canada, all I could find on the first few pages of a Google search was an Associated Press story picked up by the CBC. CTV posted a shorter version of the same story. Both platforms went with the “stunning setback to transgender rights” theme provided by the wire service. Neither made any effort to add any Canadian context or reaction. The BBC, in contrast, assigned its own reporters to the story and included something the AP story did not: quotes from the Tennessee attorney general who called the decision a “big win for evidence-based medicine.”
The Canadian media’s timidness on this topic is not new. A similar pattern of behaviour was evident in the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that—at least when it comes to the 2010 Equality Act—the term “woman” relates to the biological sex assigned to a person when they are born, and not to an individual’s self-understood gender identity.
Much the same can be said regarding the U.K.’s Cass Review, initiated when medical professionals noticed an unexplained increase in the number of teen girls reporting gender identity issues. Its findings led to several countries slamming the brakes on surgeries and other therapies for gender dysphoric minors.
Yes, Robyn Urback of the Globe and Mailand Rosie DiManno of the Toronto Starwrote thoughtful columns in the wake of that report, and Sharon Kirkey of the National Post reported on it in depth. The deafening silence from Canadian journalists was covered in The Hub. But other than that, the approach was ever so much akin to “nothing to see here, folks, move along.”
It’s fair to conclude that our newsrooms struggle with complexity. And when terms such as “denialists” and “transphobic” are applied to those who simply ask questions that challenge the assumed verities of the day, it appears that some sort of moral panic is triggered. We are, after all, still emerging from the terrors of cancel culture and woke extremism that many newsrooms chose to embrace rather than fight. The Globe and Mail, for instance, recently posted a morning briefing that caught the eye of Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI) senior fellow Mia Hughes, an expert in the field.1
Hughes told me that she “objected to the article’s repetition of discredited claims—that puberty blockers are reversible, that they ‘buy time to think,’ and that denying access could lead to suicide—all assertions that have been thoroughly debunked in recent years.”
We will get into this at length in the future, but suffice to say, Hughes found the Globe’s response unsatisfactory. Near as I could discern from what Hughes shared with me, the Globe appears either unaware or unwilling to concede that these matters are contentious and that it might have been spreading what Hughes considers misinformation.
The gatekeepers are losing their grip
This forum isn’t the place to debate the issues described. But what is passing strange about much of Canada’s news industry is that it thinks it can still get away with this sort of gatekeeping and still maintain public trust.
With or without our media culture’s approval, the internet gives people access to this information. It comes not just via alternative, unsubsidized media, but from the Guardian and the New York Times. Little wonder, then, that according to the latest Reuters report, Canadians are enthusiastic subscribers to foreign news platforms.
It appears they have a need for truth that—thanks to those who fear it—isn’t being fulfilled at home.
(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.)
Presented as a defense of democracy, the plan reads more like the architecture of a managed reality.
|
European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.
Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.
At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”
The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.
One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.
The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”
Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”
In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.
The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.
Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”
The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organizations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”
In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.
Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.
The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”
Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.
The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the
Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.
Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.
Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”
While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.
Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.
Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.
The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”
This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.
A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.
Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.
Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”
This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.
Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”
While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.
Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.
Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.
For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.
Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”
|
|
|
|
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.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
Business
CBC cashes in on Carney as the news industry playing field tilts further in its favour, crippling the competition
“Private” sector will find it more difficult to compete. Plus! Outrage over manipulation of Trump speech and the common error of burying balance
These are happy days at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
With the threat of a “defund the CBC” Conservative government fading ever faster in its rearview mirror, the nation’s publicly-funded commercial news and entertainment corporation (aka public broadcaster) is poised to take an even larger share of the market thanks to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first budget.
Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.
Your encouragement is appreciated.
Sure, tens of thousands of public sector employees may be about to lose their jobs, services face cutbacks and the feds might be rewriting collective bargaining rules in their favour. But as we learned Nov. 4, the CBC will – as promised in last spring’s election – get a $150 million top up to the $1.4 billion Parliament already allocates to it. There’s every chance that means it will be an even more aggressive competitor in the news market for viewers, listeners, readers and advertisers. One in three working journalists in the country already work for CBC/Radio Canada. If an 11 percent hike in funding is reflected in newsroom job growth, that number could move closer to 37 per cent.
Federal funding for “private sector” news organizations has remained flat (with the exception of a $12 million boost to a fund introduced as Covid relief). That means the news industry playing field has been tilted even more in the CBC’s favour, making it harder for outlets that are not the CBC to compete or even survive. There will be less opportunity for news innovators and increased private sector job losses will lead to demands for larger subsidies from industry lobby groups such as News Media Canada and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Good news for the CBC means bad news for others. This is either a really bad mistake by Carney or, making the CBC even more dominant as a news source (it has the most popular domestic website) is part of his plan.
Further brightening the outlook for journos at the Mother Corp was the news from CBC President Marie-Philippe Bouchard that there’s no need to investigate antisemitism within its ranks and, while its relationship with rural and western Canadians could be better, it’s unlikely the status quo will be disrupted. Editor in Chief Brodie Fenlon confirmed that conclusion by testifying before a Senate committee that the CBC’s newsrooms are the least biased he’s ever worked in.
Yup, life at the Mother Corp’s looking rosier than ever.
