The Candice Malcolm Show - Fake News Friday ｜ Poilievre continues to trigger the media

00:00:00.000 Hello and welcome to another edition of Fake News Friday.

00:00:13.000 It is Friday, August 12th, 2022, and as we try to stand firm in the blizzard of lies,

00:00:19.760 expose the fakery, the misinformation, the disinformation, and just the plain, pure, unbridled wacko,

00:00:27.220 we are standing here at True North doing exactly that, and after that bold introduction,

00:00:32.280 there is no man befitting it as much as my trusty co-host for this episode, Harrison Faulkner.

00:00:38.300 Harrison, it is good to have you on. How was your week?

00:00:41.480 Pretty good. That was a pretty nice introduction, I gotta say, and I was just thinking about this, Andrew.

00:00:45.560 It's been a quiet week. It's been nice and simple. We haven't had the Prime Minister around,

00:00:50.240 and I'm starting to get that feeling like he's coming back soon and everything's about to kick up again,

00:00:54.020 so it's been a nice, quiet week, I have to say.

00:00:58.140 Yeah, I mean, the point that I made, I think it was on this show last week,

00:01:01.080 which some people didn't like on Twitter, or at least didn't see the nuance of,

00:01:04.380 is that I would be happier in the grand scheme of things if he just stayed in Costa Rica,

00:01:08.820 but we know that all things have to be undone.

00:01:11.760 What goes up must come down. What goes to the Caribbean must come back, 1.00

00:01:15.120 so next week will be a bit of a different week, I have no doubt.

00:01:18.980 Let's talk first and foremost, though, about the conservative leadership race,

00:01:24.160 and specifically, Polyev derangement syndrome.

00:01:27.580 Now, you may remember, this is going back to the archives here,

00:01:30.640 Bush derangement syndrome, which was the original DS,

00:01:33.660 and it was, I believe it was Charles Krauthammer, if memory serves.

00:01:37.600 It was just the complete spastic, hysterical nature of a lot of the critiques of George Bush, 0.93

00:01:43.880 and we've seen this derangement syndrome come back every time there's a conservative leader now.

00:01:50.580 It doesn't matter who it is, people just go absolutely crazy.

00:01:54.260 Doug Ford, before he was the lockdown leader, when he was a conservative,

00:01:58.840 the media had Ford derangement syndrome, certainly there was Harper derangement syndrome,

00:02:03.080 and now there is undoubtedly Polyev derangement syndrome.

00:02:07.680 Let's look here first off at how the Globe and Mail decided to cover

00:02:11.660 the fallout of Stephen Harper's endorsement of Pierre Polyev.

00:02:16.320 Let's first take a look at the endorsement.

00:02:18.540 Friends, fellow conservatives, greetings.

00:02:21.880 I haven't talked to you like this in a while, and much has transpired.

00:02:27.060 Our party, once again, has a leadership race underway.

00:02:31.300 In this particular race, there's been a lot of speculation

00:02:34.520 about whom I support or do not support and why.

00:02:38.220 So it may be useful for my fellow party members to hear my views straight from me.

00:02:43.880 It's a strong field, but one candidate has garnered disproportionate attention.

00:02:49.620 Pierre Polyev was a strong minister in my government.

00:02:53.620 In the past several years, he's been our party's most vocal and effective critic of the Trudeau Liberals.

00:02:58.600 He's been talking about the issues, especially the economic issues, that matter.

00:03:03.960 Slow growth, debt, inflation, lack of job and housing opportunities,

00:03:09.420 and the need to fix the institutions that are failing Canadian families.

00:03:14.160 So Stephen Harper, who has kept his powder dry the last couple leadership races,

00:03:18.380 did come out and say that he is standing behind Pierre Polyev.

00:03:22.060 And a Nanos research poll written about in the Globe and Mail says

00:03:26.100 Stephen Harper's endorsement shows no boost for Pierre Polyev, new polls suggest.

00:03:31.420 This story came out on August 8th, and they did a telephone survey of just over 1,000 people.

00:03:37.860 They consider it accurate, plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20,

00:03:43.080 all the standard polling lingo.

00:03:44.760 But basically, they say that most people would find no effect one way or another

00:03:51.040 of Stephen Harper's endorsement on Pierre Polyev.

00:03:54.080 And if you read the fine print, you realize this was not a poll of Conservative Party of Canada members.

00:04:00.780 This was a poll of the general population, people who may or may not be members at all.

00:04:06.040 Most likely, they aren't.

00:04:07.720 And it was basically saying, I'll read the question exactly.

00:04:12.140 Has Stephen Harper's recent endorsement of Pierre Polyev as a candidate for the Conservative Party leadership

00:04:17.800 given you a more positive impression, a more negative impression,

00:04:21.780 or has it had no impact on your impression of Pierre Polyev?

00:04:25.660 If you're not voting in the leadership race, your answer to that would presumably,

00:04:29.760 I don't know, why do I care?

00:04:31.100 What is that about me?

00:04:32.760 But the media is trying to make it seem like, oh, Stephen Harper's tainted, Polyev's tainted.

00:04:37.120 And really, it's just a fundamental misunderstanding or willful ignorance of how leadership races are won.

00:04:45.740 I hope Canadians can see through all of this, Andrew, because, you know,

00:04:49.680 what we all know is if you can't poll the general public to begin with,

00:04:53.960 then when you try to poll the general public about a Conservative leadership race,

00:04:58.080 it's going to mean basically nothing, first of all.

00:05:00.420 And I think if you were to specifically poll Conservative members,

00:05:03.900 obviously the Stephen Harper endorsement of Pierre Polyev is a huge boost to Polyev's campaign.

00:05:11.000 No matter what campaign you're on or you're in or no matter what person you support,

00:05:15.660 getting the endorsement of the previous Conservative Prime Minister is huge for anyone.

00:05:20.280 So the idea, of course, that it's going to not impact his chances in a general is not true, I don't think.

00:05:28.100 And, of course, they do this thing where they talk about how, you know,

00:05:31.320 he experienced the biggest boost in Alberta and Ontario and Quebec, you know,

00:05:36.200 both said that they were the highest respondents to say they disapproved of the endorsement.

00:05:41.400 Obviously, that's meant to be the case.

00:05:43.680 But Canadians can see through that, at least I hope, 0.99

00:05:45.940 because obviously the Globe and Mail is not intending to poll actual Conservatives

00:05:50.240 or to, in fact, get an accurate poll of Canadians.

00:05:53.640 We know that polling companies have consistently failed to poll,

00:05:57.020 whether it be Conservative, whether it be working-class Canadians,

00:06:00.280 whether it just be people who live in the middle of the country.

00:06:02.700 They can't seem to gauge where that support is coming from.

00:06:06.720 But I did some digging myself, Andrew,

00:06:09.360 to see what other polls might indicate whether or not Canadians would support a Stephen Harper endorsement.

00:06:15.140 I came across a Research Co. poll published in July,

00:06:19.360 which actually found that 29% of Canadians in this poll,

00:06:23.720 which is basically 30%,

00:06:25.660 29% of Canadians responding to the Research Co. poll

00:06:29.340 about the worst Canadian Prime Minister in recent history,

00:06:33.120 29% said Justin Trudeau.

00:06:34.580 That's the highest any previous Prime Minister has received.

00:06:37.200 So the majority of Canadians believe Justin Trudeau is the worst Prime Minister we've had in recent history.

00:06:42.280 And on the other side, Stephen Harper beats Justin Trudeau for the best recent Prime Minister.

00:06:48.520 So if I were Pierre Pauly, if I were a leadership candidate,

00:06:50.860 I'd certainly know who I'd want to be endorsed by.

00:06:52.940 And if I had the choice, it wouldn't be Justin Trudeau.

00:06:56.140 Yeah, I actually hadn't seen that.

00:06:58.160 I mean, Research Co. is not a huge polling firm,

00:07:00.660 but it's not a conservative firm by any stretch.

00:07:02.980 It's, as I understand, not tainted by partisanship in general.

00:07:06.600 But it is interesting how poorly Trudeau comes off in that.

00:07:10.540 And the whole point here, and look, the media is, I believe, within its right to

00:07:16.500 start polling on eventualities and ask Canadians, you know,

00:07:20.180 what would you think of the Conservatives if Pauly were the leader?

