Juno News - The biggest fake news HOAXES of 2023

00:00:00.000 Do conservatives really believe in conspiracy theories? Did Pierre Polyev really lie about

00:00:04.500 terrorism at the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara? And did Israel really level and bomb a hospital in 0.61

00:00:09.820 Gaza? Well, the liberal-funded legacy media told you so, so it must be true, right? Well, 1.00

00:00:15.420 it's Fake News Friday, and today we're going through the top fake news stories of 2023.

00:00:19.200 I'm Candace Malcolm, and this is The Candace Malcolm Show.

00:00:30.000 Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for tuning into the podcast today. Don't forget to like this video.

00:00:35.080 If you're new around here, subscribe to our channel, True North. If you're listening to this

00:00:39.020 podcast and you enjoy it, don't forget to leave us a five-star review, and head on over to our

00:00:43.120 website, tnc.news, to sign up for our newsletter. And if you want to support our journalism, you can

00:00:47.540 hit the donate button there and consider becoming a True North insider. Well, today I am joined by

00:00:53.160 journalist Harrison Faulkner, host of Ratioed here at True North, and we're going to walk you through

00:00:57.840 some of the most egregious lies told by the legacy media. That's what Fake News Friday is all about,

00:01:04.040 exposing the agenda, exposing the lies from the legacy media. We each picked a few of our

00:01:09.360 favorite fake news stories of the year, so let's jump right to it. Harrison, why don't you start?

00:01:15.060 So the first story we have here, Candace, as our audience will know, is the hysteria over Christine

00:01:21.060 Anderson, the German-European politician who has become one of the loudest critics against Justin

00:01:26.760 Trudeau over the past few years. She's made numerous trips to Canada, and at the beginning of

00:01:31.480 this year, she did, she, on one of her trips to Canada, she went and visited with three conservative

00:01:35.900 MPs, one of them being Leslie Lewis. Now, of course, the legacy media jumped on this because, in their

00:01:42.920 opinion, anyone who is opposed to mass immigration, anyone who calls out the Islamization of their 0.98

00:01:49.000 country must be some sort of racist, hateful, xenophobic, awful person. And of course, that is exactly what the 0.98

00:01:56.700 legacy media did, doing what they usually do, Candace, which is giving the liberal government

00:02:00.700 opportunity to run their own opposition attack ads. That's basically what this was, right? To try

00:02:06.100 and say that conservatives were meeting with this vile, racist, Nazi politician. Now, we don't need to 0.98

00:02:12.500 get into all of the details because our audience knows this story already, but the reality is, one,

00:02:17.600 you can't be a Nazi in Germany. It is against the law. Two, Christine Anderson has repeatedly

00:02:23.420 said that she is not a racist, not a Nazi, obviously. When she comes to Canada, she's met

00:02:29.420 with Holocaust survivors. It's absurd to say that Christine Anderson is anything close

00:02:34.860 to a racist. She just tells the truth. She tells the truth about mass immigration. Now, here's the

00:02:40.320 part where it gets difficult because, of course, the legacy media jumped on this, labeled Christine

00:02:45.460 Anderson as a Nazi, said that the conservatives who met with her were doing something very naughty,

00:02:50.480 very bad. But then, to make matters worse, Candace, Pierre Polyev himself, in response to the legacy

00:02:57.980 media, basically crucified his own party and said that Christine Anderson was a vile racist and that

00:03:04.560 she should never have come to Canada in the first place. I also want to show our audience this clip

00:03:09.060 of a liberal MP basically taking the exact line the legacy media gave them and saying in the House of

00:03:15.400 Commons that Christine Anderson was a known Nazi. Listen to this. I'm just curious if she thinks there

00:03:21.700 should be consequences or retrimand for members of this House who meet with known Nazis, who spread 0.67

00:03:32.520 misinformation, disinformation, glorify the Holocaust, who speak against anti-Muslim rhetoric. I'm just curious

00:03:43.080 if she's talking about online hate and privacy of Canadians and regulation. Does she condemn her

00:03:48.840 actions by meeting with a known Nazi? So, Candace, this is predictable programming from the legacy 0.65

00:03:53.800 media doing anything they can to make conservative MPs look bad even though they just had dinner with a

00:03:59.960 very loud critic of Justin Trudeau. It's unbelievable. Well, it's too bad that you see Pierre Polyev falling

00:04:05.640 to the media narrative on this. One of the things that people love about Pierre Polyev is that he fights back

00:04:09.880 and he doesn't cower and this behavior, you know, saying like, oh, we're so sorry. Yes, you're right.

00:04:13.880 She's not bad and we don't like her. You know, that's that's kind of like Andrew Sheeran, Erin O'Toole

00:04:19.160 conservatism. And that's not what we really expect from Polyev. Sometimes it takes an outsider,

00:04:24.360 you know, a foreign observer of Canada to really say the things that people in Canada don't say or

00:04:28.760 afraid to say. And I think that's why Christine Anderson's voice has been refreshing. Obviously,

00:04:32.840 you know, you don't have to agree with every single thing a person says just to, you know, go to an event with

00:04:36.920 them. I'm sure there's things that you say, Harrison, I don't agree with or things that,

00:04:40.600 of course, another politician, politicians say things all the time. So do journalists.

00:04:45.080 But yeah, this whole alignment, if you criticize mass migration, if you criticize 0.69

00:04:49.240 extreme radical Islam, you're beyond the pale is just total nonsense. And I think Canadians are 1.00

00:04:54.920 had enough of it. I think that's part of the reason the legacy media doesn't have the same

00:04:58.520 credibility they used to. This is kind of like a sad example of like everything slipping back to the

00:05:03.800 way it was like five, 10 years ago. Yeah, absolutely. There's no reason for Polyev to 0.99

00:05:09.240 fall to the legacy media's fake news narratives about a German politician. Canadians support what

00:05:15.480 Anderson has to say. That's why she keeps coming back here. That's why she has such a 0.99

00:05:19.080 large Canadian following. So there's no need to stab your own MPs in the back. There's no need to take

00:05:24.040 the legacy media narrative. They're obviously trying to discredit conservatives. It doesn't matter what the

00:05:28.200 truth really, really is. They'll just do whatever they can. So like you say, it was,

00:05:32.520 it was an unnecessary error from Polyev there. Yeah. Well, let's hope we don't see too many more

00:05:37.240 of those in 2024. Okay. Another fake news narrative and story from 23. I couldn't,

00:05:41.880 I could not include this story, Harrison, because whenever it comes to anything to do with Israel,

00:05:46.840 there's just this derangement that you see in the legacy media where they just don't like Israel.

00:05:51.160 Like, like, if you take a step back, look, like you could, you could say, I don't like foreign 1.00

00:05:54.440 wars. I don't think Canada should have any involvement. You can say like, look, let people

00:05:57.720 in the Middle East deal with their own problems. But when you're sort of talking about covering a war,

00:06:02.200 covering objectively what is happening, it's like the media refuse to do that. They look at the

00:06:06.120 situation in Israel and it kind of goes to like a broader ideological divide, Harrison, because I think

00:06:12.200 like generally speaking, liberals look at the world of like, you're either oppressed or you're an

00:06:16.920 oppressor. And because Israel is rich and successful and they have an advanced military and they have 0.95

00:06:21.320 a developed economy and a developed society, you know, they must be the oppressors. And these

00:06:25.240 Palestinians who live in squabble because their leaders are terrorists who spend all their money 1.00

00:06:30.040 trying to kill Jews, they don't have basic infrastructure, they must be the oppressed. And 1.00

00:06:35.000 so there's a sort of sympathy that happens in the Middle East. So from the beginning of the war,

00:06:39.480 we've just seen story after story after story that legacy media gets wrong. Not that they get wrong,

00:06:44.680 half the time they're using talking points from Hamas, but then they double down and triple down and

00:06:49.000 refuse to admit that they're, you know, that they're incredibly biased. The CBC right off the bat

00:06:54.760 refuses to label Hamas as terrorists. It's like, okay, fine. You know, they won an election,

00:06:59.400 they're a governing party, but their tactics on October 7th were clearly terrorism. They went

00:07:04.040 into people's homes and murdered families. And the entire point behind terrorism is attacking

00:07:09.800 civilians with the aim of terrorizing civilization and terrorizing society. And that's what it does. 0.97

00:07:15.240 Like the idea that terrorists could just enter your home and kill your kids. Like that's the biggest 0.87

00:07:20.200 thing you could do to spread terror. So CBC showing their ideological colors right off the bat. And

00:07:24.600 then, you know, a couple of weeks into the war, you saw it again. There were stories and reports on

00:07:29.960 social media in the evening that a hospital had been leveled, that Israel had bombed a hospital.

00:07:34.440 And everyone jumped on it, including the prime minister, the foreign affairs minister, just instantly

00:07:39.240 took Hamas's word that 500 people had died, and that this Al-Hali Baptist hospital had been leveled.

00:07:45.480 As soon as it was morning, and there were footage, you could see that the hospital was still standing,

00:07:49.560 that there was no evidence of a huge attack from Israel. And it became pretty clear that it was a

00:07:54.680 misfired rocket that had actually hit a parking lot, not killed that many people, wasn't that big of a

00:07:58.920 story. CBC doubled down on it, they kept their story up. And then when the CBC president was testifying in

00:08:04.680 parliament, she doubled down on it again. So it's like, they can't admit that they're lying, they

00:08:08.680 won't admit that they're wrong. A couple more quick examples here. Harrison, the Globe and Mail called,

00:08:13.720 so a couple weeks ago, there was a humanitarian pause in fighting for a return of hostages. In

00:08:19.480 return, in exchange, Israel agreed to release some prisoners, prisoners who had been convicted on

00:08:24.280 terrorism charges. And the Globe and Mail called it a prisoner swap, right? It's like, you're exchanging

00:08:29.320 kids who are kidnapped for convicted terrorists, and you call that a prisoner swap?

00:08:33.720 The kidnapped Israelis were not prisoners, they were hostages. Another one, the Globe and Mail,

00:08:39.640 was claiming that all of the casualties on the Palestinian side were civilian. Here they say

00:08:46.200 13,300 civilians were killed on the Palestinian side. It's like, Israel says that of the people 0.84

00:08:53.000 that they've killed, 5,000 to 6,000 were Hamas fighters, right? So claiming that everyone who died

00:09:00.520 is a civilian, ignoring the fact that Hamas is even there. Pretty brutal. And then I think the

00:09:06.120 worst one in this genre of anti-Israel reporting was this story that CTV aired in Toronto, talking

00:09:14.600 about Hanukkah, like purely just talking about the religious festival, the festival of lights,

00:09:18.840 lighting of the menorah. And then out of nowhere, the control room goes to B-roll, which is just the,

00:09:24.680 you know, the secondary footage that they show on the screen. And it showed like the worst footage

00:09:30.200 of kids being pulled from rubble and bombing in Israel. It's like, you know, Jews celebrating 1.00

00:09:35.560 Hanukkah in Toronto, what does that have to do with kids in this like really graphic footage in Gaza?

00:09:41.720 I mean, it's just, it just shows really that there's some pretty deranged people in the legacy

00:09:48.360 media and people who hate Israel, you know, support Hamas and want to tell that side of the story.

00:09:57.000 Yeah. I mean, I think one thing that's clear is that there are a lot of people in the legacy media who

00:10:01.240 are ideologically driven on this issue. They're not there to really report what's going on. They have

00:10:07.480 their own biases against Israel. And that's become super obvious from the very beginning of this.

00:10:12.760 I think also the CBC, not even calling the October 7th attack, terrorism, not calling Hamas terrorists.

00:10:19.720 That's insane. They're obviously terrorists. The Canadian government describes Hamas as a terrorist 0.97

00:10:25.400 organization. And yet the CBC is hesitant to call them a terrorist group. It's wild. And also I think

00:10:31.960 the media hasn't learned anything from Ukraine, Russia, right? Obviously these modern 1.00

00:10:37.000 conflicts are played out in social media. People are trying to get the upper hand on social media.

00:10:43.000 And so immediately jumping to conclusions, immediately taking the word of one side,

00:10:48.760 like we saw with the Al-Shifa hospital, immediately taking Hamas's side on that and publishing it as

00:10:54.040 though it's fact before they even had to retract stories, edit headlines, change the story because it

00:10:59.000 turns out to not be true. Nobody seemed to learn anything from Ukraine, Russia, where again,

00:11:05.080 both sides were putting out fake stories and the media was just taking it at face value and reporting

00:11:10.360 it. That's what the media did here. They immediately jumped to the worst conclusion, blaming Israel for

00:11:14.920 an attack on a hospital, which wasn't, didn't actually happen. So media hasn't learned anything.

00:11:20.200 The media is clearly driven by a bias against Israel. And if that isn't clear now, then I don't

00:11:25.000 clear, I'm not sure when it will ever be clear to Canadians. Yeah. That's such a good point about 1.00

00:11:29.560 Ukraine. It's like how many stories were just so embarrassingly bad that like basically came from 0.99

00:11:34.120 like a meme or just someone making stuff up on Twitter and the legacy media reporting it as fact.

00:11:39.400 And it's like, you know, with Hamas, it's like they're not a reliable, credible source. They're

00:11:45.480 going to tell you lies. That's their whole, like, that's what they do every single day. And it just shows

00:11:51.960 how bad, like how uncredible their reports are, that these are supposed to be serious, trusted journalists.

00:11:58.280 And yet when it comes to like the very basics of journalism 101 and ethics, they don't follow it.

00:12:03.480 And on such a big, important issue like this, it's really, it's really sad.

00:12:08.040 Yeah, absolutely. I'm going to move on to the next story here, Candace. So this story is utterly insane.

00:12:14.520 I'm just going to put it out there at the beginning. This is now the Rainbow Bridge incident. If you

00:12:19.960 recall a few months ago, last month, there was this, there was this concern that during American

00:12:26.200 Thanksgiving, there was a terrorist attack at the Rainbow Bridge border crossing in Niagara.

00:12:31.160 Now, the reason a lot of Canadians might think that is because legacy media journalists ran with

00:12:37.160 the story saying that sources inside of the Canadian government were initially operating under the

00:12:44.200 assumption that it was terror related. That is a verbatim quote from a CTV news article published at

00:12:50.520 1.09 PM. Then at two o'clock, 2.25 or so, Pierre Polyev at question period, of course, not assuming that CTV

00:13:00.840 has just ran a fake story, asks the prime minister, how he will respond to what is perceived to be a

00:13:07.080 potential terrorist attack. Nothing was wrong with what Pierre Polyev said there. CTV news ran with this

00:13:14.120 story, said that the said that the Canadian government was operating under terrorist assumptions.

00:13:18.760 Polyev then did the right thing and allowed the prime minister to comment to the nation about what

00:13:24.360 is going on here. Then from that point on, it was as if Candace, the legacy media just decided that no

00:13:30.840 one was actually going to see that original report and they were going to attack Polyev for jumping to

00:13:36.440 conclusions for calling it a terrorist attack. First of all, he didn't say that. He said that media reports

00:13:42.840 were saying that it was a terrorist attack and watch this exchange. A lot of our audience has seen it,

00:13:47.560 but it just shows you the disconnect between the truth and legacy media journalists. This is a

00:13:54.200 Canadian press journalist the day after questioning Pierre Polyev on why he said that it was a terrorist

00:14:00.760 attack at the Rainbow Bridge. Watch this. Do you think it was responsible for you to call yesterday's

00:14:06.360 explosion by the customs, by the checkpoint at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism when no U.S. or Canadian

00:14:12.760 officials said that was the, authorities said that was the case, and when the New York governor

00:14:17.320 also said there was no evidence to suggest terrorism activity? Actually, you're wrong. Are you with CP?

00:14:22.680 Okay, so CP, by the way, CP, just for everyone's knowledge, did have to make three corrections for

00:14:28.440 falsehoods that they put into a single article. I think that might be unprecedented. I'm actually

00:14:34.440 thinking about checking with the Guinness Book of World Records to see if there's ever been a news agency

00:14:39.320 that has had to issue three corrections for patent falsehoods that they admit they had been made in

00:14:45.640 one single article, and now you've made yet another falsehood in your question. Um, um, where you are

00:14:51.320 wrong is that CTV reported that the government of Canada was presuming that the incident was terrorist.

00:14:57.320 So, yeah, that was, and that's what I said in my remarks. You're right. It was a media report.

00:15:03.560 But citing media reports and not. Which is what I said in the House. I said there are media reports.

00:15:10.600 And you think that's a responsible thing to go on to make that kind of a statement at the time without

00:15:15.160 speaking? What kind of statement?

00:15:17.800 Calling something terrorist. I didn't.

00:15:19.400 I said there were media reports. That's the distinction we're making? Okay.

00:15:25.080 No, there's no distinction. What I said, and I was right, was that there were media reports

00:15:34.120 of a terror-related event. By your admission, there were media reports of a terror-related event.

00:15:41.880 And that media report, according to CTV, unless you're questioning their integrity now,

00:15:48.120 came from security officials in the Trudeau government.

00:15:52.840 So do you think the CTV was irresponsible in putting out that tweet?

00:15:59.480 Do you think it was a responsible comment to make it in the House?

00:16:01.560 Do you, sorry, I'm asking, I have already answered that.

00:16:04.680 Do you, do you think CTV was irresponsible to put that tweet out?

00:16:07.240 That's none of my business. That's not for me to comment.

00:16:12.520 Well, you just did comment.

00:16:17.480 Okay. So I, you know, I just hope you're not going to print something that you have to apologize for

00:16:21.400 again. So Candace, if the legacy media publishes a story in which they say that government officials

00:16:28.200 are operating under the assumption that it was a terrorist attack, is the leader of the opposition

00:16:33.000 just supposed to discredit all that when he speaks and, and, and basically say the media is wrong. 0.98

00:16:39.480 It's, it's so, it's so ridiculous. 1.00

00:16:42.360 Well, I, I reported on this story as well, Harrison, and I said, it was the stupidest 0.99

00:16:46.040 fake news story I'd ever seen because the media became obsessed with it. It was like unbelievable 0.97

00:16:50.920 how big of a story this was on legacy media, social media, on Twitter, on X, uh, every single

00:16:56.760 journalist was like up in arms and worked up about how irresponsible it was for Pierre Polyev. You had

00:17:03.160 all the hosts over at CBC, you had their at issue panel, you had all of the political commentators. 1.00

00:17:08.280 They were all focused on this story and it was so stupid. It was like, Pierre Polyev just quoted a 0.99

00:17:13.160 CTV story. And, and you can see the evolution of, of the legacy media spin on it because at first they

00:17:19.480 were saying, oh, he's, he's, he's talking about terrorism, that's reckless. And then it's like, oh no,

00:17:23.400 it's media reports. Oh, he's relying on Fox news. And then it's like, no, no, that, uh, there's a CTV

00:17:28.680 story. And they were like, oh no, that CTV story came out in the afternoon. And it's like, no, no,

00:17:32.120 the CTV story came out like an hour before Polyev went out. And they're like, well, the story must

00:17:36.040 have been updated. Like, it was like, whatever you came, whenever you came back at them with facts,

00:17:41.160 they would just change their attack against Polyev. And it was, it was really just one of those,

00:17:45.960 like, inside the legacy media bubble story that like, you have to be so deranged to actually think that

00:17:52.440 this was a scandal, to think this was a big deal. And yet the amount of ink that was spread,

00:17:56.280 the amount of, uh, that was spilled on the story, the amount of airtime it got. And then the liberals

00:18:01.000 even brought up the next week again, they were attacking him in the House of Commons, calling,

00:18:04.440 uh, Pierre Polyev Islamophobic or something. Like it's, it's, it's, it's, it's just an example of

00:18:10.760 really how stupid, how stupid the legacy media is when it comes to their coverage of Pierre Polyev. 1.00

00:18:16.120 Yeah. Outrageous. Just shows you that the, that the conservatives should never, 1.00

00:18:21.400 should never accept what the legacy media is going to write about them. They'll never,

00:18:24.840 they'll never write the truth anyway. So, and they'll never give them a fair shake.

00:18:28.280 So what's the point in trying to play to them? They'll never give you fair coverage.

00:18:31.400 A hundred percent. It's like something about Pierre Polyev just really triggers the legacy

00:18:34.920 media and they can't help themselves. So anytime they have an opportunity where he, they think they've

00:18:38.920 caught him saying something slightly off guard, uh, that they'll attack. And it's, it's really

00:18:43.960 transparent. Well, I want to talk a little bit more. My next story that I'm bringing is about

00:18:48.840 the liberal government trying to regulate the internet, trying to regulate news, uh, streaming,

00:18:53.960 online streaming act. You know, we talk about how Pierre Polyev triggers the media. I think

00:18:57.880 that there, there might only be one or two people that trigger the legacy media more than Pierre Polyev.

00:19:02.120 That would probably be Elon Musk and Joe Rogan. Anytime those two talk about Canada, uh, you're going to see

00:19:07.560 a bunch of stories in the legacy media about how terrible they are. Well, uh, Joe Rogan, just very,

00:19:11.800 very briefly on his com, uh, podcast commented on this new, uh, this new initiative that the liberals

00:19:17.800 are introducing. So, um, here, here's, here's a clip, just very brief from Joe Rogan show.

00:19:22.760 They're regulating podcasts in Canada. Oh yeah. Yeah. I was reading about this.

00:19:27.480 So this is the, the liberals online streaming act. Uh, as, as soon as this came out, you know,

00:19:31.320 it created a huge stir because people are like, what the government's going to go even further in

00:19:36.440 regulating the internet and, and, and news. And instantly the liberals defended themselves and said,

00:19:41.880 no, no, no, we're not, we're not going to regulate podcasts. We're just going to regulate platforms.

00:19:46.120 Right. And so then you had the Canadian press parroting the liberal government and assuring

00:19:50.120 Canadians that no, no, Joe Rogan's wrong. And the liberals are just, uh, their online streaming

00:19:55.800 won't regulate social media creators and podcasts. Uh, but of course in the fine print, Harrison,

00:20:00.680 we see that they actually will. They're, they're going to be, they're going to be regulating the, uh,

00:20:05.800 platform. So they'll, they'll be regulating for Canadian content. And they're going to be,

00:20:09.480 obviously interfering in the algorithms and imposing their own censorship because they're

00:20:12.600 going to be regulating Spotify and YouTube and the places where Canadians get their podcast. So

00:20:17.480 it's kind of a distinction without a difference, right? It's saying, oh no,

00:20:20.280 we're not going to regulate true north. We're just going to regulate all the places where Canada,

00:20:24.760 Canadians can find true north podcasts. And it's like, that's exactly the same thing,

00:20:29.080 you know? And, and it's interesting to see how this happens, Harrison, because

00:20:33.160 anytime the liberals introduce a new plan to, to either bail out the media or to regulate a different

00:20:38.840 aspect of how Canadians get their news, you see legacy media journalists jump up and defend them,

00:20:43.800 right? Defending them saying, no, no, no, it's not as bad as you hear, or this is what's really

00:20:47.480 happening or whatever. It's like, again, in a free country and a free press, you would see journalists

00:20:52.040 criticizing the government. You wouldn't see the journalists always playing this defense role

00:20:56.200 of trying to explain how actually the criticisms are wrong and actually what the true government is

00:21:01.080 doing is just fine. We see this over and over again. Uh, just the other week, Harrison, when the,

00:21:05.480 uh, true to liberals announced their fall economic update. And part of it was another $125 million

00:21:11.560 bailout, uh, to news agencies. It came in the form of a tax credit that allowed you, uh, to, to write

00:21:17.080 off up to 35% of someone's paycheck. So up to $30,000 per employee in the newsroom. And you had a bunch

00:21:24.840 of journalists being like, this isn't a bailout. It's just tax credit. Like it's totally different.

00:21:30.120 It's like anyone who's ever run a business knows that like money in your bottom line, that's,

00:21:35.480 that's the government giving you extra money to hire more journalists and to pay for journalists.

00:21:40.200 So anyone's saying that it's not a bailout. They clearly just don't know anything about

00:21:44.040 like economics or businesses. It's so pathetic. And yet you saw it, but from so many people. 1.00

00:21:50.040 You would think Candace that if the, if these journalists were getting all of this money from

00:21:54.280 the government, they might have some interest in trying to maybe even pretend to hold the government

00:21:59.480 accountable, pretend as though the money that they're getting from the government is not obviously

00:22:03.400 influencing their coverage, but they're not even trying anymore. It's like, they don't,

00:22:06.600 they don't really don't care about perception. They just know that maybe Canadians are just going

00:22:11.160 to accept this. We're just going to accept that all of our major news outlets are being paid off

00:22:16.360 by the government. And the government is just going to parrot their talking points. It's,

00:22:20.040 they don't really seem to have any interest at all in telling the truth or trying to discredit the

00:22:25.640 fact that no, the money we get from the government isn't impacting our coverage. Speaking of this,

00:22:31.000 this next story is exactly in line with that out of nowhere, seemingly out of nowhere,

00:22:37.080 the Canadian press decided to publish a story which said that, and this is the headline, by the way,

00:22:42.600 conspiracy theories are popular in Canada, especially among conservatives, Paul says.

00:22:48.280 So, so that was published in the Canadian press. And of course, the legacy media have just take,

00:22:53.720 take those articles and republish them immediately on all of these different platforms. So you had CTV,

00:22:59.080 CP 24 and the Globe and Mail that headline, which is obviously partisan in nature, which is obviously

00:23:05.240 targeted at conservatives and is aimed at making conservatives look bad was just published without

00:23:11.800 any concern at all. And then something strange happened, Candace, because of course, when all

00:23:16.040 the legacy media outlets tweeted out this article, the Canadians gave them pushback and said, what, 0.98

00:23:21.640 what is this garbage? It's so, this is such a patently absurd article. 0.99

00:23:25.400 CP 24 and CTV news changed their headline. They, they removed any mention of conservative

00:23:32.680 at all because obviously it's so obviously partisan, except for the Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail

00:23:38.200 didn't bother changing their headline. They thought, oh, that's fine. Now this is where the article gets

00:23:42.440 ridiculous. One of the conspiracy theories that apparently conservatives believe in is that the

00:23:48.120 mainstream media manipulates information. This is a direct example of the mainstream media manipulating

00:23:54.760 information. One of thousands of examples, Candace, of the media doing this. And yet this is supposed

00:24:01.240 to be news. It's, it's ridiculous. This is really the perfect fake news story for 2023, Harrison. I mean, 0.97

00:24:09.880 look, like when I first opened that article, I read it, I was like, oh, give me a break. And then I,

00:24:13.800 and then I started reading it. It was like, oh, Canadians believe in flat earth. You know,

00:24:17.480 some Canadians believe in flat earth and whatever, and talk about real conspiracies. Right. And then

00:24:21.480 all of a sudden they kind of sneak in, oh, and, and, and this percentage don't believe in the effect,

00:24:27.960 the severe effects of climate change. And, you know, here, now we have some stuff about the COVID vaccine

00:24:32.600 and about whether COVID was invented in a lab. And, and then, and then, yeah, the media thing. And it's like,

00:24:37.880 they kind of just like went from real conspiracies all the way down to just like things that have

00:24:41.640 actually factually been proven true. And, and look, both sides believe things that aren't quite

00:24:46.440 true. I mean, people on the left still believe Russiagate. They, they still believe that somehow

00:24:50.840 Russia interfered with the 2016 election and that Donald Trump isn't the legitimate president of the

00:24:55.960 United States. I'm, I'm sure lots of liberals and left-wing Canadians still believe the robocall

00:25:01.640 scandal that was completely invented by the legacy media that was never proven in any way,

00:25:07.080 shape or form, but they believe for many, many years that Stephen Harper had stolen

00:25:10.600 the 2000 election, 2011 election, Canada. Like they never mentioned the things that left-wing

00:25:16.280 Canadians believe. They just only make it about the things that, that conservatives believe,

00:25:20.440 which obviously this is just a complete hatchet job, uh, from the beginning and no one should take

00:25:26.040 these people seriously. Yeah, it's total, it's totally pathetic. I mean, what just actual facts are now 0.99

00:25:33.000 conspiracy theories that conservatives believe in as if the mainstream media didn't manipulate

00:25:37.800 basically every single story during the pandemic, as if they didn't manipulate basically any story

00:25:42.680 during the freedom convoy. It's absurd. And so obviously partisan that no one should ever take

00:25:47.960 these people seriously again. It's just, it's just not worth anyone's time.

00:25:51.080 Well, I think, I think that's a perfect place to leave it today. So, uh, Harrison and I will be back

00:25:56.600 next week. Uh, you know, next week is Christmas. So we hope you have a wonderful holiday with your

00:26:00.360 family. Same to you, Harrison. And we will be back, uh, this time next week, uh, giving you the,

00:26:06.600 the finals. We're gonna, we've, we've, we've held the four biggest fake news stories of the year.

00:26:10.760 So we'll be back, uh, with that for, uh, the end of 2023. So thanks so much for tuning in, uh, today.

00:26:16.200 Again, Merry Christmas. Have a great one. And we will see you back next week. It's fake news Friday.

00:26:20.360 I'm Katis Malcolm, and this is the Katis Malcolm show.

Juno News - December 22, 2023

The biggest fake news HOAXES of 2023

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript