Connect with us

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.

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

Internet

Social media pushes pornography on children within minutes, report finds

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

A new report reveals social media platform TikTok’s algorithm directs 13-year-olds to explicit content within clicks

Social media is now one of the primary pipelines to porn addiction for both children and young adults.

Global Witness, a campaign organization that investigates the impact of Big Tech on human rights, recently conducted a number of tests to determine how quickly children could access pornography on social media platforms.

According to the Guardian, Global Witness conducted one test before the implementation of the U.K.’s Online Safety Act in July, and one after. In just a few clicks, TikTok directed children’s accounts to pornography.

“Global Witness set up fake accounts using a 13-year-old’s birth date and turned on the video app’s ‘restricted mode,’ which limits exposure to ‘sexually suggestive’ content,” the Guardian reported. “Researchers found TikTok suggested sexualised and explicit search terms to seven test accounts that were created on clean phones with no search history.”

I have seen similar tests conducted myself – a completely new account set up, with no history, and no algorithm as of yet – and highly sexual content was recommended within minutes. The Global Witness investigation found that the “you may like” feature for the children’s accounts included “very, very rude skimpy outfits,” “very rude babes,” and “hardcore” porn.

A few clicks later, the researchers reported, the pornographic content escalated from “softcore” pornography of bare breasts to hardcore pornography of “penetrative sex.” The group emphasized that “the content attempted to evade moderation, usually showing the clip within an innocuous picture or video. For one account, the process took two clicks after logging on: one click on the search bar and then one on the suggested search.”

Even more disturbingly, Global Witness reported that two of the videos appeared to feature minors; both were sent to the Internet Watch Foundation as potentially criminal online child sexual abuse material.” Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator, stated that Global Witness’s report has prompted an investigation into potential breaches of the Online Services Act.

But parents should not wait for the government to step in. I have encountered countless young people who were first exposed to pornographic material on social media; many teenagers have told me that Instagram is a key on-ramp into pornography.

Snapchat is no better. Pornography is easily accessible within five clicks without ever leaving the app. The National Centre on Sexual Exploitation has been urging parents to keep children off of Snapchat for years, and lists the social media app as one of the worst offenders on its annual “Dirty Dozen” list. Snapchat has consistently ignored warnings from lawmakers concerning the dangers of its app as a primary mechanism of sexting, sextortion, and worse offences.

Having spoken to thousands of teens on pornography, I can state that this abdication of responsibility has led to enormous misery, addiction, and genuine damage, during the formative developmental years.

As Tim Challies wrote years ago already when begging parents not to give their children smartphones: “Please don’t give them porn for Christmas.”

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk announces ‘Grokipedia’ project after Tucker Carlson highlights Wikipedia bias

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Joseph Quinn

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger explained how Wikipedia systematically blacklists and “deprecates” conservative sources. Wikipedia remains one of the most heavily used information sources online and is integrated with Google search results.

Elon Musk has announced plans to build “Grokipedia,” a new open-source online encyclopedia under his artificial intelligence company xAI.

“Will be a massive improvement over Wikipedia,” Musk wrote on X. “Frankly, it is a necessary step towards the xAI goal of understanding the Universe.”

We are building Grokipedia @xAI.

Will be a massive improvement over Wikipedia.

Frankly, it is a necessary step towards the xAI goal of understanding the Universe. https://t.co/xvSeWkpALy

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025

The announcement came days after Tucker Carlson’s interview with Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia and a vocal critic of the organization since his departure in 2002.

Sanger explained how Wikipedia systematically blacklists and “deprecates” conservative sources. Seeing LifeSiteNews on the list, Carlson said that the platform has become “a weapon of ideological, theological war.”

Musk echoed Sanger’s criticisms, affirming Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton’s claim that “Wikipedia is a smear machine for the Left.”

💯

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025

Musk later amplified memes promoting Grokipedia, calling it “an open source knowledge repository that is vastly better than Wikipedia.”

Join @xAI and help build Grokipedia, an open source knowledge repository that is vastly better than Wikipedia!

This will be available to the public with no limits on use. https://t.co/3CnfrvNIpI

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025

He also affirmed Sanger’s “Nine Theses,” which call for dismantling Wikipedia’s centralized editorial control.

Some good suggestions from the co-founder of Wikipedia https://t.co/bgwBmi6uXN

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025

Musk has not released technical details of the Grokipedia project but said that Grok AI will be independent of Wikipedia “by the end of the year.”

Wikipedia should have just taken that $1 billion offer from Elon Musk, it’s too late, the rival is coming: Grokipedia! pic.twitter.com/cLBKfPRgyO

— SMX 🇺🇸 (@iam_smx) September 30, 2025

Wikipedia remains one of the most heavily used information sources online and is integrated with Google search results. Critics argue that its governance model allows biased editors – described as “ideologically-driven thought police” – to shape content and suppress dissenting viewpoints, particularly on political, cultural, and religious topics.

A similar initiative called “Infogalactic” was launched in 2016. A “fork” of Wikipedia, it was designed to decentralize control and allow multiple perspectives. While Infogalactic never reached Wikipedia’s scale, it established a model for alternative knowledge repositories.

Attracting a critical mass of editors and establishing credibility remain significant challenges facing such alternatives. Musk’s involvement signals a higher-profile challenge to Wikipedia’s dominance, combining xAI’s technological resources with his public platform on X.

Musk has not provided a clear timeline, but the announcement positions xAI to mount a direct challenge to Wikipedia’s dominance of the information ecosystem.

Continue Reading

Trending

X