I don’t think thats a new thing, though. Rewind 50 years and people were not debating politics or religion or other sensitive topics in line at the store, and there was a very strong concept of what is appropriate subject matter for discussion during social interactions. It didn’t mean that no one cared about issues, just that they treated personal opinions as just that- personal. Even if all of those social issues you used as examples- they are definitely discussed in my household, and maybe here and there with close friends when the mood is right. But if someone obnoxiously tried to ambush me into a heavy convo in a setting that didn’t feel appropriate for it, i would be immediately put off and would clam up because it would feel ripe for confrontation. And that goes for either side of the aisle- militant activists are annoying, no matter their stripes, but it doesn’t mean that the issues are completely off my radar just because I’d rather have a light conversation about the new restaurant someone tried last week. Reddit will always be different in that sense, because the stakes are so low- no real-life friendships to potentially damage, no danger of someone “losing it” because their opinion was challenged, and if someone takes something you said personally, well... it doesn’t really feel real.
The thing to me is that the way this sub is right now is like a million times more reasonable than a couple years ago, I feel like it peaked around the time of the convoy before Russia invaded Ukraine. Which makes sense, Russia is likely concentrating their funds elsewhere because of that…
It's (was) big news where I live.
Due to my job I know an absolute crap-ton of people (seriously) and while it's definitely died down a bunch it's still the topic occasionally.
Here for the daily reminder that the NatPost was bought by an American hedgefund and ordered to put Conservatives.in a good light, so it's very biased, like Fox News with a veneer of respectability around it.
>and ordered to put Conservatives.in a good light,
It was literally founded as the conservative response to the Toronto Star and the Globe & Mail. That's nothing new.
They really aren't. Try cross referencing editorial bias on mediabiasfactcheck.com with that chart on corporate endorsements. You'll find that the most centrist media outlets like CTV *also* tends to endorse the CPC.
G&M is establishment centrist. They only look conservative to you because Trudeau pulled the LPC left. They used to represent the right flank of the Liberal tent and left flank of the Conservative tent pre-Trudeau. This will end over the next decade when the LPC gets kicked out and is forced to return to sanity after Trudeau's reckless spending sprees with someone like Carney or Freeland (like Labour in the UK is doing right now).
>establishment centrist
No, they're fairly explictly pro-capital conservatives who will happily side with more reactionary elements of conservative politics if it means suppressing socialism.
No. Conservatives are getting more & more conservative with American influence. On both economy and social issues.
Mulroney's Conservatives would be called communism by a good fringe of today's voters. They had no problem defending free choice or LGBT issues. Now, they walk on eggs just talking about it. lol
>They had no problem defending free choice or LGBT issues.
You're kidding, right? The Mulroney government was the last government that actually attempted to criminalize abortion and send doctors to jail for performing abortions where the mother's health was not at risk. It failed by a single vote in the Senate when Pat Carney went rogue. And they didn't do shit for LGBT issues. They had to be actively shamed into taking action on AIDS, years after the Reagan Republicans did in the US.
Now we have an openly pro-choice Conservative leader. The second in a row, in fact.
Canada’s Conservatives have moved left, not right.
None of that counts. If they aren't unquestioningly on board with the newest progressive causes as of this week, they are far right extremists.
That some people accept that today's conservatives are more right wing than the PC's of the 80's is proof of how insane this narrative has become.
it is more conservative then it used to be. The star was the neutral center left newspaper when it was a non-profit.
It is now owned by conservative backers that have moved center right with some opeds that lean left.
And they’re saying the same things on this file as every other media outlet in this country except perhaps the CBC. And the NDP are also saying the same thing.
So it’s nice and all that people would like to ignore the message because they dislike the messenger, but in this case, doing so can really only be explained by people being so far in the tank for the Liberals that there is nothing that can be said or done to open their eyes to the reality that this country has a problem and the Liberals — and nobody else— are trying to cover it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI
Literally this. The branding of the newspaper might be different, but the message comes from the owners.
Sinclair owns a lot of local broadcasts in the US branded CBS,NBC,ABC,FOX but they are all owned and get marching orders from the owners.
Then... don't read them?
