Jim Shepperd writes that, when you survey Canadian media, it's clear that what he calls "the Trump Disease" has taken root in Canada:
Of course, all Canadians have the right to protest peacefully. Many protesters in Ottawa and other cities are undoubtedly serious in their beliefs, even if most Canadians think they are wrong. But the truckers’ convoy was co-opted along its route by ultra-right idiots and what is happening now in Ottawa is – as a Globe and Mail OpEd noted this past week -- “an assault on democracy.”
Key Conservative MPs, including presumptive leadership favourite, the acid-tongued and overly partisan Pierre Poilievre, whose announcement of his bid for the top Tory job used the word “freedom” multiple times, actually praised the leaders of the truckers’ protest and joined them. Former Tory leader Andrew Scheer called Prime Minister Trudeau “the greatest threat to freedom” in Canada.
To be clear, they are saying that the prime minister, by following science and trying to end the pandemic, is a greater threat than the pandemic itself which has killed almost 35,000 Canadians and infected more than three million. Did any media outlet report that AND call them out? Not many. Not in those words.
That’s bad enough at the political level. But when comments like these are quoted in the MSM without challenge, that normalizes the worst of the worst. That’s one of the main factors fueling the hyper-partisanship and violence in the U.S. — the normalization by constant repetition of lies designed to paint the other side as an enemy to be defeated at all costs, not as fellow citizens with whom we should compromise.
In recent days, journalists have been calling out these folks for who they are. But that was not the case in the early going:
Yes, most columnists and commentators have been clear in pointing out the dark side of the occupation and many of its leaders. Yes, the tone of the coverage has changed to more critical in the past few days. However, certainly in the early going, and through Saturday when the truckers arrived, most “news” stories were (a) rah-rah (b) uncritical and/or (c) disgraceful.
For some, such as Postmedia and the Sun chain, this was to be expected because the protests play into their pro-Conservative and/or anti-Trudeau phobia. For others that are supposed to be more even-handed, such as The Globe, there were significant lapses, especially as the convoy moved across the country and arrived last Saturday in Ottawa. TV gave wall-to-wall video coverage, even if it did have talking heads denouncing the shenanigans. Some radio reports quoted occupation supporters as saying that vaccines, not COVID, are causing the illnesses jamming our hospitals. No rebuttal offered.
Part of the problem is that way too many Canadian journalists are now falling into the same trap that snared so many American journalists in their coverage of Trump’s 2016 presidential election and his antics since then. They remain unable to think outside the traditional box of he said/he said or she said/she said – in other words, both sides need to be quoted and treated as equal, even if one side is clearly unhinged, saying dangerous things and/or outright lying.
Look at it this way. If one side says it’s a bright, sunny day and the other side says it’s pouring rain, the job of a journalist is not to simply report both sides uncritically. The reporter should look outside the window and tell readers/viewers/listeners what is actually happening.
If we don't have the courage to name what is actually happening here, then we will be consumed by it. We have the example of what has happened in the United States. A few days ago, the Republican National Committee called the January 6th insurrection "legitimate political discourse."
Image: The Hill Times
