The Media is the Message > Canada's Liberal Party employs phase 2 of press intimidation

 

Controlling the media is one of the first phases of turning a healthy democratic country into an autocracy. Trudeau started the process by offering $600 mn to media that reported Liberal-friendly news. Phase two is thanks to Art Mark Carney, who is intimidating the media with a lawsuit against Juno News. Like much of Europe, democracy is failing in Canada.

Carney Government launches CRIMINAL investigation

into JUNO NEWS

Keean Bexte joins Candice to discuss Ottawa’s investigation into Juno News’ reporting using an anti-free speech censorship law that was previously struck down as violating the Charter

Candice Malcolm

Sep 03, 2025

WATCH THE FULL EPISODE AT BOTTOM

This is one show you’re not going to want to miss (watch the full episode at the bottom of this message, but please READ first).

On today’s very special episode of the Candice Malcolm Show, Candice and Juno News co-founder Keean Bexte discuss a letter he received from the Commissioner of Elections Canada informing him that he’s being investigated under Section 91 of the Canada Elections Act for supposedly knowingly misleading the public during an election.

Read the Commissioner's letter to Keean

If found guilty, Keean faces up to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine!

Juno News unequivocally stands by our story and our reporter. These allegations are false and this investigation is politically motivated – with the intent of intimidating independent journalists and silencing dissent against the governing Liberals.

As the Litigation Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation responded yesterday:

“This isn't a criminal offence. Reporting, even if imperfect, should not be targeted by government agencies for sanction like this…This is weaponizing the law to stop journalism that the government doesn't like. I'm concerned it will chill reporting in the future.”

On today’s show, Candice and Keean discuss his report that prompted this investigation, where he painstakingly documented several disturbing allegations against former Liberal candidate Thomas Keeper based on firsthand testimonials from multiple independent sources. Keean even visited the Liberal Party campaign office in Calgary to hand deliver questions to Thomas Keeper – and Keeper called the police and made false allegations against him.

Keeper did not sue Juno News directly or allege defamation. Instead, the Liberal Government is bullying us with a criminal investigation.

As Candice reports, the Trudeau Government made changes to the Canada Elections Act back in 2019, using the Russia-gate hoax as justification. The Canadian Constitution Foundation challenged the law, and in 2021 it was struck down as unconstitutional by an Ontario judge.

The Trudeau Government made minor edits to the law, and this appears to be the first time anyone in Canada has been investigated under this act. There are three different tests that would need to be met in order for the government to charge Keean:

1. That he lied in his reporting

2. That he knew he was lying, and reported it anyway

3. That he intentionally wanted to interfere with the election by lying

All three of these allegations are wrong. Our story is based on corroborated first-hand accounts from multiple independent sources, so Keean didn’t lie – he certainly didn’t knowingly lie, and we released it to inform the public – not sway the election.

Find out more about this story at DefendJuno.com

Thank you to unsmoke.com for sponsoring today’s episode.

The Media is the Message > CBC's fact-checker got it wrong! Surprise! No Surprise!

 

CBC ‘fact-checker’ gets his facts wrong

May 07, 2025 | APPEARED IN THE TORONTO SUN

By: Jake Fuss

At all times, during an election period and beyond, the media must report accurate information and, when necessary, correct the record. For example, following the English-language federal leaders’ debate on April 17, CBC reporter Jonathon Gatehouse appeared on CBC News and “fact-checked” a statement by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre who had referenced a study published by the Fraser Institute. Unfortunately, during the segment, Gatehouse got his facts wrong.

The study (of which I’m a co-author) found that in 2023 the total tax bill (income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, etc.) for the average Canadian family equaled 43.0 per cent of its annual income—more than it spent on food, clothing and housing combined, and significantly higher than the 33.5 per cent it paid in 1961. Put differently, taxes represent the number one expense for the average family today.

In response, Gatehouse made two false statements.

First, he falsely claimed the study does not take “inflation into account.” But in fact, the study tracks changes in the tax bill for the average family since 1961 and explicitly adjusts for inflation to provide an apples-to-apples comparison over multiple decades. As shown in the study, after accounting for inflation, the tax bill has grown by $30,227 (or 180.3 per cent) from 1961 to 2023. The study also includes other years of tax data, also adjusted for inflation, to provide additional points of comparison for readers.

Second, Gatehouse falsely claimed the study does not account for carbon rebates. But in fact, it does account for the Canada Carbon Rebate (CCR) when calculating the income of the average Canadian family because the CCR represents a transfer from the federal government to households. (After adding up all the various sources of income including carbon rebates, the study finds the average Canadian family earned an income of $109,235 in 2023.)

