The Candice Malcolm Show - Independent media is running circles around the legacy media

00:00:00.000 The independent media is running circles around the stale and out-of-touch legacy media.

00:00:05.140 The debate this week proved that to be the case.

00:00:07.520 It's Fake News Friday.

00:00:08.320 I'm Candice Malcolm, and this is The Candice Malcolm Show.

00:00:23.240 Hi, everyone.

00:00:23.880 Thank you so much for tuning into the show.

00:00:25.640 It is Fake News Friday here on The Candice Malcolm Show.

00:00:28.160 And as for usual, I am joined by my producer and true-north journalist, Harrison Faulkner.

00:00:33.400 Harrison, welcome to the program.

00:00:34.740 Nice to see you.

00:00:35.420 Nice to see you, too, Candice.

00:00:37.020 So it was a really fun evening on Wednesday.

00:00:40.780 It was a crazy debate, and I went through it in some detail with my sort of deep criticisms at every level of the way that the official conservative debate was organized.

00:00:52.800 It was in Edmonton.

00:00:53.560 It was hosted by Tom Clark, who was a lobbyist who was once a journalist.

00:00:56.540 And just everything about this debate was totally cringy and awful.

00:01:00.480 The format, the questions, the way it was all staged, the lack of audience participation.

00:01:06.400 My thesis, my theory on it, Harrison, is that it was all planned by the Conservative Party of Canada.

00:01:11.380 I'm usually one to defend the Conservative Party against media criticism.

00:01:14.980 But I think in this case, what happened was that the Conservatives just caved so much to some of the negative voices that came out from the first debate, which was organized by the independent conservative group, Canada Strong and Free.

00:01:27.200 I moderated it alongside Jamil Javani.

00:01:29.540 And we allowed for a very free-flowing discussion.

00:01:32.600 We really hit on issues that I think matter to Conservatives and to Canadians.

00:01:37.660 And apparently the brass at the Conservative Party didn't like it at all.

00:01:40.920 They thought that there was too many opportunities for potential liberal hit pieces because the Conservative candidates were able to speak their minds too much.

00:01:48.440 And they just didn't like it.

00:01:49.680 They wanted a boring, tame debate with short answers, cutting people off, no audience participation.

00:01:55.960 And that's what they got.

00:01:56.840 That seems to be the sort of the format that was placed onto Tom Clark.

00:02:02.200 And he ran from there and also did a terrible job of just the questions, the topics, the way that he wouldn't, the way that he was shushing the media, all the gimmicks.

00:02:11.080 It was just layers upon layers of bad.

00:02:13.400 And I did go through it in some detail on my show.

00:02:15.940 So I don't want to rehash too much of it.

00:02:17.840 But there was another element that I think was also very, very important.

00:02:21.820 And it became very obvious during the scrum.

00:02:24.720 So first of all, if you just compare the debate that was organized by an independent group and independent media, myself moderating it, you know, it was fine.

00:02:31.660 It was entertaining.

00:02:32.340 And we heard a lot of disagreement, lots of discussion on substantive issues.

00:02:36.380 The one that was organized by the sort of establishment people, the party, bringing in this old hand moderator, not good at all.

00:02:43.660 That was basically the consensus and not just from us, from everybody, including legacy media journalists.

00:02:49.200 But then the next layer was the scrums that happened after the debates, Harrison, because there was a huge presence of independent media.

00:02:57.140 It wasn't just True North.

00:02:58.060 Our own Andrew Lawton was there.

00:02:59.120 But it was also, you know, you had the rebel asking some great questions, Western Standards, Rachel Emanuel.

00:03:04.820 We heard from just lots and lots of people, an individual from the National Telegraph, which is an independent organization.

00:03:14.600 And the questions were interesting.

00:03:16.120 They were substantive.

00:03:16.760 They were asking about a variety of important issues that do matter to conservatives and not framed in a sort of gotchu kind of way, asked in a way that really resonates with how Canadians, I believe, feel.

00:03:28.880 And then you kind of just suppose that with the legacy media.

00:03:31.880 I don't think they had nearly as many journalists who were asking questions in the scrums.

00:03:35.300 And the questions that they asked were just stale and falling flat.

00:03:39.500 So, Harrison, I'll bring you in on this.

00:03:41.360 What was your overall opinion of the debate?

00:03:44.580 And specifically, did you see what I saw with the scrums in terms of the legacy media just being sort of caught flat-footed and the independent media being the ones who were sort of the young, ambitious, insightful, excited journalists that were there asking the punchiest questions?

00:04:03.860 And again, it just made the legacy media look so bad.

00:04:06.720 Yeah, absolutely.

00:04:07.420 So, I mean, just to start off with the debate, I touched on this in our live broadcast on Wednesday.

00:04:13.580 But the format was so bad and it was so, you know, it was not at all conducive to anything that you could consider to be a legitimate debate.

00:04:22.540 They were asking candidates to summarize the greatest threat to Canada and Canadians in 15 seconds.

