Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Media

Response to any budget sleight of hand will determine which audience media have decided to serve

Published

11 minute read

The Rewrite

The Rewrite

Plus! CBC’s “Intifada Evan” shows the Ombudsman who’s boss and Rebel News puts another tick in the debates win column

Will media go along with the language shell game the government prefers or serve their readers with transparency and the Truth?

The nation’s media and its choice of words will be put to the test when Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government unveils its first budget three weeks from now.

The PM and his Finance Minister, Francois-Philippe Champagne have made it clear that they intend to recategorize capital spending as “investment” and perhaps view their deficit primarily only in terms of any financial shortfall in operational spending. The simplest way to explain the difference between capital and operational is that the former is the money a government would spend to buy or build new ships and aircraft and the latter is what you need every year to keep them afloat, in the air and staffed. If you don’t have enough cashflow to pay the costs of both of those and you have to borrow money to do so, that’s a deficit. Or at least it used to be.

The Rewrite depends on you.

Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Going forward – and to be fair we won’t know exactly what is coming until we see the budget – it appears Carney and company only intend to speak of the deficit in terms of operational budgets. All other spending, no matter its volume, is likely to be termed capital “investment.” They also appear to be moving subsidies into that category. Hopefully, if this plays out as it appears it will, media will still acknowledge how much the government is borrowing to cover the shortfall between revenue and expenses as at least one prominent analyst anticipates this year’s deficit will hit $100 billion – more than twice the $42 billion forecast by Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau.

The test for media will be to see whether – as so far appears to be the case – they will comply and comfortably go along with the language shell game the government prefers or the language that best serves their readers with transparency and the Truth.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has already raised concerns about the government’s creative accounting proposal.

“Finance Canada’s definition and categories expand the scope of capital investment beyond the current treatment of capital spending in the Public Accounts of Canada,” the PBO stated. “Based on our initial assessment, we find that the scope is overly expansive and exceeds international practice.”

The media’s decisions regarding whose language it uses – its readers’ or its government’s – will tell us a lot about newsroom cultures and priorities.


The CBC’s Evan Dyer is one of those reporters who has refused to take the advice of the Mother Corp’s Ombudsman. Last year, Jack Nagler, now retired, had reviewed complaints about a social media post by Samira Modyeddin concerning the arrest of a Palestinian activist who had threatened to kill Jews and drink their blood.

“This is a healthy reminder for those journalists who feel compelled to weigh in on controversial news stories,” Nagler wrote in his July, 2024 report, before concluding that, “It might be helpful to think about social media the way you would about cutting a piece of wood.

“Measure twice and post once.”

Dyer, who’s too clever by half on X and has been nicknamed “Intifada Evan” by critics, apparently disagrees. In my view, earning noms de plume for bias is not something to which journalists should aspire. Many news organizations agree, which is why they expect their reporters to restrict social media activity to the posting of their own and related work. That way, they aren’t broadcasting their personal biases to the world and damaging public trust in their employer.

Dismissive of Nagler’s advice and oblivious to the fact a Radio-Canada journo, Elisa Serret, had recently been suspended for an antisemitic rant, Dyer had this to say about the news that Bari Weiss had sold her The Free Press to Paramount and been appointed head of CBS News:

“Bari Weiss will be editor-in-chief of CBS News and report directly to David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, the world’s top private donor to the IDF (Israel Defence Force). Kenneth Weinstein, former CEO of the Hudson Institute, will monitor for “bias” as demanded by FCC commissioner Brendan Carr.”

Or, as some might have read it, “one Jew reports to another Jew, son of a Jew who donates to defend Israel while another Jew monitors the Jews.”

Whether Dyer was told to delete this post or chose on his own to remove it is unknown. But it didn’t disappear fast enough to prevent several critics who took frame grabs that were shared widely and with a powerful blend of enthusiasm and condemnation. The comment of Vivian Bercovici, former Canadian ambassador to Israel, provided a good summary:

“Darn Jooz, eh Evan? They control everything. Banks. Weather. All of it. Qatar? An innocent bystander engaged in good works the world over.”

Sue-Ann Levy added “Hey @EvanDyerCBC … is there a place at CBC HQ where I should pick up my yellow star?”

There was no word at the time of writing whether Dyer had been disciplined but as I write this (he has blocked me) he is still Tweeting away.

In so doing. he has certainly shown that the office of the CBC Ombudsman can be ignored at will and without consequence. Perhaps other of his colleagues will similarly assert themselves.

Share


Readers will recall that Rebel News caused quite a stir at the leaders’ debates during last spring’s federal election – so much so that media were not allowed to ask questions following the English version. That was due to the ruckus that had ensued within the press corps when Rebel staked out the front of the queue after the French debate and asked questions that shocked legacy media, the CBC in particular. The most notorious exchange involved CBC’s Adrienne Arsenault and Rosemary Barton, who accused the Rebel representative of spreading far right misinformation. CBC later issued a correction after Barton stated “yes, there have been remains of Indigenous children found at various places around the country.”

Well, it looks like there’s going to be a sequel. According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the Leaders’ Debate Commission has thrown in the towel when it comes to defining a journalist. As Blacklock’s reported:

“The Debates Commission said it consulted numerous media on methods of accreditation including the Canadian Association of Journalists, CBC, CPAC, Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Independent Press Gallery that accredits Rebel News. “There was no consensus,” it wrote.

“Nor was there a consensus on what constitutes a media organization, what defines journalism or who is a journalist,” said the report. “Stakeholders noted journalism is not a regulated profession like law or medicine and there is no legal definition of journalism that could be upheld in court.”


