Candice Malcolm shows you everything wrong with the legacy media’s fake news
Episode Stats
Words per minute
191.75119
Harmful content
Misogyny
1
sentences flagged
Summary
In this episode, we talk about a recent ruling by an Alberta court striking down a portion of Bill C-69, and the reaction from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the media coverage of it. We also talk about fake news and the biased nature of the Canadian media.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
There was a big decision that came out this week, which was that a superior court in Alberta,
00:00:05.640
an Alberta appeal court, sorry, voted that the punitive harmful Bill C-69, which was
00:00:11.880
the law that required all kinds of really intensive assessments, including like gendered
0.87
00:00:17.640
assessments that would, you know, impact whether or not projects would be allowed to go through
00:00:23.420
in Alberta. Basically, this idea like, you know, I think it was dubbed the No More Pipeline Bill
00:00:27.660
by critics in Alberta, because it was just this really punitive environmental bureaucracy
00:00:32.720
that was placed, this onus placed on oil and gas companies, public companies before getting
00:00:38.280
any anything approved. So the Alberta government pushed back and said, this is this is against
00:00:43.360
the Constitution, they challenged it. And a court in Alberta found that that was right, that that
00:00:49.220
that they agreed with a true to what they agreed with the Kenny government in Alberta, that this
00:00:54.680
environmental impact law was unconstitutional. And I want to I just want to talk because,
00:01:00.240
you know, the theme of the show, and we call it fake news Friday, because the idea that the media,
00:01:06.580
they pretend to be straight news journalists, they pretend to be neutral. But really, what they're
00:01:11.320
doing is activism. And it's just a charade, like they pretend to be neutral, but they're not.
00:01:15.880
And this is one of the stories that you might not see it the first time you read it, or most people
00:01:19.880
might not catch all the nuances. But when you read through a piece like this, which it was written
00:01:24.700
by the Canadian press, of course, it means that it appears in newspapers and websites all across
00:01:29.400
the country. This this one here we have it was it was placed in global news, but but typically CP runs
00:01:35.260
and everything including, you know, sites that people think of as conservative, like the National
00:01:39.400
Post or the Toronto Sun, they run CP stories, as well, CP stands for the Canadian press. I'm just
00:01:44.960
going to go through this basically line by line, because it is incredibly biased. And this is this
00:01:50.060
is in a nutshell, is what we mean when we're talking about fake news, and the biased landscape
00:01:55.480
in Canada. Okay, so here's a piece the headline says, Alberta appeal court says federal environmental
00:02:01.460
impact law, not okay. So so here we see right off the bat, it kind of gives us a little explanation
00:02:08.240
of what just happened says Alberta's top court said Tuesday, that the federal government's
00:02:12.860
environmental impact law is unconstitutional, and Ottawa almost immediately announced its
00:02:18.080
plan to appeal. So so in the first paragraph, we don't even get the news, we get the reaction
00:02:23.460
from Ottawa. So it's not about how this law is unconstitutional, it goes right to Dustin
00:02:27.940
Trudeau plans to fight back. Then paragraph two, it says the Alberta Court of Appeals strongly
00:02:33.220
worded opinion. So the impact assessment act is an existential threat, notice this scare quotes
00:02:39.800
there around existential threat to the division of powers guaranteed by the Constitution, and has
00:02:44.820
taken a square quote, again, wrecking ball to the constitutional rights of the citizens of Alberta
00:02:49.780
and Saskatchewan. The majority of judges sided with Alberta, arguing that the legislation allowed Ottawa to
00:02:56.000
put provinces in an economic chokehold, and give it the means to choose winners and losers. Okay, so
00:03:01.420
so we have three paragraphs there, Harrison, that sort of establish the story. And in it, it's already
00:03:06.060
torqued, right? Rather than providing a quote from the judge that wrote the decision that the one that
00:03:12.500
won, right, that there was a vote, and that decision won, they just pulled scare quotes to kind of like
00:03:19.000
make a mockery of it, basically. But again, stressing the fact that we're not done with this, and that
00:03:25.420
Ottawa is going to appeal. Okay, so so that's the first three paragraphs, fourth paragraphs, it goes
00:03:30.560
straight to Justin Trudeau, right? It doesn't go to the judge who wrote the decision, it doesn't go to
00:03:34.860
anyone in Alberta, the Kennedy government in Alberta, who are the ones pushing that this review, it goes
00:03:39.920
straight to Justin Trudeau, basically defending himself, saying the justification behind putting the bill in
00:03:46.180
place in the first place, that we have four paragraphs in a row of Justin Trudeau quotes. Okay, so so so so we're
00:03:52.360
not getting a fair idea of what is going on, why this case was determined, we are just hearing Justin Trudeau's
00:03:58.940
justification. I just want to pause right here, Harrison, because if you go back to any of the laws that
00:04:04.580
Stephen Harper wrote, and the former conservative government that were struck down by a court, that
00:04:08.980
the emphasis was exactly flipped, right? It would be like, this judge, this heroic judge wrote this
00:04:14.360
decision, scrapping this horrible law that Harper tried to introduce. And it would be all about quotes
00:04:19.580
like bashing the government, whereas here, it's flipped, they don't quote the decision, they quote the
00:04:24.500
prime minister explaining himself and saying why he is right, right off the top.