00:04:28.100 And I think it was really bad when the moderator couldn't even keep up with the rules that he was supposed to follow.

00:04:34.200 I think largely because it was totally, it made no sense at all.

00:04:39.660 But yeah, Candace, you're right about the way, really the difference between the independent media, independent journalists and legacy media based on one, how prepared journalists are for these events.

00:04:52.360 And also what kind of questions they come with and really they know what their audience wants.

00:04:57.400 So, I mean, in the scrums, what we saw were, you know, legacy media journalists asking the same question because I guess they're not creative enough to come up with anything substantive to ask people who want to become prime minister.

00:05:10.240 We saw the French-language Alberta CBC reporter ask both Roman Babber and Scott Aitchison how conservatives can win on climate when the members don't actually recognize climate, which actually isn't accurate.

00:05:27.620 It shouldn't take a genius to know that that's a classic liberal media talking point.

00:05:34.260 But nonetheless, they couldn't come up with anything unique, so they asked the same question twice.

00:05:38.200 The same thing also happened.

00:05:39.960 A CTV reporter, Bill Fortier, he asked both Jean Charest and Patrick Brown about their thoughts on the format, which everyone agrees was a horrible format.

00:05:48.880 But they couldn't come up with anything legitimate to ask these candidates, Candace.

00:05:52.760 I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who attends conservative events that independent journalists are full of energy, full of creativity.

00:06:01.300 They bring a new level to the work that they do.

00:06:05.380 And the legacy media journalists are being caught flat-footed.

00:06:10.020 They bring absolutely nothing to the table.

00:06:13.120 Well, it's so lazy.

00:06:14.180 I did hear those CBC questions about climate.

00:06:16.820 It reminded me of how Catherine McKenna, the former environment minister, the liberal politician from Ottawa, she was critical of the debate that I moderated online because she was like, apparently they didn't talk about climate change.

00:06:30.040 And, you know, there you have the loyal, dutiful CBC journalist jumping in to say, like, let's all fearmonger about climate change.

00:06:37.940 And I did appreciate how Scott Aitchison kind of smacked that question down because he's like, you know, you're misrepresenting what actually happened.

00:06:45.320 I think we have that clip.

00:06:46.420 So let's play that so you can see this question, the way that it's framed by the journalist.

00:06:51.300 And then you can see Scott Aitchison, who is by no means like, you know, a grassroots conservative or someone who's like really into cultural battles and anti-media.

00:07:01.520 But even he was pretty firm in just saying what you're peddling isn't true.

00:07:05.940 And I think your point, Harrison, about how it's just liberal talking points, he sort of embarrassed the CBC journalist.

00:07:12.440 So here's that clip.

00:07:13.220 How can conservatives win if they don't have an environmental plan, if their members don't vote for a motion recognizing climate change?

00:07:24.960 Well, I think you're referring actually to an event that occurred during our last convention.

00:07:30.120 And the situation is a little more different than what you've just described.

00:07:34.320 In fact, what that motion did was amend a motion that was kind of poorly worded, but does in fact acknowledge climate change exists.

00:07:41.700 And the amendment itself was poorly worded.

00:07:43.940 So in our materials, in our policy documents, we do in fact acknowledge that climate change does exist.

00:07:52.480 It is a reality.

00:07:53.860 And I think you heard tonight some great ideas about how we can move forward with a credible climate change plan that doesn't actually punish the most vulnerable in our society.

00:08:01.480 And just one final point, Harrison, on the climate change issue.

00:08:05.480 I would say I talked to a lot of conservatives.

00:08:07.200 I talked to a lot of sort of both party insiders and what I would classify as just sort of the general conservative base.

00:08:13.720 And I think most people do agree with climate change.

00:08:16.780 They believe it's happening.

00:08:17.760 And most people believe that there's human causes.

00:08:20.480 Well, I think when they vote for something like this and the message or the motion from the convention, which was from a couple of years ago,

00:08:29.360 what they don't like is the drumming up of fear, the alarmism, the media narrative that if you don't have the exact kind of policies like Trudeau and the liberals when it comes to the Paris Accord and shutting down oil and gas and bringing in new punitive taxes on the middle class and on people, on consumers, then you're an out-of-touch picket.

00:08:48.380 Like the thing that conservatives resent is like the entire narrative being pushed by the CBC.

00:08:52.920 And here is the CBC once again, like not giving up on it and pushing it once again.

00:08:58.120 Yeah, it's this idea, Candace, that the only way that Canada can play a role in trying to advance, I guess you could call them climate goals,

00:09:06.700 is if we basically shoot ourselves in the foot and destroy all of our natural resource production while continuing to import oil and gas from the rest of the world.

00:09:16.780 There was very few people who, well, obviously in the legacy media, no one wants to talk about that.

00:09:22.180 But even still, a few people talk about the fact that, you know, that's the liberal way to approach climate change.

00:09:29.460 And conservatives have an understandable frustration with that approach.