Last week I promised to bring forward more on the responses of media that refuse to take government subsidies. Turns out other events took priority and I had columns to write for both The Hub and The Line. I will try to find time to squeeze in an extra column. Readers will also notice a new DONATE button has been added. This allows you to buy The Rewrite a cup of coffee or, if you are feeling generous, a beer, but doesn’t constitute a subscription. Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours and my thanks to you for your support and encouragement.

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.)

Subscribe to The Rewrite.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Before Post

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

Media

They know they are lying, we know they are lying and they know we know but the lies continue

Published on

A couple of journos wade through their industry’s moral and professional fatigue. Plus! BBC under fire, sources burn politicos and the Dinger delivers a zinger

“In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State. Anyone who wishes to preserve a career, a degree, or merely their daily bread must live by the lie.”

So wrote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn about life in the Soviet Union in the 1960s.

The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Three decades after his words were smuggled out of Russia and published in the West, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel wrote their seminal work, The Elements of Journalism. In that, they made it clear that the craft’s first obligation is to the truth that eluded Solzhenitsyn’s life and its first loyalty is to citizens. Everything else flows from there.

As I have noted ad nauseum, too many titles continue to mask government sources feeding them strategic information and excuse the practice by claiming the sources are “not authorized.” This suspension of disbelief not only undermines trust in the craft, it stirs further memories of Solzhenitsyn, a Nobel Prize winner and perhaps the most famous of Soviet dissidents, who was exiled to the West in 1974. As he once famously said:

“We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category, but the pillar industry of this country.”

Which is why, if journalism is to fulfill its loyalty to citizens, it needs to diligently apply itself to its first obligation and expose political lies – which Solzhenitsyn denounced as a tool of state control – and misrepresentation in all its forms at every opportunity.

Recently, we saw some encouraging examples of journalists doing just that.

Brian Passifiume of the Toronto Sun noticed there was something off about Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Sept. 14 Build Canada Homes announcement in Ottawa

Canadian Press photo of Sept. 14 Build Canada announcement..

To him, it had the scent of a movie set. He wasn’t the only one to wonder but many of his cohorts either ignored that angle or, exposing a corrosive sense of moral and professional ennui, shrugged and accepted the performance as routine political misrepresentation, as if that makes it OK. Canadian Press even went so far as to publish a “fact check” that defended Carney and stated “Claims government built fake homes for photo op misleading.”

Late in November, following inquiries by a Tory MP, Passifiume was able to report that “The Privy Council Office has finally admitted what I originally reported back in September — the Nepean construction site used by the PM for his Sept. 14 Build Canada Homes announcement was all for show, and cost $32K.”

I get that some will argue this ruse is a justifiable use of taxpayers’ money. Others won’t. Which is probably the way it should be. On the upside, the government now knows there are reporters still willing to fulfill their obligation to the truth and their loyalty to citizens.

The downside is that, at the time of writing, Canadian Press’s fact check remained unchanged and still insisted no added costs were involved.

Felice Chin of The Hub (I am a contributor) also fired a shot across the bows of politicians and their too frequent dysfunctional relationships with the truth.

In her “Fact check: Elizabeth May’s tanker claims don’t add up” piece she not only corrected the Green Party leader on west coast marine geography and tanker traffic, she outed Conservative Andrew Scheer for his, ahem, embellishments on the same file.


The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

While on the topic of unnamed sources, at least one reporter recently got badly burned by someone he protected while another was pushed into explanation mode.

Going with a single, unnamed government source, Global News’s Mackenzie Gray informed Canadians that “Steven Guilbeault won’t resign from Mark Carney’s cabinet over the upcoming pipeline agreement” with Alberta.

Hours later, Guilbeault did just that.

The Toronto Sun’s Brian Lilley went with multiple unnamed sources to announce “Canada’s embassy and official residence in Paris is lovely. It’s no wonder Melanie Joly wants to be appointed Ambassador to France and leave Carney’s cabinet.”

Joly unequivocally rejected that idea, forcing Lilley to play some defence while sticking to his guns. We’ll wait and see how this one turns out.

Meanwhile, CBC pretty much took the bar below ground last week when reporter Darren Major explained that:

CBC News has agreed to not name the source because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the proposed amendment.”

We are left to assume that this gibberish means they were authorized to speak, but only privately. More on this in the weeks ahead.

Share


The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Dave Rich is a contributor to The Guardian, an author, and an expert on left wing antisemitism which, based on my life experience, is far more widespread and embedded in our institutions than the right wing version of the same cancerous prejudice ever got close to. His Nov. 10 Substack post via Everyday Hate points out that the Prescott Report embroiling the BBC contains “a litany of jaw-dropping editorial and journalistic failings.”

Rich writes as a fan of the BBC but points out, sadly, that the details of the report suggest “that these errors are not random, but a product of an internal culture of bias and a particular political mindset.”

Of noteworthy concern is BBC Arabic.

The Telegraph has since reported that BBC Arabic had to make 215 corrections in two years to its coverage of Israel and Gaza – that’s two per week,” Rich writes. “It’s staggering.”

Sound like anyone you know? Don’t expect Canadian news organizations to be hiring Michael Prescott to study their entrails any time soon.


Rick Bell of the Calgary Herald/Sun/whatever was the first to report that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith had reached an agreement and would be signing a Memorandum of Understanding on pipeline development in Calgary on Nov. 27. A couple of days after Bell, aka The Dinger, let the cat out of the bag, others started breathlessly quoting “sources” as if they were breaking the story. This prompted Bell, who prematurely entered curmudgeonhood decades ago, to say.

“News isn’t really news, even if it is about Alberta, until the self-styled smart set in Toronto and Ottawa say it’s news.”

Amen, brother.


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.)

The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

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

Trending

X