Why are our journalists so deathly afraid of reporting facts on gender identity science?

The Rewrite

When the going gets tough, it seems our news organizations just run away

I am travelling this week to help my mother celebrate her 100th birthday but to ensure readers continue to be served, here’s a column I wrote for The Hub that stayed among its most read pieces for the better part of two weeks. Be assured we will be getting after the CBC/Sean Feucht debacle in due course.

There are some topics that Canada’s media are clearly very afraid to touch, leaving the public that funds them through federal subsidies not fully informed.

This, for reasons suspected but unexplained, is not good if we are to rely upon the Fourth Estate to ensure the nation’s population is equipped with the information citizens need to form perspectives and organize their lives. That, after all, is the alleged purpose of the government’s subsidization of the media in the first place.

Blind spots

Many news organizations, if not most, still haven’t come to terms with their 2021 reporting on suspected and unmarked graves at and adjacent to Indian Residential Schools, for instance. That poor performance led to headlines referencing “mass graves”—a term not used by Indigenous leaders at the time—across the country and the world. Flags were lowered, statues toppled, churches burned, demonstrations held, a new federal holiday instituted, yet no bodies have yet been discovered where it was alleged they were buried. But the old false headlines still linger (including on the New York Times), setting back—as journalist Terry Glavin and others have argued—the cause of reconciliation. Actions, or shall we say, inactions, have consequences.

I was at the abandoned cemetery at the former site of the Regina Indian Industrial School (1891-1910) when it was designated a provincial heritage site, and I am deeply conscious of the sad reality of this part of our history. All 38 graves there are now quite poignantly marked with metal feathers. The matter is a delicate one for the media, for sure. But it is one they must deal with.

As is the issue of how to treat minors struggling with gender dysphoria.

The most recent news on that front—the Supreme Court of the United States upholding a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone treatments for teens—triggered a lot of coverage across the U.S. and on foreign platforms such as the BBC.

But in Canada, all I could find on the first few pages of a Google search was an Associated Press story picked up by the CBC. CTV posted a shorter version of the same story. Both platforms went with the “stunning setback to transgender rights” theme provided by the wire service. Neither made any effort to add any Canadian context or reaction. The BBC, in contrast, assigned its own reporters to the story and included something the AP story did not: quotes from the Tennessee attorney general who called the decision a “big win for evidence-based medicine.”

The Canadian media’s timidness on this topic is not new. A similar pattern of behaviour was evident in the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that—at least when it comes to the 2010 Equality Act—the term “woman” relates to the biological sex assigned to a person when they are born, and not to an individual’s self-understood gender identity.

Much the same can be said regarding the U.K.’s Cass Review, initiated when medical professionals noticed an unexplained increase in the number of teen girls reporting gender identity issues. Its findings led to several countries slamming the brakes on surgeries and other therapies for gender dysphoric minors.

Yes, Robyn Urback of the Globe and Mailand Rosie DiManno of the Toronto Starwrote thoughtful columns in the wake of that report, and Sharon Kirkey of the National Post reported on it in depth. The deafening silence from Canadian journalists was covered in The Hub. But other than that, the approach was ever so much akin to “nothing to see here, folks, move along.”

It’s fair to conclude that our newsrooms struggle with complexity. And when terms such as “denialists” and “transphobic” are applied to those who simply ask questions that challenge the assumed verities of the day, it appears that some sort of moral panic is triggered. We are, after all, still emerging from the terrors of cancel culture and woke extremism that many newsrooms chose to embrace rather than fight. The Globe and Mail, for instance, recently posted a morning briefing that caught the eye of Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI) senior fellow Mia Hughes, an expert in the field.¹

Hughes told me that she “objected to the article’s repetition of discredited claims—that puberty blockers are reversible, that they ‘buy time to think,’ and that denying access could lead to suicide—all assertions that have been thoroughly debunked in recent years.”

We will get into this at length in the future, but suffice to say, Hughes found the Globe’s response unsatisfactory. Near as I could discern from what Hughes shared with me, the Globe appears either unaware or unwilling to concede that these matters are contentious and that it might have been spreading what Hughes considers misinformation.

The gatekeepers are losing their grip

This forum isn’t the place to debate the issues described. But what is passing strange about much of Canada’s news industry is that it thinks it can still get away with this sort of gatekeeping and still maintain public trust.

