Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

News

Edmonton growing and vibrant – City Of Edmonton

Published

2 minute read

from City of Edmonton:

City of Edmonton population vibrant and growing steadily
September 5, 2019
Mayor Don Iveson announced the results of Edmonton’s 2019 Municipal Census today, with an official city population of 972,223 as of April 1, 2019. This represents an increase of 72,776 people, and an average growth rate of 2.6 per cent annually, since the last municipal census in 2016.
Edmonton’s population is young by Canadian standards. More than half of the population is under the age of 39. The largest population segment is between 30 and 39, years when people typically establish their careers and start families.
“This is a great sign for Edmonton,” said Mayor Iveson. “Edmonton’s growing and young population presents a number of economic benefits for our city. It speaks to our vibrancy and strengthens our local business community’s ability to attract and retain new investment.”
Edmonton is on track for a population of over one million people by the end of 2020, and more than two million within thirty years if current growth rates persist. The city’s growth rate for 2019 is predicted to be 2.1 per cent, higher than Alberta (1.9 per cent) and Canada (1.3 per cent).
This year’s census demonstrated the City’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. Edmonton was the first city in Canada to offer expanded gender identity options in a census, including trans, non-binary and two-spirited.
“We want our residents to feel valued for their uniqueness,” said Barb McLean, Equity Specialist with the City of Edmonton. “Every Edmontonian has something to contribute to our community, and including more gender options in the census gives representation to those who might not have felt valued before.”
The official census population captures only those residents who completed the census questionnaire. Using a mathematical formula similar to the one used by Statistics Canada for the federal census, we extrapolated our census data for the dwellings that did not participate in the census to get an estimate of the total population. This is the unofficial population count and it is used to inform the City’s planning work. The unofficial population count is 992,812.
More information on the census results, including further demographic and neighbourhood-level data, is available at edmonton.ca/census.

Todayville is an independently-owned digital media company. We specialize in helping community groups, local businesses and organizations tell their story. Our team has years of media and video production experience. Talk to us about advertising, brand journalism stories, opinion pieces, event promotion, or other ideas you have to make our product better. We also own and operate Todayville Red Deer and Todayville Calgary.

Follow Author

Internet

It’s only a matter of time before the government attaches strings to mainstream media subsidies

Published on

Misinformation is not exclusive to alternative online news organizations

The purpose of news ought to be to ensure that Canadians have a shared set of facts around which they can form their opinions and organize their lives.

Please consider becoming a subscriber.

In a previous world, whether they succeeded or failed at that was really no one’s business, at least provided the publisher wasn’t knowingly spreading false information intended to do harm. That is against the law, as outlined in Section 372 of the Criminal Code, which states:

“Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.”

Do that, and you can be imprisoned for up to two years.

But if a publisher was simply offering poorly researched, unbalanced journalism, and wave after wave of unchallenged opinion pieces with the ability to pervert the flow of information and leave the public with false or distorted impressions of the world, he or she was free to do so. Freedom of the press and all that.

The broadcasting world has always been different. Licensed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), content produced there must, according to the Broadcasting Act, be of “high standard”—something that the CRTC ensures through its proxy content regulator, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC).

Its most recent decision, for instance, condemned Sportsnet Ontario for failing to “provide a warning before showing scenes of extraordinary violence” when it broadcast highlights of UFC mixed martial arts competitions during morning weekend hours when children could watch. If you don’t understand how a warning would have prevented whatever trauma the highlights may have caused or how that might apply to the internet, take comfort in the fact that you aren’t alone.

The CRTC now has authority over all video and audio content posted digitally through the Online Streaming Act, and while it has not yet applied CRTC-approved CBSC standards to it, it’s probably only a matter of time before it does.

The same will—in my view—eventually take place regarding text news content. Since it has become a matter of public interest through subsidies, it’s inevitable that “high standard” expectations will be attached to eligibility. In other words, what once was nobody’s business is now everybody’s business. Freedom of the, er, press and all that.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith

Which raises the point: is the Canadian public well informed by the news industry, and who exactly will be the judge of that now that market forces have been, if not eliminated, at least emasculated?

For instance, as former Opposition leader Preston Manning recently wondered on Substack, how can it be that “62 per cent of Ontarians,” according to a Pollara poll, believe Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to be a separatist?

“The truth is that Premier Smith—whom I’ve known personally for a long time—is not a separatist and has made that clear on numerous occasions to the public, the media, and anyone who asks her,” he wrote.

I, too, have been acquainted for many years with the woman Globe and Mailcolumnist Andrew Coyne likes to call “Premier Loon” and have the same view as Manning, whom I have also known for many years: Smith is not a separatist.

Manning’s theory is that there are three reasons for Ontarians’ disordered view—the first two being ignorance and indifference.

The third and greatest, he wrote, is “misinformation—not so much misinformation transmitted via social media, because it is especially older Ontarians who believe the lie about Smith—but misinformation fed into the minds of Ontarians via the traditional media” which includes CBC, CTV, Global, and “the Toronto-based, legacy print media.”