00:09:33.700 It really is an anti-Canada perspective.

00:09:36.940 And no wonder conservatives don't want to engage in that kind of dialogue, really.

00:09:41.840 Anytime a liberal journalist or a legacy media journalist is peddling those liberal talking points,

00:09:47.480 you know exactly what they're trying to do, which is just to try to embarrass conservatives or put them on the back foot and make them dance to the liberal tune.

00:09:54.640 Yeah, it's eye-roll inducing.

00:09:57.380 And we see it every election that they say, like, if you don't have a specific plan to reduce emissions, therefore you don't care about the environment.

00:10:04.640 And I think that it's time for conservatives to really grab this narrative and say, no, no, the dichotomy you're proposing is wrong.

00:10:11.040 You can care deeply about protecting the natural environment.

00:10:13.280 And we can do that by, you know, preserving our lakes and rivers and our forests and making sure we plant more trees and making sure we don't dump sewage into riverways and things along those lines,

00:10:23.600 while also promoting very low emission Canadian oil and gas, which is, you know, innovative and clean and all these things.

00:10:30.240 And I did think that the debate itself got into that a little bit.

00:10:34.240 And there was some kind of good conversations around Canada's role in producing oil and gas.

00:10:38.920 But this lazy question from the CBC, essentially just repeating the same question to the candidates, just shows, to me, it's laziness.

00:10:47.520 And then same with this other question about the format. 0.94

00:10:50.540 Of course, everyone agreed the format sucked.

00:10:52.620 But it's like, you have one question to ask to the next potential leader of the Conservative Party who has a good shot of becoming prime minister.

00:11:00.760 And you're going to waste it by complaining?

00:11:02.860 Like, why not ask something new?

00:11:04.560 And I really appreciated that of all of the independent media, none of them dwelled on the format.

00:11:09.660 That's over.

00:11:10.260 That's done with now.

00:11:11.180 Let's talk about the issues that matter.

00:11:13.320 And it was great to see our own Andrew Lawton.

00:11:15.740 He got some great questions in.

00:11:17.780 And again, just, you know, these sort of young, energetic independent media really, really outshining the legacy media.

00:11:27.040 And I know very few people watch these scrums at the end of debates.

00:11:30.000 But for those of us that did, it was quite illuminating.

00:11:33.560 Well, Harrison, I wanted to keep on this topic of energy and oil and gas, because there was a big decision that came out this week, which was that a superior court in Alberta, an Alberta appeal, a court, sorry, voted that the punitive harmful Bill C-69, which was the law that required all kinds of really intensive assessments, including like gendered assessments,

00:11:55.360 that would, you know, impact whether or not projects would be allowed to go through in Alberta.

00:12:01.140 Basically, this idea, like, you know, I think it was dubbed the No More Pipeline Bill by critics in Alberta, because it was just this really punitive environmental bureaucracy that was placed, this onus placed on oil and gas companies, pumping companies before getting anything approved.

00:12:16.520 So the Alberta government pushed back and said, this is this is against the Constitution, they challenged it.

00:12:23.360 And a court in Alberta found that that was right, that that that that they agreed with a true to with what they agreed with the Kenny government in Alberta, that this environmental impact law was unconstitutional.

00:12:35.220 And I want to I just want to talk because you know, the theme of the show, and we call it fake news Friday, because the idea that the media, they pretend to be straight news journalists, they pretend to be neutral, but really, what they're doing is activism.

00:12:49.780 And it's just a charade, like they pretend to be neutral, but they're not. And this is one of the stories that you might not see it the first time you read it, or most people might not catch all the nuances.

00:12:58.780 But when you read through a piece like this, which it was written by the Canadian press, of course, it means that it appears in newspapers and websites all across the country.

00:13:08.180 This this one here we have it was it was placed in global news, but but typically CP runs and everything including, you know, sites that people think of as conservative, like the National Post or the Toronto Sun, they run CP stories, as well, CP stands for the Canadian press.

00:13:20.840 I'm just going to go through this basically line by line, because it is incredibly biased. And this is this is in a nutshell, is what we mean when we're talking about fake news, and the biased landscape in Canada.

00:13:33.800 Okay, so here's a piece, the headline says, Alberta appeal court says federal environmental impact law, not okay. So so here we see right off the bat, it kind of gives us a little explanation of what just happens as Alberta's top court said Tuesday,

00:13:48.640 that the federal government's environmental impact law is unconstitutional, and Ottawa almost immediately announced its plan to appeal. So so in the first paragraph, we don't even get the news, and we get the reaction from Ottawa. So it's not about how this law is unconstitutional, it goes right to Dustin Trudeau plans to fight back. Then we paragraph two, it says the Alberta Court of Appeals strongly worded opinion. So the Impact Assessment Act is an existential threat. Notice this scare quotes there around existential threat.

00:14:18.460 To the division of powers guaranteed by the Constitution, to the division of powers guaranteed by the Constitution, and has taken a square quote, again, wrecking ball to the constitutional rights of the citizens of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The majority of judges sided with Alberta, arguing that the legislation allowed Ottawa to put provinces in an economic chokehold, and give it the means to choose winners and losers. Okay, so so we have three paragraphs there, Harrison, that sort of establish the story. And in it, it's already torqued, right?

00:14:48.460 The decision that the decision that the one that won, right, that there was a vote, and that decision one, they just pulled scare quotes to kind of like, make a mockery of it, basically. But again, stressing the fact that we're not done with this, and that Ottawa is going to appeal. Okay, so so that's the first three paragraphs, fourth paragraphs, it goes straight to Justin Trudeau, right? It doesn't go to the judge who wrote the decision, it doesn't go to anyone in Alberta, the Kenny government in Alberta, who are the ones pushing that this review,

00:15:16.460 it goes straight to Justin Trudeau, basically defending himself, saying the justification behind putting the bill in place in the first place. Then we have four paragraphs in a row of Justin Trudeau quotes. Okay, so so so we're not getting a fair idea of what is going on, why this case was determined, we're just hearing Justin Trudeau's justification. I just want to pause right here, Harrison, because if you go back to any of the laws that Stephen Harper wrote in the former conservative government, that were struck down by a court,

00:15:45.560 that the emphasis was exactly flipped, right? It would be like, this judge, this heroic judge wrote this decision, scrapping this horrible law that Harper tried to introduce. And it would be all about quotes like bashing the government, whereas here, it's flipped, they don't quote the decision, they quote the prime minister explaining himself and saying why he is right, right off the top. Okay, this is incredibly biased. This is the origin of a fake news story. And then it kind of goes on and on and on to provide a bit of background.

00:16:14.660 There's a couple paragraphs here about, again, why the Alberta government challenged it. And then the first quote that we hear from a judge Harrison, is not from the judge who, again, wrote the decision and determined that this was unconstitutional, but from a dissenting opinion. So one of the justices that voted against this decision, saying that the federal environmental law is a valid exercise in constitutional authority.

00:16:38.660 And then here we see that judge, and then here we see that judge, and then here we see that judge, the dissenting judge, and she gets these quotes. The justice is named Sheila Grekel. And we have, let's see, one, several quotes from her, even though she's not the one that wrote the decision.

00:16:53.100 It goes on to quote, University of Calgary environmental law scholar, who also pointed out that, well, this will probably get overturned by the Supreme Court, so this isn't even really all that important. A couple quotes from her, again, downplaying the fact that this, this, this decision, this law was just struck down.

00:17:12.900 Then we have another professor from, from another university, kind of echoing that idea. And we have a third professor, again, just, just kind of chiming in with their, you know, opinion about what's going to happen next. So all this just to say, this piece is incredibly deceitful. And this is what comes across as straight news. This is what is expected in our country. This is frankly, again, one of the reasons why I started True North, one of the reasons why I think

00:17:42.220 independent reporting, not just podcasts and opinions and opinion columns, but also just the reporting and the news sites, why we stress doing that here at True North. I mean, we're a small shop, compared to a huge outlet like Canadian Press, it gets syndicated across almost every newspaper and political website in the country. But, you know, this is this is the mindset, this is the way they write news stories is it's just it's so dishonest and deceitful, and frankly, biased. What do you think about it, Harrison?

00:18:12.220 Well, your, your, your, your assessment is exactly right. Start, start with the headline, not okay, is how they described the Alberta court decision, which the Alberta court ruled that it was unconstitutional, but not just that it wasn't okay. They really boil it down there and make it seem as though they, they kind of just only a little bit disagree with this. They don't, in fact, they declared it unconstitutional. And they don't quote, they actually don't get a full quote from the, from the written opinion of the majority on the court.

00:18:41.160 They don't, they don't quote, they don't quote that anywhere. All they take is the hyperbolic words to describe the, the, the decision from, from the judges. So there's no actual, there's, there's no real news in this story until I think 29 paragraphs into the story, Candace, when they decide to finally quote Jason Kenney. And this is not just a small deal. The, this, this court challenge was, I think, also brought, brought along

00:19:11.160 to the, that, that take a serious issue with a piece of legislation that has now been ruled to be unconstitutional. And yet we don't get any opinion from the judges that, that made the ruling. And we don't hear from the premier that spearheaded this fight until 29 paragraphs into the story.

00:19:26.160 And this is a, this is an issue I have with a lot of what we see from legacy media, Candace, which is a, a diehard commitment from these journalists to bury the information that actually matters to readers way down into the, into their story, water down headlines and bury the lead.

00:19:43.260 So that people who aren't going to read this, I think too long of an article, um, they're not going to get to the part where Kenny talks. I'm not going to get to the part where the judges actually give their opinion. They're going to give up halfway through because that's kind of the standard. Now that's the, that's the, uh, attention span that most readers have. So journalists know this, they use these tactics to their advantage. And again, this is why we do this show to try and show Canadians, uh, that this, this kind of news that you're getting from the Canadian

00:20:13.260 press, which gets, as you said, syndicated across the country, uh, can't be, can't be taken at face value. It requires scrutiny and it requires serious attention.

00:20:22.640 It's hilarious that Justin Trudeau gets, you know, the first four paragraphs, or sorry, he gets four of the first seven paragraphs with his quotes. And then Kenny, the one who led the charge who won, I mean, the quote from Kenny is great. It's like, I'm jubilant. This is a huge win for Alberta. You know, they, they, they bury that in the 29th paragraph and, and even to go even further in the absurdity, the,

00:20:43.120 the, the story ends, it says there were 17 interveners in this case. And then it says seven of the interveners, including a wide for a wide array of environmental and legal groups, as well as first nations were in support of Ottawa. So, so even though, uh, Alberta had 10 interveners and the feds only had seven, they, they, they went through and emphasize the importance of those seven interveners who were in support of Ottawa. Like it's just like every, every paragraph of this piece is, is a total farce.

00:21:10.940 And this is a kind of quiet disservice that is done to Canadians.

00:21:14.500 And Ken, it's right at the bottom of this article here as well, as you point out, they, the second last paragraph shows that not only did they get supported, not only was Alberta supported by Ontario and Saskatchewan, they were also supported by three first nations and Indian resource council.

00:21:28.320 So that's kind of important information. Don't you think that that debunks the narrative of the liberal government, that this is for environmentalism and for first, for first nations communities.

00:21:37.080 Uh, but of course that's the lead. It's at the very bottom of the article. Second, last paragraph.

00:21:43.180 It's, it's, it's really wild. I mean, it's, it's funny because it's so bad, but this is, this is what they pass for news and they're proud of it. And they put it out. They don't think anything of it. And it, you know, it just takes, you literally go through every paragraph of this piece and complain about the way that it is written.

00:21:57.020 Well, again, that, that is why True North is here. Uh, this is why you should read your news from True North and not these hacks in the media. Let's move on to the next story, Harrison.

00:22:07.120 This is one that's sort of the gift that keeps on giving, uh, for us because the, every, every, it seems like everything about the Freedom Convoy has been debunked at this point.

00:22:15.400 Like everything the liberals said, everything Justin Trudeau said during the convoy. I actually think that Roman Babber made that point at Wednesday night's debate that everything the legacy media was saying and everything the Trudeau government is saying turned out to be false.

00:22:26.440 Well, we can just add one more thing, um, to the list. As, as you recall, Justin Trudeau, uh, made it clear. He said in April that when illegal blockades hurt workers and endanger public safety, uh, police were clear that they needed the tools not held by any federal, provincial or territorial law, hence why they invoked the emergency act.

00:22:45.480 So Trudeau was saying that it was because of the police because of the RCMP. Well, as we heard in the special, uh, committee, that's looking into this national inquiry into the emergencies act and the use of it, uh,

00:22:56.320 which, which I might just add is entirely framed by Trudeau, you know, a liberal appointed, um, person to head this thing. The entire thing is framed not to provide scrutiny at Trudeau as to why he used this, you know, powers and act that, that, that is really supposed to be reserved for wartime, but instead to, you know, look into the reasons that, uh, the truckers were bad and the truckers were evil and, and all this stuff, like the way that it was framed is completely reverse of what the purpose of the, uh, the inquiry is, uh, push all that aside.

00:23:26.320 You know, the, the, the, the, the inquiry itself interviewed the, um, the commission itself, sorry, interviewed the, uh, RCMP commissioner, Brenda Lucky during her testimony. Uh, she, she basically just said, no, this wasn't the case. So why don't you, why don't you tell us a little bit about that Harrison?

00:23:41.040 Yeah. Um, so in, obviously the, the, the narrative that we were receiving from the liberal government and from Justin Trudeau was that they had no choice but to enact the emergency, to invoke the emergencies act, because that's what law enforcement were requesting the government.

00:23:56.320 Until I believe Tuesday for someone involved in the joint committee to ask Brenda Lucky, the RCMP commissioner, if this was the case directly, if she had requested that the emergencies act be invoked by the government, she said no.

00:24:12.040 And, and she went further to say that, uh, in her, in her communication with other law enforcement agencies, uh, that she didn't hear that as well from them.

00:24:19.260 Um, we have the clip for this and we're going to play that clip now.

00:24:21.380 Um, Senator, uh, sorry, um, Commissioner Lucky, we've heard multiple times from ministers and others that the emergency act and the tools provided were specifically requested by police leadership.

00:24:33.260 As a law enforcement agency with primacy for national security, did you ask the government or representatives for the invocation of the emergencies act?

00:24:41.240 No, there was never a question of requesting the emergency act.

00:24:47.260 There was a question.

00:24:48.040 Sorry, I don't, I don't mean to interrupt, but I'm sorry.

00:24:50.620 So you never asked for it.

00:24:52.040 Do you know of any other police leadership that asked specifically the government for, for the invocation?

00:24:58.240 No, we actually reached out to various police agencies when there was talk about some of the authorities within, that they were proposing.

00:25:04.900 And of course we were consulted because we were the ones who would be using those authorities.

00:25:10.280 So we were consulted to see if they would be any, of any use to police in these, in the context of the freedom convoy.

00:25:16.940 So Candace, this is what, this is what really, uh, makes me frustrated about this entire process.

00:25:22.660 Not only are we just getting the information now that, um, Trudeau's narrative is crumbling even more than it already has.

00:25:30.440 Because these committee meetings that are of high public interest, you would think a lot of Canadians would want to know what's going on and hear and be involved in this process.

00:25:40.000 These committee meetings are happening at 9 p.m.

00:25:42.720 The only way you can watch them is if you go to CPAC or Parle View, which is the, uh, which is sort of the live feed of these committee meetings,

00:25:51.020 which frankly, most Canadians either don't have time to do or even know where these websites are.

00:25:55.180 And as you said, Candace, the inquiry is being headed by a former liberal staff or judge.

00:26:01.160 So there's no transparency.

00:26:03.400 There's, there's really no accountability that's happening here.

00:26:05.620 And even still, Trudeau's narrative keeps crumbling in front of our eyes.

00:26:10.460 And just out of curiosity, and I think I know the answer to this question, Harrison, is the legacy media covering this?

00:26:16.420 Is this a headline that you're going to see in, you know, the CBC or National Post or any of these, uh, like, you know,

00:26:23.040 I know, I know they're holding these things at nine o'clock at night.

00:26:24.960 No one's watching it, but presumably the journalists are watching it.

00:26:27.320 Are they writing about this?

00:26:28.600 No, they're not actually.

00:26:29.940 This is the kind of thing that I think if it were happening in the United States, for example,

00:26:33.800 it would be held on primetime television that Canadians would expect that from, from their media,

00:26:40.760 especially the media that gets paid by the government.

00:26:42.980 But of course that will lead to the coverage we get from them, which is obviously silence.

00:26:48.000 And it is, uh, and it's coverage about things that don't matter to Canadians.

00:26:51.640 So no candidates, there's no coverage on these meetings.

00:26:54.180 There's no coverage on what comes from these meetings.

00:26:56.920 And I think that's clearly intentional because every time one tunes into these committee hearings,

00:27:02.000 into these testimonies, the story keeps unraveling and it becomes clearer and clearer every day

00:27:08.940 that this was a huge mistake by the government, a huge, uh, misstep, uh, and, and a disastrous,

00:27:14.720 uh, a disastrous moment that the government should be, uh, should be facing, facing heat for,

00:27:20.500 but of course they're not.

00:27:22.500 You're right in that.

00:27:23.380 If this was happening in the United States, it would be primetime and it would be around

00:27:27.040 the clock reporting.

00:27:27.940 And it's funny because, uh, you know, sometimes, uh, it's like, uh, this week we were kind

00:27:32.800 of looking through the news and looking at what was going on.

00:27:34.600 We're planning on my show and we're like, Oh, it's kind of a slow news week, but it shouldn't

00:27:38.160 be a slow news week.

00:27:38.800 Cause there is lots of stuff going on.

00:27:40.260 It's just that that stuff's not coming forward.

00:27:41.960 Like if you go on to national news watch, which is a news aggregator, it's a terrible,

00:27:45.420 uh, liberal site, but you kind of get an idea for what the sort of establishment people

00:27:49.920 in, in, in Ottawa reading.

00:27:52.200 And it's all about, uh, you know, Ontario candidates who are under heat for things that

00:27:58.320 they've said during that election, most notably Steven Lecce, a lot of stuff complaining about

00:28:03.280 the conservative debates, um, stuff spilling over about, uh, Roe v. Wade.

00:28:08.580 And, uh, obviously there was that sort of terrible incident of Jagmeet Singh getting verbally harassed, 1.00

00:28:13.860 um, by a bunch of idiots. 1.00

00:28:15.700 Um, and obviously that's terrible, but you know, the media fixate on these really little 1.00

00:28:19.420 kind of irrelevant issues that don't have anything to do with government or policy.

00:28:23.560 They're more just kind of like social media things.

00:28:25.500 And, and then that's the news that's being delivered to Canadians rather than the substantive

00:28:29.780 important things about our government abusing power, our government wasting money, our prime

00:28:34.240 minister involved in ethics scandals, the way that he's treated, like the, the important

00:28:38.420 issues in our country are not covered by the news.

00:28:40.780 Instead, everything in the news is just sort of a dumb distraction that, you know, is, is,

00:28:46.560 is meant for social media, but not, you expect something more, uh, from the people who get paid

00:28:51.700 lots, lots of money to deliver the news to Canadians and lots, lots of money from the

00:28:56.000 government as well.

