Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Media

Breaking News: the public actually expects journalists to determine the truth of statements they report

Published

11 minute read

CBC’s David Cochrane explaining to viewers how the CBC is blameless for accurately reporting a statement later determined to be false

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. CBCCTV and Global News appear to be boycotting.


Share

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 News terminated 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.

Well, one of those fired CTV employees, Derek Thacker, is back on the list of approved Parliamentary Press Gallery members as an employee of Global News.


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.

Donate

(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.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Artificial Intelligence

Google denies scanning users’ email and attachments with its AI software

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Charles Richards

Google claims that multiple media reports are misleading and that nothing has changed with its service.

Tech giant Google is claiming that reports earlier this week released by multiple major media outlets are false and that it is not using emails and attachments to emails for its new Gemini AI software.

Fox News, Breitbart, and other outlets published stories this week instructing readers on how to “stop Google AI from scanning your Gmail.”

“Google shared a new update on Nov. 5, confirming that Gemini Deep Research can now use context from your Gmail, Drive and Chat,” Fox reported. “This allows the AI to pull information from your messages, attachments and stored files to support your research.”

Breitbart likewise said that “Google has quietly started accessing Gmail users’ private emails and attachments to train its AI models, requiring manual opt-out to avoid participation.”

Breitbart pointed to a press release issued by Malwarebytes that said the company made the changed without users knowing.

After the backlash, Google issued a response.

“These reports are misleading – we have not changed anyone’s settings. Gmail Smart Features have existed for many years, and we do not use your Gmail content for training our Gemini AI model. Lastly, we are always transparent and clear if we make changes to our terms of service and policies,” a company spokesman told ZDNET reporter Lance Whitney.

Malwarebytes has since updated its blog post to now say they “contributed to a perfect storm of misunderstanding” in their initial reporting, adding that their claim “doesn’t appear to be” true.

But the blog has also admitted that Google “does scan email content to power its own ‘smart features,’ such as spam filtering, categorization, and writing suggestions. But this is part of how Gmail normally works and isn’t the same as training Google’s generative AI models.”

“I think the most alarming thing that we saw was the regular organized stream of communication between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the largest tech companies in the country,” journalist Matt Taibbi told the U.S. Congress in December 2023 during a hearing focused on how Twitter was working hand in glove with the agency to censor users and feed the government information.

If you use Google and would like to turn off your “smart features,” click here to visit the Malwarebytes blog to be guided through the process with images. Otherwise, you can follow these five steps courtesy of Unilad Tech.

  • Open Gmail on Desktop and press the cog icon in the top right to open the settings
  • Select the ‘Smart Features’ setting in the ‘General’ section
  • Turn off the ‘Turn on smart features in Gmail, Chat, and Meet’
  • Find the Google Workplace smart features section and opt to manage the smart feature settings
  • Switch off ‘Smart features in Google Workspace’ and ‘Smart features in other Google products’

On November 11, a class action lawsuit was filed against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case alleges that Google violated the state’s Invasion of Privacy Act by discreetly activating Gemini AI to scan Gmail, Google Chat, and Google Meet messages in October 2025 without notifying users or seeking their consent.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK Government “Resist” Program Monitors Citizens’ Online Posts

Published on

logo
Let’s begin with a simple question. What do you get when you cross a bloated PR department with a clipboard-wielding surveillance unit?
The answer, apparently, is the British Government Communications Service (GCS). Once a benign squad of slogan-crafting, policy-promoting clipboard enthusiasts, they’ve now evolved (or perhaps mutated) into what can only be described as a cross between MI5 and a neighborhood Reddit moderator with delusions of grandeur.
Yes, your friendly local bureaucrat is now scrolling through Facebook groups, lurking in comment sections, and watching your aunt’s status update about the “new hotel down the road filling up with strangers” like it’s a scene from Homeland. All in the name of “societal cohesion,” of course.
Once upon a time, the GCS churned out posters with perky slogans like Stay Alert or Get Boosted Now, like a government-powered BuzzFeed.
But now, under the updated “Resist” framework (yes, it’s actually called that), the GCS has been reprogrammed to patrol the internet for what they’re calling “high-risk narratives.”
Not terrorism. Not hacking. No, according to The Telegraph, the new public enemy is your neighbor questioning things like whether the council’s sudden housing development has anything to do with the 200 migrants housed in the local hotel.
It’s all in the manual: if your neighbor posts that “certain communities are getting priority housing while local families wait years,” this, apparently, is a red flag. An ideological IED. The sort of thing that could “deepen community divisions” and “create new tensions.”
This isn’t surveillance, we’re told. It’s “risk assessment.” Just a casual read-through of what that lady from your yoga class posted about a planning application. The framework warns of “local parental associations” and “concerned citizens” forming forums.
And why the sudden urgency? The new guidance came hot on the heels of a real incident, protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers, following the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by Hadush Kebatu, an Ethiopian migrant.
Now, instead of looking at how that tragedy happened or what policies allowed it, the government’s solution is to scan the reaction to it.
What we are witnessing is the rhetorical equivalent of chucking all dissent into a bin labelled “disinformation” and slamming the lid shut.
The original Resist framework was cooked up in 2019 as a European-funded toolkit to fight actual lies. Now, it equates perfectly rational community concerns about planning, safety, and who gets housed where with Russian bots and deepfakes. If you squint hard enough, everyone starts to look like a threat.
Local councils have even been drafted into the charade. New guidance urges them to follow online chatter about asylum seekers in hotels or the sudden closure of local businesses.
One case study even panics over a town hall meeting where residents clapped. That’s right. Four hundred people clapped in support of someone they hadn’t properly Googled first. This, we’re told, is dangerous.
So now councils are setting up “cohesion forums” and “prebunking” schemes to manage public anger. Prebunking. Like bunking, but done in advance, before you’ve even heard the thing you’re not meant to believe.
It’s the equivalent of a teacher telling you not to laugh before the joke’s even landed.
Naturally, this is all being wrapped in the cosy language of protecting democracy. A government spokesman insisted, with a straight face: “We are committed to protecting people online while upholding freedom of expression.”
Because let’s be real, this isn’t about illegal content or safeguarding children. It’s about managing perception. When you start labeling ordinary gripes and suspicions as “narratives” that need “countering,” what you’re really saying is: we don’t trust the public to think for themselves.
Continue Reading

Trending

X