No doubt, some members of those organizations would protest and claim the former Reform Party leader is the cause of all the trouble.

Such is today’s Canada, where the flying time between Calgary and Toronto is roughly the same as between London and Moscow, and the sense of east-west cultural dislocation is at times similar. As Rudyard Kipling determined, the twain shall never meet “till earth and sky stand presently at God’s great judgment seat.”

This doesn’t mean easterners and westerners can’t get along. Heavens no. But what it does illustrate is that maybe having editorial coverage decisions universally made in Hogtown about Cowtown (the author’s outdated terminology), Halifax, St John’s, Yellowknife, or Prince Rupert isn’t helping national unity. It is ridiculous, when you think about it, that anyone believes a vast nation’s residents could have compatible views when key decisions are limited to those perched six degrees south of the 49th parallel within earshot of Buffalo.

But CTV won’t change. Global can’t. The Globe is a Toronto newspaper, and most Postmedia products have become stripped-down satellites condemned to eternally orbit 365 Bloor Street East.

The CRTC is preoccupied with finding novel ways to subsidize broadcasters to maintain a status quo involving breakfast shows. So we can’t expect any changes there, nor can we from the major publishers.

Which leaves the job to the CBC, whose job it has always been to make sure the twain could meet. That makes it fair to assume Manning will be writing for many years to come about Toronto’s mainstream media and misinformation about the West.

(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.)

Thanks for reading The Rewrite!

Please help us grow our audience by sharing this post.

Share


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

Daily Caller

Big Tech Cover-Up: Google distorts search results to protect Obama

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

Google is under fire after a new study revealed it buried Tulsi Gabbard’s bombshell claims that Barack Obama fabricated Trump-Russia intel—flooding search results with leftist attacks and downplaying the story to protect the former president.

Key Details:

  • DNI Tulsi Gabbard accused Obama of fabricating intelligence to bolster the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
  • Google News allegedly buried Gabbard’s exposé by promoting stories attacking her instead of covering her claims.
  • MRC found that 90% of Google’s promoted coverage came from left-leaning outlets, leaving just 10% for right-leaning perspectives—almost exclusively Fox News.

Image

Diving Deeper:

During a July 23 press briefing, Tulsi Gabbard revealed explosive allegations against the Obama administration, accusing the former president of overriding intelligence assessments that found no Russian interference favoring Donald Trump in 2016. According to Gabbard, Obama “manipulated” the intelligence community to promote a “contrived narrative,” aimed at undermining Trump and, by extension, the will of American voters.

But rather than spotlighting the story’s significance, Google appeared to move swiftly to suppress it. As the MRC study shows, Google’s News tab was flooded with coverage designed to discredit Gabbard—many articles outright calling her a liar or suggesting she was distracting from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. One article from The Atlantic branded Trump’s public support for her findings as “desperate,” while others derided her evidence as “thin gruel” or claimed she was trying to “rewrite history.”

A closer look at Google’s search results between July 24 and July 29 paints a troubling picture. The MRC analyzed the first page of results for the term “Tulsi Gabbard” and found that out of 42 articles, 33 were from outlets classified by AllSides as “Lean Left” or “Left.” Only four were from right-leaning sources—and all four came from a single outlet: Fox News. Three of those Fox articles focused not on Gabbard’s claims, but on attacks against her, often echoing Democratic Party criticism.

MRC highlighted how even these rare conservative pieces offered little defense of Gabbard’s findings. One article simply quoted Rep. Adam Schiff dismissing the accusations as “dishonest.” Others featured video clips of NBC’s Kristen Welker pressing GOP figures like Sen. Lindsey Graham about the credibility of Gabbard’s claims. Only one article directly addressed the substance of her evidence.

Meanwhile, prominent left-leaning outlets featured in Google’s curated feed pushed narratives designed to ridicule or minimize the allegations. MSNBC dismissed her claims as “absurd,” while Politico suggested Gabbard had become a “weapon” for President Trump. CNN accused her of attempting to “rewrite history,” and FactCheck.org labeled her statements “misleading.”

The implications go beyond this single controversy. A 2021 Pew Research Center study found that two-thirds of Americans rely on search engines like Google for their news. This means most Americans are receiving information that has been filtered through what critics argue is an increasingly leftist editorial algorithm.

By not allowing a diversity of viewpoints on such a critical national security issue—especially one involving a former president—Google’s conduct raises serious concerns about media bias and the integrity of information distribution. While it is unsurprising to see The New York Times or CNN toe the DNC line, the monopoly Google holds over digital search amplifies this bias into something far more powerful and dangerous.

The episode underscores a growing divide in how news is curated and presented online. For conservative Americans, it also reinforces a longstanding suspicion: Big Tech is not just biased—it’s actively working to sanitize narratives unfavorable to the Democratic Party.

In this case, shielding Obama and undermining a sitting Trump administration official.

Continue Reading

Trending

X