Media
Top Five Huge Stories the Media Buried This Week

NEERA TANDEN: “The military requires accountability. It’s the most accountable organization. You are supposed to be accountable to higher-ups. Politics isn’t supposed to have to do with any of this, and the fact that that’s happening, that they’re just basically saying nothing to do here, is a big problem, I think, for those who believe in accountability.”
@ScottJenningsKY: “I think Republicans aren’t interested in any lectures on accountability in the military after the Biden administration. I mean, the bar for getting rid of a Secretary of Defense is apparently pretty high. You can get 13 people killed and go AWOL and not tell the commander in chief, and that’s not a fireable offense.”
“But these lectures about accountability and national security after letting 10 million people into the country who raped and murdered and committed violent acts and no remorse or accountability.”
NEERA TANDEN: “What are you talking about? They closed the border.”
#4 – Bill Gates says we won’t need humans “for most things.”
During an appearance on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon asked Gates a pretty direct question: “Will we still need humans?”
Gates responded, “Not for most things. We’ll decide … There will be some things that we reserve for ourselves, but in terms of making things and moving things and growing food, over time those will be basically solved problems.”
VIDEO: @TheChiefNerd
REP JORDAN: “Is NPR biased?”
MAHER: “I have never seen any political bias.”
JORDAN: “In the DC area, editorial positions at NPR have 87 registered Democrats and 0 Republicans.”
MAHER: “We do not track the voter registration, but I find that concerning.”
JORDAN: “87-0 and you’re not biased?”
MAHER: “I think that is concerning if those numbers are accurate.”
JORDAN: “October 2020, the NYPost had the Hunter Biden laptop story, and one of those 87 Democrat editors said, ‘We don’t want to waste our readers and listeners’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.’ Was that story a pure distraction?”
Video + Transcript via @Kanekoathegreat
While you’re here, don’t forget to subscribe to this page for more weekly news roundups.
#2 – Utah becomes the first state to officially BAN fluoride in all public drinking water.
For decades, fluoride was accepted as a safe way to prevent tooth decay. Few questioned it.
But last year, in a dramatic legal twist, a federal judge ruled that fluoride may actually lower children’s IQ—and cited evidence that could upend everything we thought we knew.
That ruling sent shockwaves through the public health world.
Judge Edward Chen pointed to scientific studies showing a “high level of certainty” that fluoride exposure “poses a risk” to developing brains.
He ordered the EPA to reexamine its safety standards, warning that the margin for safety may be far too narrow.
At the center of the case: dozens of peer-reviewed studies linking everyday fluoride exposure—even at levels found in U.S. tap water—to reduced intellectual capacity in children.
It wasn’t just one paper. The National Toxicology Program, a branch of the U.S. government, also concluded that higher fluoride levels were “consistently associated” with lower IQ in kids.
They flagged 1.5 mg/L as a risk threshold. Some communities hover right near it.
In response to the growing evidence, Utah passed HB 81, banning all fluoride additives in public water.
The law takes effect May 7. It doesn’t ban fluoride completely. Anyone who wants it can still get it—like any other prescription.
And that’s the point: Utah’s lawmakers say this is about informed consent and personal choice.
This issue is no longer on the fringe. Across the country, cities and towns are quietly rethinking water fluoridation—and some have already pulled out. Utah is the first state to take bold action. It may not be the last.
The conversation surrounding fluoride has shifted from “Is it helpful?” to “Is it safe?” And for the first time in nearly a century, that question is being taken seriously.
VIDEO: @TheChiefNerd
#1 – RFK Jr. Drops Stunning Vaccine Announcement
Kennedy revealed that the CDC is creating a new sub-agency focused entirely on vaccine injuries—a long-overdue shift for patients who’ve spent years searching for answers without any support from the government.
“We’re incorporating an agency within CDC that is going to specialize in vaccine injuries,” Kennedy announced.
“These are priorities for the American people. More and more people are suffering from these injuries, and we are committed to having gold-standard science make sure that we can figure out what the treatments are and that we can deliver the best treatments possible to the American people.”
For years, the vaccine-injured have felt ignored or dismissed, as public health agencies refused to even acknowledge the problem. Now, there’s finally an initiative underway to investigate their injuries and to provide support.
Thanks for reading! This weekly roundup takes time and care to put together—and I do my best to make it your go-to source for the stories that matter most but rarely get the attention they deserve.
If you like my work and want to support me and my family and help keep this page alive, the most powerful thing you can do is sign up for the email list and become a paid subscriber.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Canada’s privacy commissioner says he was not consulted on bill to ban dissidents from internet

