Media Bias in Canada

 What are we to do when our MEDIA picks favourites? What are we, as a society, to do when journalists are part of the right-wing propaganda machine? 

What are we to do when Canadian journalists repeat conservative talking points as facts, without verification? When they use tentative terms, like "claims" or "alleges" when reporting government statements, and absolutes like "says" and "stated" when reporting CPC statements? 

What are we to do when Canadian Media look to junk "think-tanks" like the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation to paint a picture of reality? What are we to do when our fourth estate has been bought and controlled by those who are not interested in our public good? 

Where are the journalists with integrity? Where are the journalists with professional commitment? Where are the journalists with the guts to fact-check the conservatives? Where are the journalists who are working for the public good? 

Why is even the CBC, our public broadcaster, acting as a CPC cheerleader, even though the new leader promises to put them all out of work? What has happened to journalism in Canada? What can we do about it? 

It's no coincidence that any invading army or dictatorial regime takes control of the media early on. If you control the news - what is reported and how it is reported - you can change the way people see their society. You can create scapegoats. You can justify the unthinkable. 

Many may say I am over-reacting. But this has been going on a long time. Canadians are getting used to hearing the news conservatives want them to hear. Panels of pro-conservative pundits are normalized now. We get more opinion than news, and that's been normalized too. 

1. Is it true?
2. Is it verifiable? (i.e. not the word of an anonymous source)
3. Is publishing it in the interest of the public good?

These are the tests every single piece of news reporting should have to pass.

Think critically when you hear or read the news. Question the way things are worded. Is the reporter conveying trust in what is being said, or incredulity? Is there fact-checking? Are there multiple reputable sources? Is what is being reported important or meant to stir the pot? 

Is the language used in reporting slanted in favour of or against the person or party being reported about? i.e. "Scandal-ridden government" is pejorative. It makes assumptions and leads the reader. Does the reporting seem factual and unbiased? 

Is the reporting full of heuristic cues to evoke positive or negative emotions in the reader/viewer? Adjectives can change the tone of a sentence dramatically, and affect the recipients' perceptions. Be wary of reporting that contains words that celebrate or vilify. 

Does it rely on a single-source so-called "expert" organization, like the Fraser Institute? Does it offer clarity as to the "expert's" qualifications/loyalties/funding? 

Offering "the other side" is a ruse in many cases. There can be one side that is factual and another that is opinion. It is important to differentiate. Offering a contradictory opinion is not only often not useful, it can be harmful. 

If you have a doctor talking about vaccines and an anti-vaxxer contradicting them, that is not good journalism. The other side does not always deserve the airtime because they are just wrong. And the fourth estate is not acting in the public good by giving a podium to just anyone 

We need to be on our guard. Our Canadian media has abandoned us. There are some great reporters out there, but the media infrastructure is controlled by those who do not have the public good at heart. This is a real and present danger to our Canadian way of life. We are not USA north. 

• • •