With or without our media culture’s approval, the internet gives people access to this information. It comes not just via alternative, unsubsidized media, but from the Guardian and the New York Times. Little wonder, then, that according to the latest Reuters report, Canadians are enthusiastic subscribers to foreign news platforms.

It appears they have a need for truth that—thanks to those who fear it—isn’t being fulfilled at home.

(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.)

Share

Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber

Don't Miss

A Provincial Police That Serves Alberta

Todayville

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

Why are our journalists so deathly afraid of reporting facts on gender identity science?

Alberta / 54 mins ago

A Provincial Police That Serves Alberta

Digital ID / 2 hours ago

Canada’s Liberal government moves forward with plans for digital ID system

Artificial Intelligence

YouTube to introduce Digital ID Age Checks and AI Profiling

Published on July 30, 2025

Todayville

By Ken Macon

YouTube will soon be a gated community: no ID, no login.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Australia is preparing to prohibit children under 16 from holding social media accounts by the end of the year, and YouTube will now be included among the platforms required to comply. This will require the roll out of digital ID checks.

More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda

At the same time, in the United States, YouTube has begun deploying artificial intelligence tools that estimate users’ ages in an effort to impose teen-specific protections automatically, regardless of the birthdate users provide when signing up.

This new system, based on machine learning, examines a range of user signals such as viewing history and account behavior to infer age. If a user is likely to be a teenager, YouTube will adjust their experience by turning off personalized advertising, activating screen time reminders, and limiting the repeated viewing of videos that may contribute to negative body image or social hostility.

These safety features already exist for users who have confirmed they are under 18. The current change allows YouTube to enforce them even for those who have not disclosed their actual age.

In cases where someone over 18 is misidentified, they will have the option to verify their age by submitting a government ID, credit card, or selfie. Only users who are confirmed adults or inferred to be over 18 will be permitted to view age-restricted material.

The technology will roll out to a small group of US users over the coming weeks, with broader deployment expected after performance reviews. YouTube announced its plans for age-estimation features in February as part of its 2025 roadmap. This follows earlier youth safety initiatives, including the YouTube Kids app and, more recently, supervised accounts.

Although YouTube has not revealed all the data points used by its system, the company has stated that it will evaluate things like account longevity and platform activity. The age-estimation process will apply only to users who are signed in. Those browsing the site without logging in are already blocked from viewing certain content. The new protections will apply across all platforms, including desktop, mobile, and smart TVs.

Back in Australia, YouTube’s status has shifted significantly. After initially being granted an exemption from the national under-16 social media ban, the platform is now being brought under the same new rules as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and others. The reversal follows advice from the pro-censorship eSafety commissioner, who raised concerns about YouTube.

“The Albanese government is giving kids a reprieve from the persuasive and pervasive pull of social media while giving parents peace of mind,” said Communications Minister Anika Wells. “There’s a place for social media, but there’s not a place for predatory algorithms targeting children.”

The more curated YouTube Kids app will remain unaffected by the restrictions, but the main platform will be included in the ban beginning December 10.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Business

Left-wing mainstream media is crumbling right before our eyes

Published on July 26, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Robert Malone M.D.

CBS has been purchased by conservative David Ellison, government funding for PBS and NPR has been eliminated by recent congressional votes, the incoming CEO of Versant, the soon-to-be publicly traded company spun off from NBC Universal believes the public perception of MSNBC is that Republicans cannot get a fair shake from the network. He wants to change that.

Cable news is losing both audience share and financial stability, with no clear prospect for reversing these declines as the cable ecosystem itself continues to erode. The old cable news model is unlikely to survive in its current form much longer.

The pharma industry spent $5.15 billion on national TV ads last year, according to real-time TV ad tracker (source: iSpot.tv). Eventually, the Pharma Bucks that have been propping up the industry will decrease significantly, as cable TV news becomes increasingly irrelevant.

Pharma ads accounted for nearly 25 percent of advertising minutes through May 2025 for all major cable and broadcast networks (NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News).

For now, pharma advertising has not yet begun a mass pullout from cable TV news. Still, the possibility now hangs over the industry. At present, cable news remains one of the few strongholds for pharma ad dollars, but this dominance is no longer assured.

In fact, the Trump administration has indicated a clear intention to crack down on pharmaceutical advertising, particularly in the direct-to-consumer (DTC) segment, which is traditionally seen on television and other broadcast media.