Finally, Gatehouse offered his subjective opinion about the study’s calculations, stating that “the problem is, they also included CPP and EI contributions in their calculations. Now, those are effectively down payments on future benefits for when people retire or lose their jobs—not taxes.”

Of course, people can reasonably disagree about the definition of taxes. But Gatehouse clearly veered away from his role as an objective fact-checker and violated CBC’s own journalistic principle to “not promote any particular point of view on matters of public debate.” Many economists argue that CPP and EI contributions are in fact taxes. And our study treats these contributions (which are typically deducted from our paycheques) as payroll taxes because they are mandatory and support government programs. And despite Gatehouse’s claims, the money we pay into the CPP is not a down payment on our own future benefits, but mainly pays for the benefits of current retired workers. The federal government also has no legal obligation to provide any CPP benefits to workers at all, and it can simply increase mandatory CPP contributions without raising CPP benefits.

According to CBC’s journalistic principles, its reporters must “seek out the truth in all matters of public interest” while treating “individuals and organizations with openness and respect.” In his “fact-checking” segment following the federal leaders’ debate, Gatehouse violated both of these principles. Neither the CBC nor Gatehouse contacted anyone at the Fraser Institute to verify his false claims.

Fact-checking remains an important exercise to provide Canadians with accurate information. Evidently, some fact-checkers require fact-checkers of their own.

Was Gatehouse under some pressure to make Poilievre look bad during the debates; was he just incompetent, or did he simply choose to trash Poilievre on his own? What do you think?

=============================================================

The Media is the Message > CBC's Covid Propaganda based on lies; Tik Tok targetting kids with dangerous challenges - parents of 4 dead kids sue

 

CBC journalist exposes policy to deceive the public about Covid

Here, she (Marianne Klowak) presents her arguments at the National Citizen's Inquiry into Covid responses. It was made necessary because the government refused to call such an inquiry in spite of the billions of dollars wasted and the phenomenal corruption involved. 

Covid_19 response by the government was one giant Liberal slush fund, IMHO.

BlendrNews

@BlendrNews

Former CBC Journalist: "We Betrayed the Public." In regards to COVID: "We were in fact pushing propaganda." "Those who questioned and challenged the narrative were portrayed as dangerous and spreading disinformation." What best describes the CBC?

1:33 / 2:29

11:30 AM · Feb 15, 2025

·

55.2K

Views

British families sue TikTok in U.S. over

Blackout Challenge children deaths

By Doug Cunningham

Four British families Thursday filed a wrongful death suit against TikTok and its owner ByteDance over the self-strangulation deaths of four children who were participating in a TikTok Blackout Challenge. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

Feb. 7 (UPI) -- Four British families Thursday filed a wrongful death suit against TikTok and its owner ByteDance over the self-strangulation deaths of four children who were participating in a TikTok Blackout Challenge.

The U.S.-based Social Media Victims Law Center filed the suit in Delaware Superior Court, on behalf of the families of Isaac Kenevan, 13; Archie Battersbee, 12; Julian "Jools" Sweeney,14; and Maia Walsh, 13.

"TikTok's algorithm purposely targeted these children with dangerous content to increase their engagement time on the platform and drive revenue. It was a clear and deliberate business decision by TikTok that cost these four children their lives," the SMVLC said in a statement.

The suit alleges the deaths were "the forseeable result of ByteDance's engineered addiction-by-design and programming decisions" that pushed children to maximize their TikTok engagement "by any means necessary."

Related

• Trump signs order to create sovereign wealth fund in United States, possibly to buy TikTok
• Trump move to delay TikTok ban stretches executive power
• Supreme Court unanimously upholds TikTok divest or ban law

Sweeney's mother Ellen Roome told the BBC a law debated in Parliament dubbed "Jools' Law" should be passed so parents are allowed to access their children's social media accounts if they die.

She had to sue in the United States before obtaining her son's TikTok data. She said she believed that was morally wrong and TikTok could have simply handed over the data.

"It's no coincidence that three of the four children who died from self-suffocation after being exposed to the dangerous and deadly TikTok Blackout Challenge lived in the same city and that all fit a similar demographic," SMVLC attorney Matthew P. Bergman said in a statement.

He added that TikTok's algorithm "purposely targeted these children with dangerous content to increase their engagement time on the platform and drive revenue."

According to the lawsuit, Maia Walsh's father Liam was able to access her TikTok data after months of trying and said he found TikTok had targeted the 13 year-old with "dangerous challenges and self-harm videos."

====================================================================================