The media, Transparency and Bias
The truth is out there!
Feb 08, 2026
I like old books and many years ago I acquired a rather banged-up copy of “The Story of Louis Riel” published in 1885 which happens to be the year of his second rebellion. It was written somewhat anonymously by a Toronto newspaper writer for the anglophone protestant market and it played into the narrative that they wanted to hear. Tensions were pretty hot in Canada at the time and this volume fanned the flames. The bulk of it was an entirely made up ‘romance’ narrative that Riel and Thomas Scott were both in love with the same girl and having Scott executed … well you get the picture – pure fiction. It went into a 2nd edition within the year.
If you look at media accounts of anything in that period you find blatant bias throughout. Bias is not a new phenomenon though it’s rarely quite as blatant as in this book. ‘If you don’t know the truth – Make something up’
In today’s context we have media which is strongly progressive (generally liberal) and others that are equally reactionary (generally conservative). In the 50s, 60s newspaper era you bought the paper that supported your political persuasion. In Toronto the Telegram was Conservative and the Star was Liberal.
However back in those days there was a fairly clear delineation between news and commentary – you could generally count on news coverage being reasonably accurate and the commentaries were limited to the editorial pages. That frayed dramatically when the Telegram folded in 1971 and within a week was replaced by the Toronto Sun. The Sun was full of unapologetic commentary – conservative and reactionary and that particular market loved it.
Since then most of the newspaper market has moved towards news with ‘spin’. Nowadays that news comes largely via television, social media and websites. People choose what they want to hear and largely ignore alternate points of view.
Now we have ‘influencers’ on social media jockeying for eyeballs and if a sensational story that either skirts or ignores the truth gets more eyeballs … well the truth can’t compete with that.
When I was publishing the Whitby Free Press, I had reporters working for me. ‘Big’ stories are rare in local media but reporters were (are) always looking for the big story and if stretching or fudging can make an ordinary story big – well let’s go for it. Generally, my staff covered the news as it was but occasionally I had to reign in their eagerness to create big stories.
Right now the story about Alberta separatism is one of those stories that is being blown out of all proportion and all because the media is playing it up. Polls vary widely but none has ever put the number of supporters at higher than 40%. A recent Ipsos poll found that 32% would “consider” voting yes – “it depends” – but only 16% is hardline. In my opinion the federal government should encourage a referendum so it can fail and put the issue to bed.
Conflict makes good stories – conflict stories get eyeballs. And sometimes reporters try to create that conflict. At a press conference, a reporter may ask to have an answer repeated in French (or vice versa) – not because the reporter didn’t understand the answer but because they want to find discrepancies that they can turn into a story.
News media regularly amplify any disagreements between provincial premiers and between any of them and Carney.
Most politicians are broadly extroverted and like talking and explaining – and when they don’t talk then there must be a problem, or so the media assumes
But Mark Carney is an introvert and is frequently accused of a lack of transparency – ‘What did you and Trump talk about? What did he say? What did you say?’ etc. To an introvert, information is shared on a need-to-know basis. “I’ll tell you the details when there is something worth reporting.” Besides, telling you everything now reduces flexibility in further negotiations. Carney went to great lengths prior to his trip to China to lower expectations in order to avoid questions that might compromise those discussions.
His announcement this week of changes to the electric vehicle mandates arose from his agreement with China to allow the import of some Chinese EVs. Carney announced a complicated shift in priorities designed to stimulate our auto sector and also maintain our carbon emission goals – transparency along the way was not an option. Carney is playing 3-dimensional chess and in chess you mustn’t telegraph your future moves.
As I stated in a column back in August
The media has been pushing a divisive narrative about Cusma. It does not expire until 2036 – 10 more years. What is happening this year is a review. Any of the parties can withdraw but they have to provide 6 months notice. The US has possibly contemplated this but has made no moves and it is more than likely that if they did announce such a move that there would be massive push back from many areas of the American economy. Is is also likely that withdrawal would require Congressional approval as Congress had to “advise and consent” to the original deal. Congress on the whole likes free trade with Canada. Any changes to the agreement would require the agreement of all parties – no unilateral changes by the US.
Article 34.6: Withdrawal: A Party may withdraw from this Agreement by providing written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. A withdrawal shall take effect six months after a Party provides written notice to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, this Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.
Note that if the US were to withdraw, the agreement would continue for Canada and Mexico.
So, all in all, the Cusma negotiations are a complicated story at best, and perhaps no story at all. It will probably play out over many months with some changes, but the big changes that the media want to play up will probably not happen
In the meantime we are living with crippling tariffs in some sectors. These tariffs have been challenged and the lower courts have ruled against them. It is now before the Supreme Court and they are taking an extraordinary amount of time to rule. Most pundits think Trump will lose.
In early April (10 months ago) I wrote:
Carney is playing for time because the midterms are likely to severely limit Trump’s options (if the courts don’t do it first) .
When I was still in the newspaper business I used to tell my staff that what politicians say is irrelevant – pay attention to what they do. I still read the news with that perspective in mind.
