When did it happen?.When was the line crossed when you stood there, shocked at what the tried-and-true mainstream news media had become, and found yourself suddenly an uncomfortable traveler with the skeptics and conspiracy theorists? When you saw the man behind the curtain and caught mom kissing Santa Claus?.This was one: Interviewing four groups of cops who had been in downtown Ottawa in those first first days of the Freedom Convoy and asking, “How many Nazi flags did you see?” And unlike the reporting which had shown a sea of these flags, these guys answered: “None.” And “Yes, the CBC blows everything up.”.Then there was the woman trampled by a horse outside the Chateau Laurier, as riot police occupied the downtown core. We viewed footage of the horse's foot on her body. There was widespread testimony by onlookers. And yet the next day, the mainstream said it was mis-information, and has never walked back the statement..That was another..News media are not supposed to downplay the actions of a government against its citizens. What about the shock of the host of new censorship bills that are apparently based on viewers being naive and gullible to misinformation or weakly submissive to the all-powerful American media? To these entrenched lobbyists who have convinced our sober and impartial government into this legislation — these lobbyists already doing quite well for themselves, thank you — our news media cannot survive without 600 million dollars in handouts and censorship..Do it for the poor benighted Canadians..It's a new dystopian day. Here, it doesn't matter where you get your sources — just make sure you show “both sides” and the reader won't care how you define those sides. Concerned and law-abiding local citizens on one side, freakish thong-wearing protester on the other — you've got it covered. (So to speak...) That's objective?.Here, with all the symbols that go with stability, style, wokeness and power you convince viewers that, contrary to human nature, you are unbiased (make sure you use quotation marks!). You don't treat your biggest sponsor partially, your 20-something journalism grads are better equipped to handle complex social issues than the independent guys who've been doing it for decades, and what exists out there in the digital media wild west is simply disinformation. And even while you rely on bureaucracy for expert opinion and press releases for news gathering, those who hold the state's purse strings will praise you as real media and scorn your digital competitors as opinion-only upstarts..Strong and free? When we learned Trudeau leaked content from his conversation with Chinese president to the media, the main-streamers were excited and praised his courage. Here we had a world leader from a culture of saving face and avoiding shame in a profoundly public forum shaming our prime minister. And those profiting from their relationship with the state all clapped..It's no wonder that what was once a natural fear of totalitarianism, of big government — or now Big Brother — is brushed off as dangerous and ignorant..But what could be the most descriptive of this new dystopia was an apparent Freudian slip offered up by our prime minister when asked — yet again — by opposition leader Pierre Poilievre if he had ever been informed about Chinese influence in our recent federal election: “I can confirm, ah, based on the news reports that a number of people have been remarking on for the past number of weeks that I have never got any information from any of our security agencies...any information on the federal cabinet receiving any money....”.Read it again..Is the PM protecting his backside by basing his answer on someone else — akin to the now cliché “in accordance with the recommendations of public health?” Or is it possibly true: Our PM bases his reality on what the mainstream news tells him?.Scary reality. For many of us that doesn't seem far off, though, as we see the majority of Canadians doing exactly the same thing..Canadians still in the mainstream boat are exhibiting the worst kind of absolute faith. It's a holding to social cohesion that doesn't rest on reason, tradition or even law. What's far more dangerous than the fact misinformation exists out there (Y2K and the merits of DDT and aerosol hairspray existed before social media, after all!) is when we assume the media does not have a relationship with government, does not have inherent biases, and does not slice up the world in a certain way. To blindly put our faith, our stock, our hope for the health of a democracy in any news media is the height of recklessness..We've got to do better..Hope does spring eternal, though. Haven't we all at least become a little more shrewd?.We see what's up. We see it when a journalist takes it upon themselves to argue with the arguments of the people they're covering. We're a little more aghast when commentary enters storytelling, like this doozy from the Fifth Estate: “[It is] a city used to protesters, but these would prove to be the visitors from hell.".Innuendo, framing, following the money. You don't have to lie; you just have to slant..Alan Rusbridger, the former editor of the Guardian, warns: “To be credible, [news media] must be socially responsible, and social responsibility includes adherence to strict ethical standards … and dedication to disclosing the truth about all institutions, including one’s own.”.We've got to hold to that standard, too..At least after this year, we know a little better what we want: We want media that seeks rigour and truth, no matter where it leads without obligation to big government and its bureaucracy. We want regional news that tells our stories, not just those of elitists, Key Opinion Leaders, or activist celebrities..We want news that is brave, not pandering.
When did it happen?.When was the line crossed when you stood there, shocked at what the tried-and-true mainstream news media had become, and found yourself suddenly an uncomfortable traveler with the skeptics and conspiracy theorists? When you saw the man behind the curtain and caught mom kissing Santa Claus?.This was one: Interviewing four groups of cops who had been in downtown Ottawa in those first first days of the Freedom Convoy and asking, “How many Nazi flags did you see?” And unlike the reporting which had shown a sea of these flags, these guys answered: “None.” And “Yes, the CBC blows everything up.”.Then there was the woman trampled by a horse outside the Chateau Laurier, as riot police occupied the downtown core. We viewed footage of the horse's foot on her body. There was widespread testimony by onlookers. And yet the next day, the mainstream said it was mis-information, and has never walked back the statement..That was another..News media are not supposed to downplay the actions of a government against its citizens. What about the shock of the host of new censorship bills that are apparently based on viewers being naive and gullible to misinformation or weakly submissive to the all-powerful American media? To these entrenched lobbyists who have convinced our sober and impartial government into this legislation — these lobbyists already doing quite well for themselves, thank you — our news media cannot survive without 600 million dollars in handouts and censorship..Do it for the poor benighted Canadians..It's a new dystopian day. Here, it doesn't matter where you get your sources — just make sure you show “both sides” and the reader won't care how you define those sides. Concerned and law-abiding local citizens on one side, freakish thong-wearing protester on the other — you've got it covered. (So to speak...) That's objective?.Here, with all the symbols that go with stability, style, wokeness and power you convince viewers that, contrary to human nature, you are unbiased (make sure you use quotation marks!). You don't treat your biggest sponsor partially, your 20-something journalism grads are better equipped to handle complex social issues than the independent guys who've been doing it for decades, and what exists out there in the digital media wild west is simply disinformation. And even while you rely on bureaucracy for expert opinion and press releases for news gathering, those who hold the state's purse strings will praise you as real media and scorn your digital competitors as opinion-only upstarts..Strong and free? When we learned Trudeau leaked content from his conversation with Chinese president to the media, the main-streamers were excited and praised his courage. Here we had a world leader from a culture of saving face and avoiding shame in a profoundly public forum shaming our prime minister. And those profiting from their relationship with the state all clapped..It's no wonder that what was once a natural fear of totalitarianism, of big government — or now Big Brother — is brushed off as dangerous and ignorant..But what could be the most descriptive of this new dystopia was an apparent Freudian slip offered up by our prime minister when asked — yet again — by opposition leader Pierre Poilievre if he had ever been informed about Chinese influence in our recent federal election: “I can confirm, ah, based on the news reports that a number of people have been remarking on for the past number of weeks that I have never got any information from any of our security agencies...any information on the federal cabinet receiving any money....”.Read it again..Is the PM protecting his backside by basing his answer on someone else — akin to the now cliché “in accordance with the recommendations of public health?” Or is it possibly true: Our PM bases his reality on what the mainstream news tells him?.Scary reality. For many of us that doesn't seem far off, though, as we see the majority of Canadians doing exactly the same thing..Canadians still in the mainstream boat are exhibiting the worst kind of absolute faith. It's a holding to social cohesion that doesn't rest on reason, tradition or even law. What's far more dangerous than the fact misinformation exists out there (Y2K and the merits of DDT and aerosol hairspray existed before social media, after all!) is when we assume the media does not have a relationship with government, does not have inherent biases, and does not slice up the world in a certain way. To blindly put our faith, our stock, our hope for the health of a democracy in any news media is the height of recklessness..We've got to do better..Hope does spring eternal, though. Haven't we all at least become a little more shrewd?.We see what's up. We see it when a journalist takes it upon themselves to argue with the arguments of the people they're covering. We're a little more aghast when commentary enters storytelling, like this doozy from the Fifth Estate: “[It is] a city used to protesters, but these would prove to be the visitors from hell.".Innuendo, framing, following the money. You don't have to lie; you just have to slant..Alan Rusbridger, the former editor of the Guardian, warns: “To be credible, [news media] must be socially responsible, and social responsibility includes adherence to strict ethical standards … and dedication to disclosing the truth about all institutions, including one’s own.”.We've got to hold to that standard, too..At least after this year, we know a little better what we want: We want media that seeks rigour and truth, no matter where it leads without obligation to big government and its bureaucracy. We want regional news that tells our stories, not just those of elitists, Key Opinion Leaders, or activist celebrities..We want news that is brave, not pandering.