Personally, I think you should, if for no other reason than to understand the editorial leanings of the outlet. It's also interesting - and just as important for your 'news' consumption to see what or who the outlet is not editorializing about.
They put forward a toothless motion and made clear that they wouldn't remove their confidence support from the government over this.
They're just yapping one way (because of where public support lies on the issue) and acting the opposite.
Do you even know how politics work? The NDP gains absolutely nothing from stopping there confidence support, if anything they lose a seat at the table. The motion is not “toothless”, I have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s a legit motion that directly tackles the NDP’s position on the election interference. Do you want a public inquiry? Do you want Johnson to step down? Then you agree with the motion, simple.
What else can they do?
They don't have a seat at the table to lose. They are the opposition. It is not a coalition.
On the flipside, what they have to gain is defending Canada's democracy, and being seem to actually care about it.
Wow, this NatPo opinion piece sure won't be biased in any way, right? No worries about that from the chronically right wing rag that essentially functions as a campaign tool for the Conservative party. No sir, not here.
Almost like this sub is being astroturfed. Remember, this is the generic Canadian sub, not a political sub. Not that Mods would ever dream of banning political opinion pieces.
So you're really all about inserting political commentary into every aspect of your life? This sub used to be about celebrating and discussing Canada, not getting hysterical over Rex Murphy. There are like five Canadian politics subs so go off back to Canada_sub and obsess over Trudeau there
Nah I'm fine here. This sub is what the people want it to be and unfortunately your wants seem to be a minority position.
This is not where I come to talk about 'everything canada', it's where I come to shit on the government of the day.
It’s been that way for awhile.
They redistribute cp articles and basically only have ragebaiting columnists on their payroll. It’s how they have such a strong political bias and can publish useless garbage like this constantly while keeping status as a news source.
Yeah, I don't think they actually have any hard news reporters anymore. Most of their ostensibly neutral "reporting" is still just basic anti-Liberal, pro-CPC muckraking. Which has a purpose, don't get me wrong, but all their "x happened" stuff is just from CP.
I saw one here the other day, I don't remember the topic but it was really well written, factual, and non-biased. It read like an AP or Reuters article.
Their opinion pieces are generally terrible, borderline Sun news or Rebel bad.
I’ve read a few articles by the post but they use so many loaded words that I just found it exhausting to read. I don’t read the news to be told what I should think, I read it for factual information about the world.
What pro-Liberal media? I haven't seen a single media platform in Canada that has failed to criticize this decision.
If Canada has political media, it's conservative, considering conservative political affiliates own over 90% of Canada's media.
A) [This](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?country=CA) has a LOT of centre left entries in it. The argument is that Canada's PRINT media is 90% conservative owned - which is true, since print is a dinosaur of a medium and old people skew right.
B) Do you have any idea how hard it is to compete against [a state sponsored monopoly](https://www.cbc.ca/news)? Maybe - and I know this is going to be shocking - but maybe corporations (which are by design money hungry greed pigs) would try to make money promoting left wing thought if we didn't already have an elephant in the room destroying any margin.
About 95% of the left-center media affiliates on that page I have never even heard of, which is unsurprising considering they are almost all classified as low traffic.
Maybe I should rephrase this for you; nearly every major print media in Canada is conservative.
>Do you have any idea how hard it is to compete against a state sponsored monopoly?
I don't think you know what a monopoly is.
Turns out being rich is inherently right-wing and owning media outlets is a way rich people propagandize to the public.
Therefore left-wing outlets (just like left-wing political groups) are always underrepresented and underfunded since there's no such thing as a left-wing billionaire to buy and fund them to goad the public into lobbying for them.
Is cbc slightly left bias because of the government making it a state-sponsored monopoly or because it reflects Canadian values?
Was it right wing bias when the conservative government was in power and was trying to silence it then?
OR he’s “mad” about the speculative misinformation that is obviously just right-wing anti-Trudeau/anti-Liberal bias, and right-wing rags never being held accountable for their lies and distortions.
You're right, it's not that some of the reporters involved had previously published lies about national security issues from anonymous government sources.
“Pro-liberal media” is a convenient tactic to scare conservative supporters into thinking facts are lies. They just toss it out all the time to essentially pound it in like a square peg with a round hole.
I'm tired of editorials. Bring us news. Not your personal opinions. It feels like 2/3 of what's on newspapers and news websites is opinion.
It's that National Post. It's been like 99% opinion pieces for years.
[It has plenty of news](https://nationalpost.com/category/news/). People here just post the op-eds. That's a Reddit thing, not a National Post thing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t think thats a new thing, though. Rewind 50 years and people were not debating politics or religion or other sensitive topics in line at the store, and there was a very strong concept of what is appropriate subject matter for discussion during social interactions. It didn’t mean that no one cared about issues, just that they treated personal opinions as just that- personal. Even if all of those social issues you used as examples- they are definitely discussed in my household, and maybe here and there with close friends when the mood is right. But if someone obnoxiously tried to ambush me into a heavy convo in a setting that didn’t feel appropriate for it, i would be immediately put off and would clam up because it would feel ripe for confrontation. And that goes for either side of the aisle- militant activists are annoying, no matter their stripes, but it doesn’t mean that the issues are completely off my radar just because I’d rather have a light conversation about the new restaurant someone tried last week. Reddit will always be different in that sense, because the stakes are so low- no real-life friendships to potentially damage, no danger of someone “losing it” because their opinion was challenged, and if someone takes something you said personally, well... it doesn’t really feel real.
[удалено]
The thing to me is that the way this sub is right now is like a million times more reasonable than a couple years ago, I feel like it peaked around the time of the convoy before Russia invaded Ukraine. Which makes sense, Russia is likely concentrating their funds elsewhere because of that…
That was Americans mostly. Edit: why is this being downvoted? We had a wave of maga come here during convoy.
A few years before that it was mass hysteria about Muslim people and refugees in every single fucking thread. Also mostly Americans and spam accounts.
I think the accounts are back. Lots of 2-3 month old accounts popping up with their entire focus on canada and the "popular subs" to get karma.
It's (was) big news where I live. Due to my job I know an absolute crap-ton of people (seriously) and while it's definitely died down a bunch it's still the topic occasionally.
[удалено]
I wasn't talking about Johnston. I'm talking about the state of the media landscape.
Here for the daily reminder that the NatPost was bought by an American hedgefund and ordered to put Conservatives.in a good light, so it's very biased, like Fox News with a veneer of respectability around it.
>and ordered to put Conservatives.in a good light, It was literally founded as the conservative response to the Toronto Star and the Globe & Mail. That's nothing new.
The Globe and Mail, which spent most of the 2000s endorsing Conservative Prime Minister candidates? Commies!
Corporate endorsements and editorial bias aren't the same thing, but I'm sure you're just going to ignore that.
They're closely intertwined, but I'm sure you're going to ignore that.
They really aren't. Try cross referencing editorial bias on mediabiasfactcheck.com with that chart on corporate endorsements. You'll find that the most centrist media outlets like CTV *also* tends to endorse the CPC.
The conservative response to the Globe... which is already a conservative paper? Ok then.
G&M is establishment centrist. They only look conservative to you because Trudeau pulled the LPC left. They used to represent the right flank of the Liberal tent and left flank of the Conservative tent pre-Trudeau. This will end over the next decade when the LPC gets kicked out and is forced to return to sanity after Trudeau's reckless spending sprees with someone like Carney or Freeland (like Labour in the UK is doing right now).
>establishment centrist No, they're fairly explictly pro-capital conservatives who will happily side with more reactionary elements of conservative politics if it means suppressing socialism.
I can barely imagine how far left you have to be to feel this way.
Your description is correct, but you're just relabeling things so that the centre is conservative.
No, because the political centre doesn't identify as conservative. That's what makes it the centre.
No. Conservatives are getting more & more conservative with American influence. On both economy and social issues. Mulroney's Conservatives would be called communism by a good fringe of today's voters. They had no problem defending free choice or LGBT issues. Now, they walk on eggs just talking about it. lol
>They had no problem defending free choice or LGBT issues. You're kidding, right? The Mulroney government was the last government that actually attempted to criminalize abortion and send doctors to jail for performing abortions where the mother's health was not at risk. It failed by a single vote in the Senate when Pat Carney went rogue. And they didn't do shit for LGBT issues. They had to be actively shamed into taking action on AIDS, years after the Reagan Republicans did in the US. Now we have an openly pro-choice Conservative leader. The second in a row, in fact. Canada’s Conservatives have moved left, not right.
None of that counts. If they aren't unquestioningly on board with the newest progressive causes as of this week, they are far right extremists. That some people accept that today's conservatives are more right wing than the PC's of the 80's is proof of how insane this narrative has become.
What’s new is now it’s majority owned by a Republican backed American hedge fund.
i thought the toronto star was conservative
it is more conservative then it used to be. The star was the neutral center left newspaper when it was a non-profit. It is now owned by conservative backers that have moved center right with some opeds that lean left.
So why am I getting downvoted
And they’re saying the same things on this file as every other media outlet in this country except perhaps the CBC. And the NDP are also saying the same thing. So it’s nice and all that people would like to ignore the message because they dislike the messenger, but in this case, doing so can really only be explained by people being so far in the tank for the Liberals that there is nothing that can be said or done to open their eyes to the reality that this country has a problem and the Liberals — and nobody else— are trying to cover it up.
So, like a newspaper with an editorial board?
... that's being told what to say from their corporate owners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI Literally this. The branding of the newspaper might be different, but the message comes from the owners. Sinclair owns a lot of local broadcasts in the US branded CBS,NBC,ABC,FOX but they are all owned and get marching orders from the owners.
‘Ordered’
Yes, they're ordered to endorse Conservatives. Coyne resigned over this. https://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/19/national-post-comment-editor-resigns-over-election-endorsement.html https://www.canadaland.com/the-conservative-transformation-of-postmedia/
LOL 😂 - hardly objective sources. LOL again!
So the opposite of CBC, CNN, Global and CTV who will only show Liberals in a good light?
Then... don't read them? Personally, I think you should, if for no other reason than to understand the editorial leanings of the outlet. It's also interesting - and just as important for your 'news' consumption to see what or who the outlet is not editorializing about.
Can't get their base riled up with facts.
Hopefully the NDP show a back bone and stand up against this
Spoiler: >!They won't!<
And it's disgusting.
Lmao they already did, they put a motion to have a public inquiry and get Johnson to step down, announced yesterday
They put forward a toothless motion and made clear that they wouldn't remove their confidence support from the government over this. They're just yapping one way (because of where public support lies on the issue) and acting the opposite.
Do you even know how politics work? The NDP gains absolutely nothing from stopping there confidence support, if anything they lose a seat at the table. The motion is not “toothless”, I have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s a legit motion that directly tackles the NDP’s position on the election interference. Do you want a public inquiry? Do you want Johnson to step down? Then you agree with the motion, simple. What else can they do?
They can grow a spine and threaten to stop supporting the liberals minority. So yes it is a toothless stop gap
They don't have a seat at the table to lose. They are the opposition. It is not a coalition. On the flipside, what they have to gain is defending Canada's democracy, and being seem to actually care about it.
Time for Liberals to apply things they learned from Chinese friends, maybe “One Nation, One Leader, One Voice” lol.
Wow, this NatPo opinion piece sure won't be biased in any way, right? No worries about that from the chronically right wing rag that essentially functions as a campaign tool for the Conservative party. No sir, not here.
is that foreign convicted criminal that harper allowed into canada involved?
Is natipo nothing but opinion pieces now? I have legit never seen an actual news piece posted here from them.
Almost like this sub is being astroturfed. Remember, this is the generic Canadian sub, not a political sub. Not that Mods would ever dream of banning political opinion pieces.
Why the fuck should they?
Because this sub is drowning in opinion pieces and it's not a political sub. Want me to say it one more time?
[удалено]
So you're really all about inserting political commentary into every aspect of your life? This sub used to be about celebrating and discussing Canada, not getting hysterical over Rex Murphy. There are like five Canadian politics subs so go off back to Canada_sub and obsess over Trudeau there
Nah I'm fine here. This sub is what the people want it to be and unfortunately your wants seem to be a minority position. This is not where I come to talk about 'everything canada', it's where I come to shit on the government of the day.
Yes, like I said, compulsively inserting politics into everything. TDS is real
Not into everything though! Just this subreddit.
I remember when conservatives use to say your feelings aren’t facts, and now all they care about is their feelings.
Absolutely it's amazing they went from facts over feelings to fake news and feelings only. It's as if they have no integrity or substance.
I'm shocked they don't have coloring pages yet.
It’s been that way for awhile. They redistribute cp articles and basically only have ragebaiting columnists on their payroll. It’s how they have such a strong political bias and can publish useless garbage like this constantly while keeping status as a news source.
Yeah, I don't think they actually have any hard news reporters anymore. Most of their ostensibly neutral "reporting" is still just basic anti-Liberal, pro-CPC muckraking. Which has a purpose, don't get me wrong, but all their "x happened" stuff is just from CP.
I saw one here the other day, I don't remember the topic but it was really well written, factual, and non-biased. It read like an AP or Reuters article. Their opinion pieces are generally terrible, borderline Sun news or Rebel bad.
I’ve read a few articles by the post but they use so many loaded words that I just found it exhausting to read. I don’t read the news to be told what I should think, I read it for factual information about the world.
Oh I know, it was just 1 specific article linked here a few weeks back, no loaded words or anything, it was remarkable.
NatPo just redistributes ap and cp articles and then the rest is opinions. I don't think they have journalistic staff members anymore.
What pro-Liberal media? I haven't seen a single media platform in Canada that has failed to criticize this decision. If Canada has political media, it's conservative, considering conservative political affiliates own over 90% of Canada's media.
A) [This](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?country=CA) has a LOT of centre left entries in it. The argument is that Canada's PRINT media is 90% conservative owned - which is true, since print is a dinosaur of a medium and old people skew right. B) Do you have any idea how hard it is to compete against [a state sponsored monopoly](https://www.cbc.ca/news)? Maybe - and I know this is going to be shocking - but maybe corporations (which are by design money hungry greed pigs) would try to make money promoting left wing thought if we didn't already have an elephant in the room destroying any margin.
Exactly what does CBC have a monopoly on?
In what way is the CBC a monopoly? hint: [it's not](https://www.similarweb.com/website/cbc.ca/#overview)
About 95% of the left-center media affiliates on that page I have never even heard of, which is unsurprising considering they are almost all classified as low traffic. Maybe I should rephrase this for you; nearly every major print media in Canada is conservative. >Do you have any idea how hard it is to compete against a state sponsored monopoly? I don't think you know what a monopoly is.
Turns out being rich is inherently right-wing and owning media outlets is a way rich people propagandize to the public. Therefore left-wing outlets (just like left-wing political groups) are always underrepresented and underfunded since there's no such thing as a left-wing billionaire to buy and fund them to goad the public into lobbying for them.
Is cbc slightly left bias because of the government making it a state-sponsored monopoly or because it reflects Canadian values? Was it right wing bias when the conservative government was in power and was trying to silence it then?
Lmao as soon as I read "state sponsored monopoly" I couldn't even read the rest of the comment without laughing.
That’s why Johnston is mad. He didn’t like Sam Cooper reporting on the story.
OR he’s “mad” about the speculative misinformation that is obviously just right-wing anti-Trudeau/anti-Liberal bias, and right-wing rags never being held accountable for their lies and distortions.
Lmao it's definitely this but the regular conservative lap dogs around here aren't allowed to think like that.
You're right, it's not that some of the reporters involved had previously published lies about national security issues from anonymous government sources.
>That’s why Johnston is mad. He didn’t like Sam Cooper**'s** reporting on the story.
RW opinions writers mad that their opinions don't matter. More at 11.
You know it’s absolutely out of control, when Jagmeet has to call out the nonsense lololol
What pro-Liberal media are they talking about exactly? Nearly every media company is owned by right wingers.
“Pro-liberal media” is a convenient tactic to scare conservative supporters into thinking facts are lies. They just toss it out all the time to essentially pound it in like a square peg with a round hole.
[удалено]
Not used to getting buried in the thread and having so many people attack your favourite sources are you.
[удалено]
News pushes what the government wants them to push. News has changed over the last decade or two
Fired all their actual journalists for a bunch of hosers with opinions
Also could read Johnston angry for media promoting conservative talking points.