Perhaps as an unintended metaphor for CBC’s growth at private media’s expense, Postmedia’s Brian Passifiume illustrated his relative poverty by jocularly complaining about the lack of a free lunch for those within the budget lockup.
Time was when journos would refuse a free lunch from a subject of their coverage. Now they complain publicly about not getting one.
 |
Speaking of the budget, a couple of items caught the eye.
One was the jaw-dropping Tweet by the Hill Times’ Stu Benson noting how journalists were partying post-budget at Ottawa’s trendy Metro Brasserie with government MPs and bigwigs. It, accompanied by photos, stated:
“Hundreds of politicos, journalists, and libatious Liberals joined Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne for a post-budget victory lap at the @MetroBrasserie_ on Nov. 4 at @EarnscliffeCda X @politicoottawa’s”
In response, Twitter sage Norman Spector shared Benson’s post and wrote:
“How it works in Ottawa: Politicos, journalists and Liberals at a post-budget victory lap – a shindig co-sponsored by a lobbying firm.”
And media wonder why so many no longer have faith in them?
The other item involved what is termed an “advance” story posted by the CBC. The problem wasn’t that the story failed to contain all the key elements and expected perspectives. It did. The problem was that none of those were introduced at all until the 10th paragraph and you have to go another 28 paragraphs or so before the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP are even mentioned, making the piece read like a government news release. This is a common error in newsrooms where staff should know by now that most people consume news by reading a headline and – give or take – the top six paragraphs before moving on.
So, unless reporters introduce balance within the first three paragraphs, most people will be unaware that alternative views exist.
CBC is hardly alone in making this error, although its dominance in the market enhances its impact.
Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.
Your encouragement is appreciated.
During my spells in Ottawa – briefly within the Parliamentary Press Gallery and longer at the CRTC – I was struck by how little so many reporters working there know about how government and its institutions actually work.
Most, in my recollection, cover only the drama, intrigue and theatre of politics. For too many, the daily routine consists of scanning news releases, phoning their contacts and watching Question Period on CPAC before venturing (maybe) across Wellington Street (is it still called that?) for a scrum or two.
What most don’t bother with at all are some of the most important aspects of the machinery of government such as the work of committees, the regulations that follow passage of legislation or, as Blacklock’s Reporter Publisher Holly Doan pointed out last week, the estimates that follow a budget.
These are important matters and the lack of coverage by subsidized media leaves the public ill-informed. For instance, as the Liberals move to buy off opposition MPs to form a majority government people did not vote for, they will also be able to claim control over committees.
So, as the nation morphs inexorably into a permanent one-party state, the absence of coverage in these areas will be increasingly evident. If you want to be a fully informed citizen, find a news outlet that covers these important matters and subscribe.
A little more than a year ago, people were being fired at CTV for manipulating quotes from Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
That practice delivered an even more devastating impact on public trust in journalism when it was revealed that the BBC program Panorama had blended two phrases from US President Donald Trump. As The Standard reported:
“In a clip from a Panorama programme, broadcast before the election, Trump appears to tell supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol…and I’ll be there with you. And we fight, we fight like hell.
“But the words were taken from different sections of his speech, nearly an hour apart. In the original footage, his language is more restrained: “We’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women,” adding his supporters will march “peacefully and patriotically” to make their voices heard.”
Opposition MPs are demanding an inquiry. In this clip, GB News takes no prisoners. Reports Saturday indicate the chair of the BBC would be officially apologizing.
Michael Geist is not a journalist. He’s a law professor and internet expert. And his coverage of the budget – in a Substack note – was a fabulous example of the importance of a free and open internet as a source of valuable information about important matters overlooked by mainstream media. He said:
“Canadian government departments are big believers that AI will be the source of reducing expenses. Finance, Justice, CRTC, Fisheries, CRA, ESDC all cite new efficiencies from AI to explain how they will meet the 15% spending reduction target in the budget.”
And, as I wrote in The Line a couple of months back:
“Two years ago, the Liberals were hoping to claim they’d saved legacy media from Big Tech. All they really did was stake it for AI to devour.”
But you won’t read that in legacy media. Just here. Tell your friends.
Oh and one last treat for those of you who enjoy a snappy front page:
 |
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.)
Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.
Your encouragement is appreciated.
Bovaer Backlash Update: Danish Farmers Get Green Light to Opt Out as UK Arla Trial Abruptly Ends!
Carney’s Floor-Crossing Campaign. A Media-Staged Bid for Majority Rule That Erodes Democracy While Beijing Hovers
Canada moves forward with digital identification for federal benefits seekers
School defunding petition in Alberta is a warning to parents
-
Alberta2 days agoHow economic corridors could shape a stronger Canadian future
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day agoRichmond Mayor Warns Property Owners That The Cowichan Case Puts Their Titles At Risk
-
Business1 day agoP.E.I. Moves to Open IRAC Files, Forcing Land Regulator to Publish Reports After The Bureau’s Investigation
-
Daily Caller2 days agoLaura Ingraham’s Viral Clash With Trump Prompts Her To Tell Real Reasons China Sends Students To US
-
Alberta2 days agoWhen Teachers Say Your Child Has Nowhere Else to Go
-
COVID-1924 hours agoMajor new studies link COVID shots to kidney disease, respiratory problems
-
Energy1 day agoCanada’s oilpatch shows strength amid global oil shakeup
-
Censorship Industrial Complex16 hours ago
EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech