What is Journalism?
in which I ponder the weird cultish progressive reaction to the debate
Video Transcript
(00:00 :: Drea Humphrey)
Hello, Mr. Singh. Humphrey with Rebel News. Your party takes great pride in standing against hate such as white supremacy, Islamophobia and—
Sorry, I didn't get your outlet.
Drea Humphrey with Rebel News.
Okay. You know where I'm going to go with this, all right?
Can I speak?
Yeah, you can. I'm just going say you know where I'm going go with it.
(Wow.)
Your party takes pride in standing against hate such as white supremacy, Islamophobia and online hate speech. Yet you stay silent about ongoing attacks against Christians, even after Conservative MP Jamil Javani's order paper question revealed that over 200 churches have been targeted by arson and vandalism since claims of remains being discovered at former residential schools swept the nation in 2021.
These claims have been disproven by bands that excavated and remain unproven by those that have not.
Will you condemn the rise and acts of hate against Christians today and explain what your party will do moving forward to keep Christians safe from hate in Canada?
Again, thank you, but I'm not going to respond to an organization that promotes misinformation and disinformation like rebel news. So no, I'm not going to respond to your question.
(What she said had no misinformation in it.)
Perhaps you didn't hear me.
Over 200 Christian places of worship have been attacked in Canada since 2021. Many served First Nations communities. Many were historic and they diverted police and resources and put others at risk.
What do you say to Canadians who see your refusal to answer, especially from one of the few media outlets here that are not funded by the state … as proof that a vote for you is a vote for a dangerous radical party that gaslights the public into thinking it stands against hate when its silence is instead emboldening Christophobia.
Your question is another example of why I don't respond to agencies like Rebel News that promote misinformation and disinformation.
(02:27 :: Alex Zoltan)
Alex Zoltan from True North. If you thought my friend’s question was odd you’re gonna love this one.
I’m glad you self assessed that, okay.
How many genders are there?
Uhhhhh … In terms of sex, there are two. Thank you.
My follow up question, then. Do you believe that women, biological women, have a right to their own spaces? Their own sports, their own change rooms, their own prisons, their own homeless shelters?
Uhhh … I think we … this is Canada … and … that as a general objective, yes … ummm … we … uhhh … but we work … in … uhhh … where we value all Canadians … um … for who they are and uh we'll continue to do so. Thank you very much. Thank you, Merci.
(02:57 :: Adrienne Arsenault & Rosemary Barton)
… seconds away maybe if it's on time from seeing Jagmeet Singh at the podium but Rosie I'm curious what stood out to you because at one point when some of those last questions came up I just checked my shit yet nowhere in Canada … it because these the identity politics questions have not … emerged much.
This happens on the same day that the United Kingdom court ruled that women and sex refer to biological women and biological sex. True North is … a very right-wing … website … and there have been issues in the past with who gets allowed into these scrums and who's allowed to ask questions of the leaders. The Debates Commission was the one who decided that these people … were allowed to come in and ask these kinds of questions. So there you go. All right.
Note for readers. I’m not interested in critiquing from a policy perspective the responses of the politicians to the questions asked by Drea Humphrey or Alex Zoltan. You can get that analysis from many other sources.
What does interests me?
Examining the candidates’ responses to the independent media.
Examining the legacy media reaction to the questions asked and their contempt for independent journalists.
Examining the legacy media tantrums about independent media having access to the debate.
So, this short missive will address the question of what is journalism and how it serves Canadians, rather than intensely opine on the policy issues themselves.
Moving on.
Above, I’ve provided you with the video clips of both Drea and Alex, and also the CBC reaction (Adrienne Arsenault and Rosemary Barton) to those people asking these kinds of questions—read, off limit questions.
Here’s Rachel Gilmore having a normal one over the independent media asking normal rational reasonable valid important.
I think Rachel needs a nap or maybe a Snickers Bar, because she’s really not okay here, reader. Just … wow.
And, here’s David Akin behaving like a toddler who needs a nap at a media scrum, making a complete ass of himself. He maybe needs a Snickers Bar, too, idk reader.
Reader, the legacy media is not okay. Maybe they need cookies and milk? Not sorry, I’m gonna mock this stuff, it’s only worthy of mockery, reader.
Progressives Narcissism is not your friend, legacy media personalities. Just saying.
Here’s a Snickers Bar for Rachel and David, they’ll have to share.
Anyway. Moving on.
Reader, what’s journalism?
A state funded endeavour in which designated elites work to promote a state mandated narrative?
An independently funded endeavour in which people with investigative skills and a passion for uncovering truth work to hold the government who doesn’t fund them to account?
Amanda Rose apparently advocates for a style of journalism that’s mandated by Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. It would seem Amanda Rose is the epitome of bad faith, the term she used to describe independent media having access to the debates. Reader, those who advocate for state-controlled media can Dee free to move to China, where they can have all the state controlled media they want.
Good luck to censorship groupies.
“Reject the vulgar, the base and the kitsch. Put forward more healthy, high quality internet works of culture and art.” — Xi Jinping, president of PRC, commenting on internet censorship.
Here are some facts about the subject matter relating to the questions asked by Drea and Alex.
1. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) isn’t valid and reliable forensic evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning, GPR has limitation when presented as evidence of a crime committed: it cannot identify a specific object or material buried underground.
2. Sex is real and there are only two. Humans aren’t sequential hermaphrodites. Humans are a anisogamous species. That’s the indisputable fact of reproductive science.
3. Around a hundred churches were burned since the release of the GPR results, which never were confirmed by excavation. Between 2010 and 2022 there have been 592 police-reported arsons at places of worship, including churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.
Let’s return to our question.
What is journalism?
A state funded endeavour in which designated elites work to promote a state mandated narrative?
An independently funded endeavour in which people with investigative skills and a passion for uncovering truth work to hold the government who doesn’t fund them to account?
Our first option creates a distorted discourse and dystopian society. It transforms humanity into an ideological hotbox where the ruling class that convinces you to believe an absurdity can convince you to commit an atrocity, where fear and not values + ethics governs behaviour, where freedom becomes a reviled thing, accountability becomes a monster we run from rather than the grace we run toward and engage humbly and with honesty.
Our second option creates a dynamic and challenging discourse, a free exchange of ideas required for the growth and survival of freedom in society. It enables democracy to thrive, it applies rigour and demands the same, as it holds the elected and other powerbrokers to account, whilst it holds the public responsible for developing resilience in their consumption of information.
Let’s move on to the second part of this story.
What do we require from the elected + other public figures as well society’s power brokers, when it comes to journalism and the public discourse?
What do we require from journalists, in the service of the information landscape and the public discourse it cultivates?
Reader, what did you think of Jagmeet Singh’s response to Drea Humphrey? Compare that with Mark Carney’s response to Alex Zoltan.
Do we accept contempt and arrogance for an independent journalist from an elected leader?
How do we feel about the outright dismissal by an elected leader of a reasonable question posed with respect and intellectual rigour? How do we feel about the haughty arrogance exhibited by an elected leader?
How do we feel about the defamatory characterisation of Drea and Rebel media? Singh basically called her a liar and refused to answer her question.
How do we feel about an elected leader attempting heavy-handed narrative management in response to pointed questions about controversial contentious topics? Everything I find uncomfortable is disinformation and misinformation. Also I use these words interchangeably because words are weapons and not a means to engage collaboratively.
Do we appreciate the attempt at banter from a leader who struggles with spontaneity and down-to-earth person-ability in the political campaign arena? Do we appreciate the attempt to address the issue, even if anemic? Do we appreciate that the Carney had the courage and humility to state plainly there are two sexes …?
Reader, we can surmise the intellectual and emotional maturity of each of these political leaders by their responses to the questions posed. Neither leader appeals to me overall, however that’s besides the point for this particular discussion.
I admit that Carney impressed me and Singh disgusted me, based on these two questions put to them by independent journalists.
Where Singh woke-scolded and moralised and came off looking a total douchebag, Carney humbly (for him it was humble) accepted the question and made an attempt to walk a fine line, and he looked pretty good in that moment. Comparatively, reader remember it’s a comparative analysis I’m conducting here.
Let’s look at the reaction of legacy media personalities.
Adrienne Arsenault mentioned checking her sh1t, because apparently asking questions about important issues isn’t representative of the Canada with which she feels comfortable.
Rosemary Barton couldn’t resist inflicting her bias on the Canadian people she serves: Right Wing Bad, reader. I’m sure if we asked Rosie she would find a way to blame Orange Man Bad for the reasonable questions posed by independent non-woke journalists. Then there’s the issue of these people asking these questions, reader. I mean, it’s an affront to Rosie’s progressive virtue, how could we let the peasantry into such an elite circle of sacredness?
Othering is so progressive and virtuous, isn’t it, reader? Anyway.
Rachel Gilmore comes off as unhinged and ridiculous and offensive. She reminds me of some of the worst and most affected DTES street urchins — cannot reason with them and cannot have nice things when they’re around. They’re demented by the hard drugs they consume and the hardship life they live. Not sure what Rachel’s excuse is for her vulgar behaviour, reader.
David Akin embarrassed himself and ended up locking his Xwitter account in response to the backlash he received from people who saw his puerile rude behaviour. Enough said.
Reader, what can I say beyond that, except these tantrums ultimately erode credibility and trustworthiness. Without these two things, what does a journalist have? Not much. They become parodies of themselves — they become an SNL or Kids in the Hall skit, not an entity anyone takes seriously.
Reader, I find it funny how the progressive media people who decry independent media for being activists and agenda-driven have become the thing they hold in contempt.
And I’ll leave it at that.
Pathetic