From LifeSiteNews
Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne that there was no consultation on Bill C-8, which is touted by Liberals as a way to stop ‘unprecedented cyber-threats.’
Canada’s Privacy Commissioner admitted that he was never consulted on a recent bill introduced by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney that became law and would grant officials the power to ban anyone deemed a dissident from accessing the internet.
Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne said last week that in regard to Bill C-8, titled “An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts,” that there was no consultation.
“We are not consulted on specific pieces of legislation before they are tabled,” he told the House of Commons ethics committee, adding, “I don’t want privacy to be an obstacle to transparency.”
Bill C-8, which is now in its second reading in the House of Commons, was introduced in June by Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree and has a provision in which the federal government could stop “any specified person” from accessing the internet.
All that would be needed is the OK from Minister of Industry Mélanie Joly for an individual to be denied internet service.
The federal government under Carney claims that the bill is a way to stop “unprecedented cyber-threats.”
The bill, as written, claims that the government would need the power to cut someone off from the internet, as it could be “necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, or degradation.”
While questioning Dufresne, Conservative MP Michael Barrett raised concerns that no warrant would be needed for agents to go after those officials who want to be banned from the internet or phone service.
“Without meaningful limits, bills like C-8 can hand the government secret, warrantless powers over Canadians’ communications,” he told the committee, adding the bill, as written is a “serious setback for privacy,” as well as a “setback for democracy.”
Barrett asked if the goal of the bill is for Parliament to be granted “sweeping powers of surveillance to the government without a formal review?
Dufresne said, “It’s not a legal obligation under the Privacy Act.”
Experts have warned that Bill C-8 is flawed and must be “fixed.”
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) blasted the bill as troublesome, saying it needs to “fix” the “dangerous flaws” in the bill before it becomes law.
“Experts and civil society have warned that the legislation would confer ministerial powers that could be used to deliberately or inadvertently compromise the security of encryption standards within telecommunications networks that people, governments, and businesses across Canada rely upon, every day,” the CCLA wrote in a recent press release.
Canada’s own intelligence commissioner has warned that the bill, if passed as is, would potentially not be constitutionally justified, as it would allow for warrantless seizure of a person’s sensitive information.
Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government has brought forth many new bills that, in effect, censor internet content as well as go after people’s ability to speak their minds.
Recently, Canadian Conservative Party MP Leslyn Lewis blasted another new Liberal “hate crime” bill, calling it a “dangerous” piece of legislation that she says will open the door for authorities to possibly prosecute Canadians’ speech deemed “hateful.”
She also criticized it for being silent regarding rising “Christian hate.”
Media
Response to any budget sleight of hand will determine which audience media have decided to serve

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.
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.
(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.
-
Energy2 days ago
Indigenous Communities Support Pipelines, Why No One Talks About That
-
Alberta2 days ago
Oil Sands are the Costco of world energy – dependable and you know exactly where to find it
-
Business2 days ago
Finance Committee Recommendation To Revoke Charitable Status For Religion Short Sighted And Destructive
-
Alberta1 day ago
The Technical Pitfalls and Political Perils of “Decarbonized” Oil
-
International1 day ago
Number of young people identifying as ‘transgender’ declines sharply: report
-
National13 hours ago
Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case
-
Health2 days ago
Colorado gave over 500 people assisted suicide drugs solely for eating disorders in 2024
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Canada’s privacy commissioner says he was not consulted on bill to ban dissidents from internet