A prominent media "fact checker" found itself in hot water after being fined for disseminating politically charged Facebook messages targetting then-Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer in 2019, says Blacklock's Reporter.The paid promotions by Canada Fact Check were flagged as "partisan advertising" rather than factual assessments, according to the Elections Commissioner."In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, Ethan Phillips, editor of Canada Fact Check, paid to promote two Facebook posts featuring articles from the Canada Fact Check website," stated the commissioner in an enforcement notice. "These promoted ads contained the necessary components of partisan advertising."Canada Fact Check was slapped with a $500 fine for its actions. Despite attempts to reach out, Phillips remained unresponsive to inquiries. Media Bias, an internet monitoring group, categorized the website as "left-biased based on editorial positions," noting that its name misled readers. "The website’s name is misleading as they are not a fact-checker," the group remarked.Describing Canada Fact Check as "not a fact-checking website but rather a blog," Media Bias criticized its penchant for publishing progressive left editorials. The platform's editorial stance typically favors the left and employs emotionally charged language to sway readers, the group observed.In 2019, Canada Fact Check published stories warning of the "dangers of an Andrew Scheer federal Conservative government" and asserted that the Opposition was "beholden to a minority, right-wing voting block that distrusts expertise and hard facts, dislikes change and is profoundly uncomfortable with the increase in visible minority Canadians."While partisan editorials fall outside the purview of regulation under the Elections Act, Canada Fact Check breached rules by reposting its editorials as paid placements on Facebook without federal registration, as required.The Elections Commissioner also cited several other Conservative critics for failing to register in 2019. Notable among them was the environmental group Clean Prosperity, which posted Facebook ads and YouTube videos critical of Conservative opposition to the carbon tax. These ads explicitly opposed the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois, including their leaders, the commissioner noted.Additionally, Wilfrid Laurier University faced scrutiny for publishing a Muslim Voting Guide that assigned MP Scheer "fail" marks on immigration. Citing Scheer's alleged associations with controversial far-right and Islamophobic figures, the guide stirred controversy. Funding for the guide, partly provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, raised eyebrows within federal agencies, prompting questions about funding policies for overtly political content.Deputy Industry Minister Simon Kennedy raised concerns about subsidizing content that purported to guide voter behavior, labelling the funding for the guide as "weird" in internal Access To Information emails. The incident underscored broader concerns about the intersection of politics and public funding within academic institutions.
A prominent media "fact checker" found itself in hot water after being fined for disseminating politically charged Facebook messages targetting then-Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer in 2019, says Blacklock's Reporter.The paid promotions by Canada Fact Check were flagged as "partisan advertising" rather than factual assessments, according to the Elections Commissioner."In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, Ethan Phillips, editor of Canada Fact Check, paid to promote two Facebook posts featuring articles from the Canada Fact Check website," stated the commissioner in an enforcement notice. "These promoted ads contained the necessary components of partisan advertising."Canada Fact Check was slapped with a $500 fine for its actions. Despite attempts to reach out, Phillips remained unresponsive to inquiries. Media Bias, an internet monitoring group, categorized the website as "left-biased based on editorial positions," noting that its name misled readers. "The website’s name is misleading as they are not a fact-checker," the group remarked.Describing Canada Fact Check as "not a fact-checking website but rather a blog," Media Bias criticized its penchant for publishing progressive left editorials. The platform's editorial stance typically favors the left and employs emotionally charged language to sway readers, the group observed.In 2019, Canada Fact Check published stories warning of the "dangers of an Andrew Scheer federal Conservative government" and asserted that the Opposition was "beholden to a minority, right-wing voting block that distrusts expertise and hard facts, dislikes change and is profoundly uncomfortable with the increase in visible minority Canadians."While partisan editorials fall outside the purview of regulation under the Elections Act, Canada Fact Check breached rules by reposting its editorials as paid placements on Facebook without federal registration, as required.The Elections Commissioner also cited several other Conservative critics for failing to register in 2019. Notable among them was the environmental group Clean Prosperity, which posted Facebook ads and YouTube videos critical of Conservative opposition to the carbon tax. These ads explicitly opposed the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois, including their leaders, the commissioner noted.Additionally, Wilfrid Laurier University faced scrutiny for publishing a Muslim Voting Guide that assigned MP Scheer "fail" marks on immigration. Citing Scheer's alleged associations with controversial far-right and Islamophobic figures, the guide stirred controversy. Funding for the guide, partly provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, raised eyebrows within federal agencies, prompting questions about funding policies for overtly political content.Deputy Industry Minister Simon Kennedy raised concerns about subsidizing content that purported to guide voter behavior, labelling the funding for the guide as "weird" in internal Access To Information emails. The incident underscored broader concerns about the intersection of politics and public funding within academic institutions.