Key actions and proposals under discussion include:

Making DTC advertising more expensive: The administration is considering ending the tax deductibility of direct-to-consumer pharma ad spending, which would significantly raise costs for drugmakers engaging in these campaigns (1, 2.).
Increasing regulatory hurdles: Proposals are under review to require more extensive disclosures of drug side effects in ads, likely resulting in longer, more costly ad placements (1, 2.).
No outright ban yet: Although a complete ban on DTC pharma advertising isn’t currently being planned, probably because of potential First Amendment legal challenges, the emphasis is on tightening legal and financial restrictions instead of banning it immediately.
High-level leadership support: Key administration officials, including HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have publicly called for a ban on pharma TV advertising, and President Trump has criticized pharma advertising in the past (3). Such stances have contributed to the momentum behind regulatory proposals.
Legislative support: There is bipartisan interest in more tightly regulating pharma ads. Senators Bernie Sanders and Angus King have introduced legislation to ban direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising across all major media outlets (1).

Trends in the cable news industry both point to a decrease in the significance of this media as well as in traditional ratings. This has also led to a more conservative shift in cable news programming, which is only now beginning to take effect.

Fox News continues to dominate cable news ratings, maintaining its lead over NBC/MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN, with the network holding 99 of the top 100 cable news telecasts in the week of May 12, 2025. In comparison, MSNBC and CNN experienced significant declines in viewership, with MSNBC down 29 percent in total viewers and 40 percent in the key demographics in primetime, while CNN dropped 16 percent in total viewers and 11 percent during primetime.

CBS has been purchased by conservative David Ellison, who has fired Stephen Colbert. David Ellison is an American film producer, former actor, and the founder and CEO of Skydance Media, a major entertainment company. He was born on January 9, 1983, in Santa Clara County, California, and is the son of Oracle Corporation co-founder Larry Ellison and Barbara Boothe Ellison.

CBS has not yet officially changed hands, so the firing of Stephen Colbert may or may not have been at Ellison’s request. But the suspicious timing leads many to believe that Ellison had a role in the decision to fire.

All government funding for PBS and NPR, including their local affiliates, has been eliminated by recent congressional votes. Trump has not yet signed the rescissions package into law, but it has been sent to his desk for signature after final passage by Congress. This will lead to a significant reduction in local programming; however, it is believed that national programming will survive due to other revenue streams.

NBC/MSNBC are being spun out from Comcast. Mark Lazarus is the incoming CEO of Versant, the soon-to-be publicly traded company spun off from NBC Universal. Versant (formerly SpinCo) will now be operationally above MSNBC. Versant’s new boss, Lazarus, has indicated in private communications that he believes the public perception of MSNBC is that Republicans cannot get a fair shake from the network. He wants to change that (4), and he has suggested the network should offer more balanced viewpoints. However, the current CEO of MSNBC is still very progressive. So time will tell what influence Lazarus will have on MSNBC programming.

CNN is being spun off as a separate company from Warner Bros./Discovery’s streaming/studio assets. CNN is now undergoing major staff layoffs and has already introduced sweeping programming changes for 2025. However, whether CNN will shift to the center-right is anyone’s guess.

In June 2025, The Washington Post, under the guidance of Jeff Bezos, named Adam O’Neal, former Washington correspondent at The Economist, as its new head of opinion content. O’Neal emphasized a philosophy of optimism and focus on personal freedom and free markets, echoing Bezos’ vision.

The Los Angeles Times‘ editorial stance has undergone a dramatic change in late 2024 and 2025 under the ownership of Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong. The most significant developments include a shift toward “fair and balanced” and the firing and restructuring of the entire editorial board. The LA Times under Soon-Shioung has indicated that there will be an explicit shift to feature conservative, centrist, and liberal voices. Soon-Shiong has also expressed a desire to increase conservative voices in the Times’ opinion section, citing concerns the publication had become an “echo chamber” for the political left (5).

Most mainstream media outlets recognize that audience capture is what will keep this industry alive. As there is a more conservative mood among the general populace, slowly but surely mainstream media is being forced to keep up. People do not want to hear a one-sided, progressive primordial scream coming from their TVs. If they don’t change their overtly socialist, DEI stances, they will continue to wither.

Likewise, seamlessly melding cable networks with streaming services will be the future of the industry. But that again requires liberal voices to be quelled, as they do not represent the center field, let alone the conservative voice.

Without relevancy, cable news is a dying dinosaur and will be replaced. The king is starving and on his last legs: long live the new king – alternative media.

Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.