00:28:57.400 Well, Harrison, I, I want to, no, no, no fake news Friday, uh, episode would be complete

00:29:02.200 without a little bit of focus on our friends over at the CBC and perhaps my biggest pet

00:29:07.900 peeve in all of Canadian media is the fact that they run this op-ed section where they

00:29:12.200 tell people, uh, allow people to write, uh, personal stories of their experiences.

00:29:16.020 And the, and the, it's called first person and the stories are always just the most sort

00:29:21.360 of uncomfortable, awful left-wing stories about, you know, either, either, either hectoring

00:29:26.520 us about how we're not woke enough or, or telling the sad story of their lives.

00:29:30.240 And, uh, this one, I mean, I, I hate, I hate how this story is kind of coinciding with Mother's

00:29:35.840 Day last weekend.

00:29:36.380 And I saw a couple of really despicable people on the left trying to equate, uh, people's

00:29:42.560 abortions and why they want to be able to not be a mother conflating that with Mother's

00:29:46.620 Day, which I find as a mother, I find it just so off-putting, like the whole purpose of

00:29:51.460 Mother's Day is to celebrate mothers, not to celebrate abortion.

00:29:54.320 But we saw, we saw that being pushed.

00:29:56.720 Um, there's two pieces on the CBC that, that, that, that made me feel that way.

00:30:00.420 One, they, they posted this piece just right after Mother's Day, a lady who wrote, who writes,

00:30:05.860 uh, I love my son, but I wish having him had been my choice.

00:30:09.400 And so she talked about how, uh, she, you know, she got pregnant at a young age and she

00:30:13.680 was in a religious community.

00:30:14.580 She didn't have a choice.

00:30:15.840 The only thing worse, Harrison, than the left-wing movement of shout your abortion, which where

00:30:20.440 they're trying to get women to somehow be proud of this, uh, decision that they 0.81

00:30:24.280 made, um, in ending a life of a baby.

00:30:26.680 The only thing worse than that is, is this movement of, of people.

00:30:30.540 And I've seen it on a lot from sites in the U S writing about how they regret having kids

00:30:34.240 or they wish they didn't have a kid while the kid is living.

00:30:36.680 You know, the kid is going to be able to read this piece at some point.

00:30:39.820 And they, I can't imagine why you would put that kind of trauma on your child.

00:30:44.040 Like, even if deep down you felt that way, why would you ever, uh, you know, put voice,

00:30:49.680 voice that opinion and put it in print and publish it on a news site and put it in the

00:30:54.460 CBC?

00:30:54.820 Like it's so disgraceful.

00:30:56.360 It's, it's so pitiful.

00:30:57.680 It makes me sad for this individual and sad that the CBC is promoting this worldview.

00:31:02.980 And then there was another one that, that sort of doubles down on this whole idea that

00:31:06.060 says on mother's day, let's celebrate all mothers, not just mothers with male partners.

00:31:10.520 And so again, they're trying to use mother's day to, uh, you know, rather than celebrate

00:31:15.820 families and, and, and motherhood and this beautiful idea of bringing children to the world

00:31:20.380 and, and giving them opportunities and all this kind of stuff, rather than celebrating the

00:31:23.960 family and mothers, um, they use it to promote their left-wing ideology that at its very purpose

00:31:30.480 is to undermine the family, undermine motherhood, uh, push this idea that anyone could be a mother 1.00

00:31:35.160 and men can be mothers.

00:31:36.900 And let's talk about LGBTQ two plus IA, whatever.

00:31:41.660 Like it's, it's just like, they can't help but push their left-wing ideology at every minute.

00:31:46.960 It's, it's just, it's absurd.

00:31:48.460 And the only, I think really the, based on the quality of writing and storytelling you get

00:31:53.020 from the CBC op-eds, Candace, I think it's safe to say that there's, there's only one

00:31:56.220 requirement that the CBC holds in order to publish an op-ed.

00:31:59.740 And that requires you to be a, a radical leftist, some sort of activist who wants to promote

00:32:05.200 a specific lifestyle.

00:32:06.500 Obviously in this, this Natasha Steer written op-ed about mother's day, wanting to celebrate,

00:32:11.360 um, mothers without male partners.

00:32:13.920 Really, it's not really, it's not really about that.

00:32:15.720 It's actually celebrating single mothers, um, and being proud of that fact, um, which I find

00:32:21.480 to be just an odd thing for the state broadcaster to be promoting.

00:32:24.760 And at the, the, the first story you touched on is this horrible story of this woman who

00:32:29.380 essentially says that she wished she never had, uh, the son that she gave up for adoption,

00:32:35.000 uh, 19 years ago.

00:32:37.100 Obviously that kid is going to read this story because the mother's name is on it and it's

00:32:42.280 in the CBC.

00:32:43.100 So I wonder how that's going to go down.

00:32:44.680 It's, it's really, really, really sad story.

