Connect with us

Media

Trudeau government agency suggests writing its own articles for ‘trusted’ media outlets

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

According to an October 28 article by Blacklock’s Reporter, a Trudeau government agency has floated the idea of producing its own material to be published by certain ‘trusted media platforms.’

A federal agency has suggested writing its own news stories for “trusted media platforms” to publish. 

According to an October 28 article by Blacklock’s Reporter, the International Development Research Centre, a Crown corporation run by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, has proposed the idea that subsidized media outlets publish government-authored articles.

“Significant shifts in the overall media landscape have affected how people receive and perceive information,” the International Development Research Centre said to contractors. “In addition, while the rapid rise of digital information has made it easier to reach people, consumers’ attention is scattered and harder to get.” 

“In such context the Centre invests strategically to connect with its target audiences,” it continued. “This project provides an avenue to reach them where they are, on trusted media platforms they already consult on a regular basis.”  

The cost of the project was not disclosed, according to Blacklock’s, nor was it explained if the articles would be clearly state whether or not they were written by the federal government. According to the plan, the agency would pick news themes and have final say on “content for articles to be produced” and “review all proposed final articles for accuracy.”  

The agency stated that their ideal platform is “a French language, mass audience magazine based in Canada.” 

“The project will secure the production and publication of articles related to Centre-supported research, international development or foreign affairs in a renowned current affairs outlet,” said General Interest Articles. “These stories will contribute to showcase the importance and relevance for Canadians.” 

While the plan suggests that the government penned articles would better reach Canadians, media payouts have many Canadians concerned with the objectivity of the media.

In fact, in September, House leader Karina Gould directed mainstream media reporters to “scrutinize” Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, who has repeatedly condemned government-funded media as being an arm of the Liberals.  

While certain media has been funded by government for decades in Canada, the Trudeau government has ramped up such funding since taking power.

Beginning in 2019, Parliament changed the Income Tax Act to give yearly rebates of 25 percent for each news employee in cabinet-approved media outlets earning up to $55,000 a year to a maximum of $13,750.  

The Canadian Heritage Department since admitted that the payouts are not even sufficient to keep legacy media outlets running and recommended that the rebates be doubled to a maximum of $29,750 annually. 

Last November, Trudeau again announced increased payouts for legacy media outlets that coincide with the leadup to the 2025 election. The subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers $129 million over the next five years. 

Similarly, Trudeau’s 2024 budget outlined $42 million in increased funding for the CBC in 2024-25.  

The $42 million to the CBC is in addition to massive media payouts that already make up roughly 70 percent of its operating budget and total more than $1 billion annually.  

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

armed forces

Trump admin reveals the federal government awarded over $100 million in contracts to Reuters

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

The Pentagon gave $9 million to Reuters for program called ‘large scale social deception’

President Donald Trump highlighted this morning the finding that the Department of Defense (DOD) paid the leftist media outlet Reuters $9 million for a program labeled “large scale social deception,” and he has demanded that they return the money.

“DOGE: Looks like Radical Left Reuters was paid $9,000,000 by the Department of Defense to study ‘large scale social deception.’ GIVE BACK THE MONEY, NOW!” wrote Trump on Truth Social.

Late Wednesday evening, Elon Musk shared a screenshot from USAspending.gov showing that the Department of Defense had indeed dispersed an award to Thomson Reuters Special Services LLC, the parent company of the media group Reuters, for a project labeled “active social engineering defense”(ASED) and “large scale social deception.”

A perusal of USAspending.gov shows that the U.S. government has awarded over $100 million in contracts to Reuters and confirms that the DOD awarded Reuters $9,147,532 under the “description” label ASED and “large scale social deception,” for a time period from 2018 to 2022, part of the period of Trump’s first term.

For comparison, other government contracts to Reuters include the DOD’s awarding of over $12 million under the description “mass effect,” the DHS awarding $5.1 million for “data analysis,” and the Department of Justice (DOJ) giving a few million for “risk mitigation services.”

A more detailed overview of the contract on highergov.com shows the description “SIMULATION TESTING AND MEASUREMENT LARGE SCALE DECEPTION” but does not further expand upon the activities the award intends to fund.

Most of those who commented on Musk’s X post blasted the finding as a straightforward exposure of government deception. One commentator questioned whether the description was purportedly meant to signify defense against “social deception,” as the contract description signified defense against social engineering.

Others pointed out that deception is a standard part of psychological operations, as admitted in an Army field manual, No. 3-13.4, “Army Support to Military Deception”:

Military deception is actions executed to deliberately mislead adversary military, paramilitary, or violent extremist organization decision makers, thereby causing the adversary to take specific actions (or inactions) that will contribute to the accomplishment of the friendly mission. Deception applies to all levels of warfare, across the range of military operations, and is conducted during all phases of military operations. When properly integrated with operations security and other information-related capabilities, deception can be a decisive tool in altering how the enemy views, analyzes, decides, and acts in response to friendly military operations.

Some commentators highlighted the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has used American news media for propaganda purposes, most notably in a project known as “Operation Mockingbird.” At the time, the CIA admittedly hired at least 400 journalists to serve its aims, in part by writing “fake stories,” according to the journalist who exposed the scandal in 1977.

Independence is the essence of our reputation as a “stateless” global news organisation and fundamental to the trust that allows us to report impartially from all sides of a conflict or dispute. It is crucial to our ability to report on companies, institutions and individuals in the financial markets, many of whom are also our customers, without regard for anything other than accuracy, balance and the truth. Our independence stems not only from the structure of Reuters but also from our duty as journalists to avoid conflicts of interest or situations that could give rise to a perception of a conflict.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK Could Weaken Online Censorship Law To Avoid US Trade Battle

Published on

logo

By

London weighs free speech against trade as Washington pressures Labour to amend online censorship laws.

As European leaders scramble to shield their economies from impending US tariffs, the UK’s Labour government appears ready to make significant concessions. Facing the risk of economic fallout, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration has reportedly signaled to Washington that it is open to revising the controversial and dangerous Online Safety Act — legislation critics have described as an aggressive censorship regime.
The Act, which gives UK regulators the power to fine tech companies for failing to remove vaguely defined “harmful content,” has been a major point of contention between the two allies and has become a major threat to free speech online. The Trump administration has been especially vocal in its opposition, viewing the law as an affront to free speech and a potential financial burden on US tech giants.
According to The Telegraph:
“Downing Street is willing to renegotiate elements of the Act in order to strike a trade deal, should it be raised by the US, The Telegraph understands. The law has been heavily criticized by free speech advocates and economists, who argue its broad provisions to tackle harmful online content could lead to excessive censorship and deter investment from American tech giants.”
The Online Safety Act arms UK media regulator Ofcom with sweeping new authority over social media platforms, enabling the imposition of multimillion-pound fines for failing to police content according to government directives. While supporters claim the law is necessary to protect users, critics argue that its vague wording and punitive approach encourage preemptive censorship — where platforms remove lawful content simply to avoid regulatory punishment.
President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has intensified scrutiny of the law. The president, who has been highly critical of social media censorship, has surrounded himself with influential voices in the tech world, including Elon Musk, whose platform, X, is already preparing to challenge Ofcom’s authority.
“Another source close to the Trump’s (sic) administration suggested the act was viewed as ‘Orwellian’ in the US and could become a flashpoint in negotiations. ‘To many people that are currently in power, they feel the United Kingdom has become a dystopian, Orwellian place where people have to keep silent about things that aren’t fashionable,’ they said. ‘The administration hate it [Online Safety Act]. Congress has been saying that [it is a concern] ever since it was enacted. Those in the administration are saying the exact same thing.’”
Musk has publicly condemned the Act, and with Ofcom set to gain new enforcement powers in March, tensions between US tech firms and the UK government are likely to escalate. The entrepreneur recently welcomed Trump’s presidency as a potential counterweight to the UK’s regulatory crackdown.
Free speech advocates on both sides of the Atlantic have long warned that Britain’s approach to online regulation represents a stark departure from the First Amendment protections enjoyed in the US. The Free Speech Union and groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argue that the law’s restrictions on “harmful but legal” speech will lead to widespread content suppression, limiting open debate and investigative journalism.
Lord Young of Acton, the founder of the Free Speech Union, underscored the looming confrontation between UK regulators and US tech leaders:
“If that happens, Trump will side with his tech bros and tell Sir Keir that if he wants a trade deal, he’ll call off his dogs.”
Labour has previously doubled down on online regulation, with its election manifesto promising additional measures to “keep everyone safe online.” However, in the face of potential US trade repercussions, the government’s stance appears to be softening.
From Washington’s perspective, the Online Safety Act has become an obstacle to trade negotiations, raising concerns that UK regulatory overreach could deter American investment. Andrew Hale, a trade policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, confirmed that this issue has been a recurring theme in discussions with US officials.
“Every meeting I have to discuss trade policy with people either in the administration or Congress, they always raise that. They say, ‘This is a huge roadblock’.”
With Ofcom’s enforcement powers set to take effect soon, Britain faces a fundamental choice: cling to its stringent online censorship policies or prioritize economic cooperation with the US. The decision could shape the future of free speech in the UK for years to come.
You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you.
Continue Reading

Trending

X