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. 

• • •

Media Literacy: Deconstructing Political-Speak Part 1

When a politician like Jason Kenney, who spent more than a decade working for Stephen Harper, gets in front of a camera or microphone, you can bet that there will be no "winging it". Every word out of his mouth is deliberate.. and thought through. There is no going off script. He knows what he wants to communicate and how he wants to communicate it. There is no accidental phrasing or memory slips. That is the first thing to keep in mind. 

Here is a clip of a @CTV_PowerPlay interview about wildfires. Parsing will follow. Watch, then follow along...

He avoids the question about man-made climate change and says there have always been forest fires. His government has kept the carbon levy on major emitters that was set up by the NDP. He tries to make it sound like it's a new program they are developing. 

He talks about using the proceeds to support research and development to shrink emissions, but the implication is that these developments will be geared to the fossil fuel industry as opposed to alternative green technologies. 

If he was planning to use the money to diversify Alberta's economy and support green energy tech, he would have said so. Always deliberate. Always planned messages, remember? 

Then he gets into hyperbole about how shutting down Alberta's economy would make no difference (who has said they want that? No one, but he would like people to see that as an NDP goal) and goes on about punishing people for heating their homes in the winter. 

Which the carbon tax did not do, everyone below a generous income level got a rebate that was greater than the amount paid in tax, but what do facts matter when you are trying to maintain a narrative that benefits you? 

Then he suggests that economists don't think the carbon tax approach makes any difference to emissions. Some Nobel Laureates would disagree with him, but, whatever... 

It's fascinating to find so much spin and misinformation in one short interview clip... 

I hope you have found this fun, and I hope you have found this interesting. Stay tuned for the next installment of media literacy!