00:32:47.900 Um, but of course, Candace, you're never going to get in the CBC a counter near a counter,

00:32:53.620 uh, op-ed, someone that says actually not choosing to have an abortion was a great decision

00:32:59.280 for me.

00:32:59.740 And I'm proud that I gave up, I gave someone the life that they have.

00:33:03.520 Um, of course, that's not the message that the CBC wants to push.

00:33:06.400 The message they want to push is that, um, abortion should be, women should have abortion. 0.88

00:33:11.880 Women should celebrate that, um, and push for it to be, uh, more of a reality than it already 1.00

00:33:16.640 is.

00:33:17.000 And I think it's just extremely disgusting that the CBC pedals in this, in this space.

00:33:22.840 Um, and I don't know, I don't know what's going to, what, what it's going to, what's

00:33:26.980 going to happen to get them to stop publishing these articles.

00:33:30.320 Uh, but at least it gives us something to talk about every week, right?

00:33:34.380 Well, it's like, uh, you know, the, the, the, the, the ideology of the worldview that the

00:33:39.400 CBC is promoting is, is obviously counter to the way that most Canadians think.

00:33:44.520 And so you kind of think, you know, why is our money going towards something that's just

00:33:48.660 designed, uh, to push really sort of fringe ideas and, and not just fringe in a way that

00:33:54.160 most, most people would feel really uncomfortable with the idea of someone saying, I wish I'd

00:33:58.020 killed my child as opposed to giving them life.

00:34:00.340 Um, I didn't want to make that sacrifice.

00:34:02.360 Uh, but, but also the, the kinds of things that they're promoting are things that are,

00:34:06.420 are not, uh, they're not, it's not good advice to people who want to live a happy and

00:34:11.780 fulfilled life.

00:34:12.400 Like if you follow the advice of these two people in these stories, um, my, my guess 0.96

00:34:16.660 is you'll be a pretty miserable person. 0.99

00:34:18.360 If you sit there and dwell and wish that you had killed your child as opposed to giving them 0.99

00:34:23.160 life and you want to celebrate someone who is doing something incredibly difficult.

00:34:27.700 I have, I have a lot of respect for single mothers and I, I believe that most single mothers

00:34:31.760 don't choose to be single.

00:34:32.840 They would prefer to have a loving, stable partnership.

00:34:35.660 And that, that's sort of why we, you know, we have marriage and we've had it for that

00:34:39.900 institutions of five thousands of years because it's, it's, it's good and it's necessary and

00:34:44.200 it helps raise children in a balanced way.

00:34:47.420 Um, I don't think that people would choose, choose to be single, but, you know, promoting

00:34:52.660 it as if like, you know, as a, as a choice and that's, that's a, that's a noble way to

00:34:57.700 live your life.

00:34:58.180 It's like, if you follow that path, you're not going to be a happy, fulfilled person.

00:35:02.260 So CBC is just sort of promoting their own loathsome leftist views. 0.76

00:35:06.900 It really, uh, if you follow their advice, you'd be pretty miserable.

00:35:10.220 So not, not really a service, uh, from our state broadcaster over there.

00:35:14.420 Yeah.

00:35:14.920 You know, Candace, I wish we could have ended the show on, uh, on a, on a better note, but

00:35:18.440 like, like we always say, at least we'll, we'll get, we'll get one good CBC op-ed to,

00:35:23.120 to criticize every week.

00:35:24.440 Uh, and this is, uh, just, just another, another shocking piece and a totally, totally lacks

00:35:30.520 any, any, you know, virtue and, uh, and, and positive, um, positive lifestyle choices.

00:35:38.260 So I think you're right.

00:35:39.860 Well, it's Mother's Day.

00:35:40.860 They could, they could have surely found, you know, a happy, positive story of a mother

00:35:45.020 who's overcome adversity and tell the story about how great moms are and let's all like

00:35:48.500 feel good and warm and fuzzy about, you know, everyone loves, loves mothers.

00:35:51.820 Everyone loves her mom, you know, the CBC could have, could have, could have done something

00:35:55.300 positive here, Harrison, but instead they, they pull out these weird fringe areas and,

00:35:59.340 and yes, that is why we do this show, why we do Fake News Friday on the Candace Malcolm

00:36:03.360 show every week.

00:36:04.060 So Harrison Faulkner, thank you so much for joining us.

00:36:06.980 Yeah.

00:36:07.140 Thank you for having me on.

00:36:08.820 Great.

00:36:09.180 It's Fake News Friday.

00:36:09.920 I'm Candace Malcolm, and this is the Candace Malcolm show.

00:36:21.820 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:37.100 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:39.100 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:40.000 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:40.820 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:41.300 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:41.680 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:43.940 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:44.240 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:45.400 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:45.820 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:46.920 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:47.820 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:48.020 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:48.760 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:49.980 I'm Candace Malcolm.

00:36:50.640 I'm Candaceists.

The Candice Malcolm Show - May 13, 2022

Independent media is running circles around the legacy media

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript