Thank you Justin for setting the record straight! This RWNJ hatchet job was just the lowest of low blows that I have seen in a while and I am not surprised that you were the one to step up to the plate and take it on!
I really appreciate your input on this. There is an icky reality behind much of what's in the news these days; a lot of doubt-mongering, grumpiness-prompting.
As Pam said, thank you for writing this to set the record straight. It’s tricky trying to decide how to counter disinformation. I agree with you that it’s wise for mainstream/legacy media to not highlight it, thereby depriving it of oxygen. There may be a time, however, to do what you did to nip it early. I do disagree with you on one minor point. I don’t think the PP- lead Conservatives are ignoring it because they still have standards. I think they are doing it because there is an advisor or two that still has brains and a modicum of influence.
I certainly won't tell you how to feel about the Conservatives (or any leader, for that matter) but I do think it's worth celebrating minor victories — at least while they're still victories.
Much in the same way that Juno News and its personalities are celebrated for breaking these rules, for descending into the muck because their supporters want them to fight dirty; there's no doubt that same benefit would avail itself to Poilievre were he to go that direction. And they know that. And they're opting not to. That's restraint, and it's a good thing!
Fair enough. I do see where you are coming from. It’s pretty sad that we consider something like that a small victory, but alas that is the world in which we now live. I still think the Conservatives are a dangerous option for our country:)
Thank you this balanced discussion of the fraught politics surrounding the existence of trans people that has become so inflamed of late. As a 64 year-old trans man who transitioned at the age of 40, it is so strange to watch how certain elements on the left and the right have joined hands to attack a small group of people. There is no room for nuanced conversation, driving those of us who can live invisibly back into the shadows. I do hope that the convention against bringing the families of politicians into the spotlight holds on all sides as we enter an election, but I'm not too confident. You have earned my paid subscription today. Thanks again.
"Nuanced discussion" becomes one of those things politicians and journalists often preach, but then don't practise. There's lots of people out there who are genuinely confused, and a little unsettled, about the discussion on gender-affirming care — especially for youth. No use lecturing them, better we try and explain why this thing isn't as scary as some people make it sound.
The article was absolutely disgusting and I'm glad to learn that the CPC isn't using it...however, there is plenty of other really nasty nonsense about Carney doing the rounds on bluesky and X. MSM opinion pieces are also pretty negative...and there seems to be a noticeable lack of discussion about the actions Carney has taken since taking over as PM. Canadian media feels like a bunch of old ladies gossiping disapprovingly about the new arrival on the block. Canadians have been moaning for ages that they want change, but they seem incapable of recognizing it when they see it.
Canadians love to gripe about our leaders. I'd say the fact that engagement has gone through the roof is actually a good thing. People have leaned in, and are actively interested against.
Although I do wish people would spend less time spinning themselves in circles on social media...
Is there any way to get in the way of these far-right media outlets spreading this kind of appalling content by strengthening and enforcing our hate-speech laws? Or is there a slippery slope there that I'm not considering?
It's a slippery slope on a 90-degree angle downwards, unfortunately.
Our freedom of speech and the press means you can print just about anything, no matter how hateful, so long as it doesn't constitute a direct incitement to violence. And: Good! It wasn't so long ago that the state was shutting down Queer newspapers and intimidating their subscribers. Censorship tools rarely get limited only to the bad guys: Eventually someone comes and uses them against you.
We beat bad media outlets, of all stripes, by winning over their readers and leaving them without an audience. Eventually people *will* get tired of being lied to, being made angry, and being convinced to finance a 24/7 rage machine. We should be waiting in the wings to offer them something better!
Dang it. That does make sense, of course. However, it still feels in my soul like a paradox—like the "violence" part has perhaps been too narrowly defined. I mean that in the sense that it allows any fashy halfwit to run for office and say all sorts of dog whistles and lies directly to a radicalised demographic, but still enjoy a fairly smooth ride even in the MSM. Canadians are particularly active on deregulated extremist far-right platforms, and we're witnessing how fragile society can be when radicalised people feel heard in the mainstream, let alone when they are handed actual power. That is, in turn, even worse for marginalised groups.
I hope so much that you are correct about audiences. What I have witnessed in my work as a social media manager and as a Very Online Person™ has been ... discouraging. I hope all this anger activates the average person into making more deliberate and considered choices, rather than buying into interference that confirms their rage, or letting harmful messaging become normalised by their chosen platform's overlords. I hope we collectively find a way to combat free slop with inventive and compelling messaging strategy for facts, but without undermining good journalism financially.
Thank you, as always, for the marvellous work that YOU do.
It’s very disturbing that some far right commentator thinks it’s okay to use a politician’s child as click bait. Thank you for addressing the issue as well as you have and for standing up for the families of politicians and for kids trying to find their way.
It’s so befuddling to me that people who don’t have a clue about the subject matter can’t even do the minimum of research before spreading such bull! Same goes for the morons who believe it and spread the lies.
Thank you Justin for setting the record straight! This RWNJ hatchet job was just the lowest of low blows that I have seen in a while and I am not surprised that you were the one to step up to the plate and take it on!
I really appreciate your input on this. There is an icky reality behind much of what's in the news these days; a lot of doubt-mongering, grumpiness-prompting.
Looking forward to your coverage of the election.
Low blows!
As Pam said, thank you for writing this to set the record straight. It’s tricky trying to decide how to counter disinformation. I agree with you that it’s wise for mainstream/legacy media to not highlight it, thereby depriving it of oxygen. There may be a time, however, to do what you did to nip it early. I do disagree with you on one minor point. I don’t think the PP- lead Conservatives are ignoring it because they still have standards. I think they are doing it because there is an advisor or two that still has brains and a modicum of influence.
I certainly won't tell you how to feel about the Conservatives (or any leader, for that matter) but I do think it's worth celebrating minor victories — at least while they're still victories.
Much in the same way that Juno News and its personalities are celebrated for breaking these rules, for descending into the muck because their supporters want them to fight dirty; there's no doubt that same benefit would avail itself to Poilievre were he to go that direction. And they know that. And they're opting not to. That's restraint, and it's a good thing!
Fair enough. I do see where you are coming from. It’s pretty sad that we consider something like that a small victory, but alas that is the world in which we now live. I still think the Conservatives are a dangerous option for our country:)
Thank you this balanced discussion of the fraught politics surrounding the existence of trans people that has become so inflamed of late. As a 64 year-old trans man who transitioned at the age of 40, it is so strange to watch how certain elements on the left and the right have joined hands to attack a small group of people. There is no room for nuanced conversation, driving those of us who can live invisibly back into the shadows. I do hope that the convention against bringing the families of politicians into the spotlight holds on all sides as we enter an election, but I'm not too confident. You have earned my paid subscription today. Thanks again.
Thanks Joseph.
"Nuanced discussion" becomes one of those things politicians and journalists often preach, but then don't practise. There's lots of people out there who are genuinely confused, and a little unsettled, about the discussion on gender-affirming care — especially for youth. No use lecturing them, better we try and explain why this thing isn't as scary as some people make it sound.
Thanks for subscribing!
The article was absolutely disgusting and I'm glad to learn that the CPC isn't using it...however, there is plenty of other really nasty nonsense about Carney doing the rounds on bluesky and X. MSM opinion pieces are also pretty negative...and there seems to be a noticeable lack of discussion about the actions Carney has taken since taking over as PM. Canadian media feels like a bunch of old ladies gossiping disapprovingly about the new arrival on the block. Canadians have been moaning for ages that they want change, but they seem incapable of recognizing it when they see it.
Canadians love to gripe about our leaders. I'd say the fact that engagement has gone through the roof is actually a good thing. People have leaned in, and are actively interested against.
Although I do wish people would spend less time spinning themselves in circles on social media...
Thanks for such great reporting, Justin. I will be curious about your thoughts on getting a ticket on the CPC Campaign Bus… 🚎
That was very much my plan — but the Conservative Party is not allowing journalists on their bus/plane.
Rest assured, I will be showing up to harangue all of the leaders at their campaign stops. Stay tuned!
Is there any way to get in the way of these far-right media outlets spreading this kind of appalling content by strengthening and enforcing our hate-speech laws? Or is there a slippery slope there that I'm not considering?
It's a slippery slope on a 90-degree angle downwards, unfortunately.
Our freedom of speech and the press means you can print just about anything, no matter how hateful, so long as it doesn't constitute a direct incitement to violence. And: Good! It wasn't so long ago that the state was shutting down Queer newspapers and intimidating their subscribers. Censorship tools rarely get limited only to the bad guys: Eventually someone comes and uses them against you.
We beat bad media outlets, of all stripes, by winning over their readers and leaving them without an audience. Eventually people *will* get tired of being lied to, being made angry, and being convinced to finance a 24/7 rage machine. We should be waiting in the wings to offer them something better!
Dang it. That does make sense, of course. However, it still feels in my soul like a paradox—like the "violence" part has perhaps been too narrowly defined. I mean that in the sense that it allows any fashy halfwit to run for office and say all sorts of dog whistles and lies directly to a radicalised demographic, but still enjoy a fairly smooth ride even in the MSM. Canadians are particularly active on deregulated extremist far-right platforms, and we're witnessing how fragile society can be when radicalised people feel heard in the mainstream, let alone when they are handed actual power. That is, in turn, even worse for marginalised groups.
I hope so much that you are correct about audiences. What I have witnessed in my work as a social media manager and as a Very Online Person™ has been ... discouraging. I hope all this anger activates the average person into making more deliberate and considered choices, rather than buying into interference that confirms their rage, or letting harmful messaging become normalised by their chosen platform's overlords. I hope we collectively find a way to combat free slop with inventive and compelling messaging strategy for facts, but without undermining good journalism financially.
Thank you, as always, for the marvellous work that YOU do.
My first reaction on reading this was: Why amplify such vile? But these two posts confirm that it's getting serious:
https://charlieangus.substack.com/p/my-canadian-election-prediction-a
https://deanblundell.substack.com/p/the-disinformation-war-against-mark
I'd never thought that Canadians would stoop that low.
Thank you Justin.
Please send this to meidas touch network as well
meidastouchsubstack.com
This must get out to public as the nasty has already begun
It’s very disturbing that some far right commentator thinks it’s okay to use a politician’s child as click bait. Thank you for addressing the issue as well as you have and for standing up for the families of politicians and for kids trying to find their way.
It’s so befuddling to me that people who don’t have a clue about the subject matter can’t even do the minimum of research before spreading such bull! Same goes for the morons who believe it and spread the lies.