This just in … we swept the office and didn’t find any federal government censors

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/11/2023 (649 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Stop the presses. Barricade the doors. The feds are coming for our newsrooms.

So says Conservative MP Rachael Thomas, her party’s heritage critic and a special guest last week at Manitoba Tory MP James Bezan’s annual Christmas fundraising banquet.

In her address to loyal Tory supporters at Stonewall’s Heritage Arts Centre, Thomas channeled the ghost of Christmas hyperpartisanism and delivered a rousing, provocative attack on the Liberal government. Among her major issues of concern was the Online News Act, formerly known as Bill C-18.

In short, the ONA was the Liberals’ attempt to get technology companies — Meta and Google in particular — to pay more money for the Canadian news content they carry on their platforms. The technology giants objected to the passage of the bill; Meta has now blocked Canadians from getting news content on Facebook.

But that wasn’t really what Thomas was concerned about. Instead, she said C-18 (now the ONA) would allow the federal government “to determine what is news and what is not.”

And there was more. “In other words, the government is entering the newsroom and dictating … what is news and what it does not count as news,” Thomas said in a video recorded by someone in audience, obtained by the Free Press.

“In a democratic society, we believe in freedom of the press. So, for the government to enter those spaces and dictate what is news and what is not is an awfully scary place to be.”

Come again?

Like most Canadian journalists, I’m concerned about the battle between big tech and Ottawa over paying more for news content, but I have never heard of anyone associated with the federal government threatening to tell us what we can publish, post or broadcast.

Repeated attempts to contact Thomas went unanswered. But if I were to try to connect some dots and figure out what she was saying, it would go something like this:

In the first draft of C-18, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission was tasked with administering the ONA, including investigating complaints against news organizations. Early drafts of the legislation included vague powers for the CRTC to compel news organizations to turn over information to support investigations.

News organizations protested that provision, and the Liberal government made changes to the legislation when it was before the Senate. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau then publicly stated that the ONA would not lead to any intrusions on independent editorial decision-making or content.

Does any of that support an allegation that government operatives would be “entering” newsrooms to dictate the news agenda? Not in a million-gazillion years. But it is an approach to political attacks that is very much in vogue, for all parties.

Consider our recent provincial election, where the now-governing NDP accused the Progressive Conservatives of plotting to privatize Manitoba Hydro (not true), and the Tories responded with allegations the NDP, if elected, would give away free narcotics (also not true).

Or Vancouver Liberal MP Ken Hardie, who posted on X (formerly Twitter) Monday about the tragic mass shooting in Winnipeg last weekend, attempting to somehow blame Tory Leader Pierre Poilievre.

“Beyond troubling to see another mass shooting in Canada, now in Winnipeg. And we’ve lost so many police officers,” Hardie posted. “Might it be the anti-social ‘burn everything down’ far-right attitude we’re seeing creeping in from the US? And the ‘creep’ on the Canadian side? Pierre Poilievre?”

Even after being soundly condemned online, Hardie refused to apologize. Then, Liberal House leader Karina Gould publicly condemned the post. Shortly after talking with Gould, Hardie told the Canadian Press that linking Poilievre to the shooting was “entirely inappropriate.”

What is going on here?

It is not unusual for politicians to willingly become estranged from the actual truth to offer qualified truths in their attacks. Stretching reality to the breaking point is, in fact, a long-standing tradition.

However, what is insidious about the above examples is that it’s all happening in an environment where far too many people don’t accept that there is a fundamental truth in current events.

With easy access to “alternative” narratives and conspiracy theories about the news media and the stories we cover, the average citizen is confused at best, and misled at worst.

I can point out in my column that Canadian newsrooms are not, in fact, under any threat of invasion by government censors. But it’s easy to imagine there were more than a few people at Bezan’s Christmas fundraiser who do not read the Free Press, or trust any traditional news organization. As far as they are concerned, Thomas gave them the straight goods.

In a similar vein, Hardie used social media to make a toxic political point. He has since apologized, but how many people will actually acknowledge that he was wrong? Alleging that Poilievre’s right-wing world view opens the door to more gun violence is catnip for anti-Tory activists.

It’s all hogwash. But it’s compelling hogwash.

What can we do to combat this epidemic of fibbery? Read multiple news sources. Don’t take anything for granted.

Having said that, maybe we should barricade the doors to the Free Press building. Better safe than sorry.

dan.lett@winnipegfreepress.com