00:07:22.940 What would you think if Jean Chafin were the leader?

00:07:25.380 What would you think if so-and-so were the leader?

00:07:27.620 I think that's all fine.

00:07:29.020 But it's when they start talking about the internal workings of the leadership race

00:07:33.920 without acknowledging in any substantial way how leadership races work, that I get annoyed.

00:07:41.000 And in fairness, let me look at this one here from the, I believe this was a,

00:07:45.600 no, this was a Leger poll in association with the Association for Canadian Studies.

00:07:51.440 And the headline here kind of gives you the angle.

00:07:54.000 Pauly have preferred among Conservatives, but Charest favored among Canadians.

00:07:58.060 So the media is trying to say that, yeah, Pierre Pauly is unelectable and Conservatives,

00:08:03.860 they don't like Jean Charest, but Canadians do.

00:08:06.900 And they're basically saying that Conservatives are going to have the right leader that none

00:08:11.440 of them vote and the wrong leader is going to, the one that's going to win is effectively

00:08:15.080 the message here.

00:08:16.120 And I find this to be a bit tiring because they, it neglects to understand that this is

00:08:24.020 the Trump effect, that polling does not reflect a certain constituency.

00:08:28.680 And there are people who are not as likely to talk to pollsters that are not represented,

00:08:33.860 that are very key demographic in voting.

00:08:36.280 And beyond that, they also fail to understand the importance of campaigning.

00:08:39.820 I'm convinced right now that Jean Charest is not even really campaigning to Conservative

00:08:43.840 members.

00:08:44.420 He's doing the mainstream media thing.

00:08:46.500 He's campaigning to the country as a whole.

00:08:48.260 So it's understandable that the country as a whole may have a favorable impression of him.

00:08:52.220 And again, maybe Pierre Polyev will be able to do that or won't.

00:08:56.000 We don't know.

00:08:56.600 We don't have a crystal ball, but it's a pretty tired analogy that they're giving here, which

00:09:01.780 is, oh, well, you know, he's the one the party likes, but not the country and vice versa.

00:09:07.020 Well, exactly.

00:09:07.960 And in a leadership race, I would want to have the support of the party, not necessarily the

00:09:12.120 country.

00:09:12.480 You want to play to win.

00:09:13.940 You want to win the leadership race.

00:09:15.500 And we'll see what happens with whatever leader the Conservative members decide.

00:09:21.120 We'll see if they switch their positions or if they make any decisions to kind of change

00:09:25.800 their approach to attract Canadians.

00:09:27.500 But again, if you don't frame the poll in the correct way at the beginning, it's disingenuous

00:09:32.820 by saying to Canadians that, you know, Canadians don't support Pierre Polyev and they don't

00:09:36.620 support this endorsement.

00:09:38.040 It's not accurate and it's not doing a good enough job for Canadians. 0.59

00:09:40.920 I will just provide some context quickly to that research co-poll.

00:09:45.660 It turns out that Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau were bested by Pierre Trudeau for best

00:09:51.180 recent prime minister, which I don't know, may, may kind of throw some shade on the research

00:09:56.220 co-poll depending on who you talk to.

00:09:57.940 But again, I thought that might be interesting.

00:09:59.380 And another thing I found in my research before the show was that a Narsity article, Narsity

00:10:04.400 is definitely not known to be a pro-conservative, that's for sure.

00:10:08.240 Narsity back in 2019 wrote about how Justin Trudeau's approval rating was lower than Donald Trump's.

00:10:13.860 So again, it's just one of those things where these are not the kind of headlines you'll

00:10:17.760 see reported in legacy media news.

00:10:19.580 That's why we're doing it on this show, obviously.

00:10:21.820 But again, it's important to put some context behind this.

00:10:23.840 When the media wants to tell you that Stephen Harper is this boogeyman, most Canadians are

00:10:28.080 afraid of Pierre Polyev or they're afraid of Stephen Harper, look for what Canadians actually

00:10:32.820 say about Justin Trudeau.

00:10:34.140 It doesn't show the best picture of him either.

00:10:36.200 So it's important context there that I want to highlight for the audience listening.

00:10:40.720 Yeah, I think that is a very fair game.

00:10:43.160 I think the media is going to lose its mind if Pierre Polyev wins, and it's going to be

00:10:48.580 interesting to watch.

00:10:49.520 We'll have no shortage of material.

00:10:51.480 So all I can say on that is to stay tuned.

00:10:54.500 Let's turn from the internal party workings of the conservatives to the global workings

00:10:59.760 of the shadowy cabal of overlords that run the countries and the world and all of that.

00:11:05.260 Now, I don't know.

00:11:05.660 It's not quite that bad.

00:11:06.720 But we are going to talk about the World Economic Forum here, which had an op-ed in the Globe

00:11:12.420 and Mail debunking, as they believe, the own nothing and be happy conspiracy theory.

00:11:19.880 And there are a few moving parts to this.

00:11:22.680 But I'll say basically that by now I'm assuming you've heard of own nothing and be happy as

00:11:28.020 though it's some common refrain of the World Economic Forum.

00:11:30.840 Now, this line did really come from the WEF.

00:11:34.440 It was a blog post that was published on the WEF's website quite a while ago by a member

00:11:40.080 of parliament.

00:11:40.660 I think she was from Denmark.

00:11:42.420 And it was basically putting forward this futuristic scenario in 2030, so just eight years

00:11:48.420 from now, in which people don't own anything.

00:11:51.040 They don't have a car.

00:11:51.980 They don't have a house.

00:11:52.840 They don't have appliances.

00:11:54.400 What is the living room one day is used as an office for someone else the next day.

00:11:58.900 And public transportation is there.

00:12:01.100 And everything's a public good.

00:12:02.360 The whole point here, and I want to go right down to the text of this.

00:12:07.460 In the world, before this fantasy 2030 world, we had all these terrible things happening.

00:12:13.220 Lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely 1.00

00:12:18.660 congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest, and unemployment.

00:12:23.460 We lost way too many people before we realized we could do things differently.

00:12:28.200 And doing things differently in this fantasy world is owning nothing and evidently being

00:12:33.980 happy.

00:12:34.500 So it wasn't like a central campaign platform item for the WEF, but it was a think piece

00:12:40.300 that the WEF put out that ultimately aligns with the World Economic Forum's broader vision

00:12:46.220 of rethinking property rights, of basically making it so that we all live with less because

00:12:51.460 that's the way to save the climate.

00:12:52.920 So let's talk about how this is being represented by the WEF now in a Globe and Mail op-ed.

00:12:59.900 Take it away.

00:13:01.220 So Andrew, there was an opinion article that was published in the Globe and Mail by Adrian

00:13:05.060 Monk, who's the managing director of the World Economic Forum.

00:13:09.500 And he takes direct aim at this statement, this You'll Own Nothing and Be Happy, as previously

00:13:15.260 talked about.

00:13:16.340 And the title of the piece is How Own Nothing and Be Happy Sparked a Misinformation Campaign

00:13:22.840 that Targeted the World Economic Forum.

00:13:24.720 Misinformation and disinformation.

00:13:26.720 We've already seen that before, Andrew.

00:13:28.840 So again, this author, he begins by calling out where he believes the origin of the You'll

00:13:35.640 Own Nothing and Be Happy idea came from.

00:13:38.100 And of course, he does mention that it was published by the World Economic Forum.

00:13:41.480 It is a WEF slogan that they did kind of coin.

00:13:45.980 But then from that point on, from about the second or third paragraph, he completely abandons

00:13:50.840 that and then basically goes into saying that the comment defending the World Economic Forum,

00:13:58.080 the comment is Russian disinformation.

00:14:00.460 The comment came and became popular through 4chan, which he describes as an unmoderated messaging

00:14:07.900 board used by operators of a Russian propaganda campaign.

00:14:11.700 And then he writes in the article, the intent was apparently to spread disinformation in a

00:14:15.760 bid to stir far-right outrage about COVID-19 and perpetuate domestic extremism.

00:14:21.200 The means was often via bots that would push far-right conspiracy theories to communities

00:14:25.840 on board such as 4chan.

00:14:27.440 So what you're seeing here, I think, is a cleanup operation from the World Economic Forum

00:14:31.860 to go after the big slogans that have dominated their brand for the past couple of years and

00:14:36.720 I think pretty much ruined the brand of the World Economic Forum in the public eye.

00:14:40.940 They're trying to send out their best and brightest to combat what people are starting

00:14:45.380 to learn about this group and basically label any criticism, any direct quotation of the

00:14:51.440 World Economic Forum as this statement is, as Russian misinformation, as far-right.

00:14:57.300 They even, you know, they even use the word anti-Semitic to describe using the terms, using

00:15:03.280 the term you'll own nothing and be happy.

00:15:04.700 So it's a big cleanup operation.

00:15:06.440 They're trying to sweep it all under the rug, Andrew, and they're using the Globe and Mail

00:15:09.780 for it.

00:15:10.360 I mean, they couldn't have picked a better outlet to run a story like this, if you ask me.

00:15:13.900 Yeah, it's a weird one because, I mean, if you look at it in depth, it's anything but

00:15:19.780 trivial, he says, and there's valuable insights we can take away from how misinformation is

00:15:24.580 created and why it's essential not to perpetuate its spread.

00:15:28.060 And I'm not saying that people who believe in conspiratorial things about the World Economic

00:15:32.720 Forum or other aspects of this have not taken this and, you know, used it in whatever they

00:15:37.940 believe, but the whole point is let's strip away all that and look at the facts themselves.

00:15:42.620 This was a think piece that was put out by the World Economic Forum.

00:15:47.400 Their argument or defense might be, well, we publish things by any number of people, but

00:15:51.640 this is a vision that really talks about the eradication of property rights as being a

00:15:57.140 prerequisite for happiness and as being the antidote to all of these terrible things they

00:16:01.860 say like climate change and droughts and famines and all of that.

00:16:05.180 So whether or not, and this is coming from an elected representative, not a Canadian, a Danish

00:16:09.440 MP, but I guess the point is at what point does that become Russian?

00:16:14.420 At what point does that become disinformation?

00:16:17.200 And I think this is a legitimate question.

00:16:19.120 If you quote it, is that allowed?

00:16:21.040 If you have the discussion we're having now, is that allowed?

00:16:23.560 At what point is it a conspiracy and no longer something that people can bring?

00:16:28.060 And I mean, say what you will about 4chan.

00:16:30.180 There are a lot of issues with that platform.

00:16:32.320 Just because something is on 4chan does not mean it does not exist.

00:16:36.300 And I always encourage people with anything, even if you hear it on my show or your show,

00:16:40.940 go to the source, check out the source document, the raw material.

00:16:44.240 And in this case, you don't need to get it filtered through 4chan.

00:16:47.100 You can go to the WEF website.

00:16:49.480 There it is right there on the screen.

00:16:50.840 It is still posted.

00:16:52.020 It's still available.

00:16:53.140 And you can decide for yourself.

00:16:55.100 And I've tried to give as accurate and fair a recap of that piece as I can.

00:17:00.160 Read it for yourself, not on 4chan, on the WEF website.

00:17:03.880 Yeah, so I think, Andrew, to answer your question, it becomes Russian propaganda.

00:17:09.280 It becomes, you know, right-wing disinformation as soon as it becomes critical.

00:17:13.660 That is the point, I think, at which all of the talk about it becomes this awful sort of Russian campaign to, you know, influence ideas.

00:17:23.180 I mean, that's, to me, really where this all comes from.

00:17:25.680 And to not lose sight of the Polyev derangement syndrome taking place, in this article, they actually dropped Pierre Polyev's name.

00:17:33.980 And I want to read the quote because it's pretty, it actually is pretty insightful to see where the WEF is coming from on this.

00:17:41.940 So the paragraph starts off by mentioning Russell Brand's video that talked about the WEF video and saying, the article writes,

00:17:49.260 And just before that, he labeled the saying as people who use that saying as dog whistling.

00:18:10.440 So you immediately see the connection between, Andrew, between them saying, using this slogan to discredit the World Economic Forum

00:18:17.380 and to discredit politicians who are themselves connected to the World Economic Forum, that's dog whistling, that's far right, and that is dangerous territory.

00:18:25.780 I mean, it's pretty transparent, Andrew, I think, when it comes to the Cleanup Act that's taking place right now.

00:18:30.940 This isn't the first time we've seen it.

00:18:32.260 And just to clarify one more thing, in the article, the WEF actually pulled that article.

00:18:38.420 You have to go to the web archive to find it.

00:18:40.560 Of course, it's on the Internet, so it lives forever.

00:18:42.580 But in this article, in the Globe and Mail, the author mentions the fact that they ended up pulling the story to protect the author of the original

00:18:52.520 You'll Know Nothing and Be Happy, basically because of all the death threats, all the comments they were receiving.

00:18:58.460 So, again, it's important to note that the Cleanup Act is in full flight right now.

00:19:03.840 They're really trying to clean up what's been going on in the messaging of the WEF.

00:19:06.860 But that article itself has been pulled from the website.

00:19:10.140 You have to get it by going to the web archives.

00:19:12.560 Yeah, no, and I appreciate you clarifying that.

00:19:14.340 I meant people should, like, read their version of it, not things that have been quoted in clip.

00:19:18.480 But, yeah, that's an incredibly valid point.

00:19:20.480 So even the big ideas piece now has had to be taken down.

00:19:24.220 And does that make it misinformation on their part?

00:19:26.560 I don't know.

00:19:27.840 Let's end with a little bit of a fun one.

00:19:29.900 We always try to end on a lighter note.

00:19:32.200 We don't have any cricket-eating stories today, so we had to look elsewhere.

00:19:35.480 But you noticed in your travels an advertisement from one of Canada's legacy media outlets

00:19:41.760 that apparently is getting chuckles all over the country.

00:19:45.720 Yes, so the Toronto Star, I guess they are not getting enough funding from the government.

00:19:50.600 They need to advertise to increase their readership, maybe because it's crumbling.

00:19:54.500 But on Facebook, they are putting out ads, which I just think deserve total mockery, Andrew.

00:20:00.600 It's just hilarious what they're putting out here.

00:20:02.840 So the Toronto Star ran an ad campaign on Facebook with a blank background that just reads,

00:20:09.300 well, the caption says,

00:20:10.700 Truth we need for the world we want.

00:20:13.040 So they're really kind of talking themselves up there.

00:20:15.840 And then the poster itself is a white background that just says,

00:20:19.520 Journalism from a trusted news source.

00:20:22.020 Now, I just want to remind people watching this.

00:20:24.900 This so-called trusted news source, back in, what was it, August 26, 2021,

00:20:30.340 they ran a front page, which is perhaps one of the most egregious acts of,

00:20:36.780 I don't even know if you could call it journalism, perhaps journalism malpractice.

00:20:40.900 It's absolutely horrendous what they ran on their front page.

00:20:44.100 A series of quotes or tweets, whatever it was, which they ended up having to apologize for,

00:20:48.520 which are just absolutely horrendous statements about unvaccinated Canadians.

00:20:52.760 So this was what the Toronto Star, the so-called trusted news source,

00:20:57.080 ran in August of 2021 as their front page.

00:21:01.440 Highlighted quotes include,

00:21:03.080 I have no empathy left for the willfully unvaccinated. 1.00

00:21:05.800 Let them die, Andrew. 1.00

00:21:07.460 So when I saw this, I immediately thought of that ridiculous CNN ad campaign 1.00

00:21:12.520 where they show a white background with a red apple and they just have some narrator saying,

00:21:17.120 this is an apple.

00:21:18.100 This is an apple no matter what people say.

00:21:20.100 People may say this is a banana or an orange, but it's really an apple.

00:21:23.640 And then, of course, they end it by saying, facts first, CNN.

00:21:28.000 So I guess they're trying to change the narrative about themselves,

00:21:31.000 but I wonder if Canadians agree that the Toronto Star is a trusted news source.

00:21:35.100 It's reminding me of the old, like, Rene Magritte painting,

00:21:38.580 Ceci n'est pas en pipe.

00:21:40.000 This is an apple.

00:21:41.800 So it's not like the Ceci n'est pas.

00:21:43.380 It's a C8, an apple.

00:21:45.540 This is, I think, fascinating.

00:21:47.380 And we see, I mean, obviously, media outlets are commercial entities.

00:21:50.780 They have to succeed.

00:21:51.740 They have to survive.

00:21:53.080 They've got to advertise.

00:21:54.360 But there is a big problem right now of these outlets

00:21:57.640 really painting themselves as the final authority

00:22:00.900 and the final arbiters of truth.

00:22:03.280 I mean, whether it's CNN saying that it decides what an apple is

00:22:06.280 or the Toronto Star pushing itself as being a trusted news source

00:22:10.360 despite a number of issues that people may have a lot of problems with

00:22:14.440 about their coverage.

00:22:15.800 And you'd look at the comments,

00:22:17.640 and, I mean, no matter how many times, it's still amusing.

00:22:19.640 People using laughing memes,

00:22:21.800 people using the laugh react when you look at the responses to it.

00:22:26.200 Like, just pay attention to that number.

00:22:27.880 And the Toronto Star either, A, is way off on its targeting,

00:22:31.720 it's ad targeting, or it is, in fact, a laughingstock

00:22:35.260 to a lot of the people it's trying to endear itself to.

00:22:37.720 And this actually, I find, to be quite troubling in this country,

00:22:41.500 the lack of trust in institutions.

00:22:43.400 But I also feel that a lot of the reason that's troubling

00:22:46.400 is because institutions have behaved in such a chronically untrustworthy way.

00:22:51.100 You won't see Toronto Star adapting their practices anytime soon,

00:22:55.820 as I don't think you'll expect to see that from other legacy media outlets

00:22:59.560 who know, as a matter of fact, that their trust is dropping.

00:23:03.240 It's not a secret to these journalists. 0.99

00:23:05.320 I mean, they're not the dumbest people in the world. 0.97

00:23:07.460 They are aware of the fact that Canadians are losing faith 0.96

00:23:10.940 in what they put and what they write.

00:23:12.880 And this ad campaign, yeah, is probably in part to try and increase their reach,

00:23:17.560 but I don't really think that's what it is.

00:23:18.820 I think it's actually supposed to be a message.

00:23:20.280 It's supposed to be, as you said, Andrew.

00:23:21.360 It's a bit of a flex, right?

00:23:23.200 Yeah, them portraying themselves as the single source of truth.

00:23:26.760 We've seen that line.

00:23:27.560 You know, them portraying themselves, them and perhaps other outlets

00:23:32.240 like the Toronto Star, they are the ones that are trusted.

00:23:36.120 The independents, perhaps, you know, the true Norths, the rebels, 0.92

00:23:40.340 the Western standards, they aren't the ones that are trusted.

00:23:42.920 You have to go to a legacy media outlet.

00:23:44.620 I think that is an important point to bring up.

00:23:47.140 And you highlight the point that institutional trust

00:23:50.000 is dropping at a significant rate.

00:23:52.400 And, you know, maybe, perhaps if that's the case,

00:23:54.340 it might call on a change of practices.

00:23:56.620 Again, I don't think you're going to see any of that

00:23:58.080 from these legacy media journalists.

00:24:00.300 Look, the big takeaway of all of this is support True North.

00:24:03.020 Support other independent media as well, but we're True North,

00:24:05.440 so we'll put in the plug for ourselves.

00:24:07.020 If you like this show and the other content we have,

00:24:09.720 whether it's the Andrew Lawton Show,

00:24:11.520 ratioed with Harrison Faulkner,

00:24:13.260 or Reality Check with Jasmine Moulton,

00:24:15.740 or Alberta Roundup with Rachel Emanuel,

00:24:18.020 or all of the other programs we have going on.

00:24:20.420 I feel bad that I've probably missed, like, one person's.

00:24:22.760 But, in general, all of the shows, you should check it all out.

00:24:25.040 Yeah, Rupa's podcast.

00:24:25.880 What was that?

00:24:27.040 Rupa's podcast.

00:24:27.920 Yes, the Rupa Supermanya Show.

00:24:29.400 How could I forget that one?

00:24:30.200 I just had her on my show, too. 0.94

00:24:31.440 So, all of these great programs, as well as the news content,

00:24:34.600 please do head on over to donate.tnc.news.

00:24:37.260 And this is Andrew Lawton, joined by Harrison Faulkner.

00:24:42.960 We will catch you next week with more fake news.

The Candice Malcolm Show - August 12, 2022

Fake News Friday ｜ Poilievre continues to trigger the media

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript