Apparently, (from “Democracy Inc”: “Rachel Gilmore, a former parliamentary press gallery reporter who recently launched her own digital media company, was over the moon when CTV Your Morning invited her to do a weekly fact-checking segment during the federal election.”
She did one segment, which turned out to be her first and last because: “Sebastian Skamski, a senior campaign official for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives, denounced CTV News for letting a “disgraced disinformation peddler lie directly to their viewers””:
“In a shocking new low for CTV News, they are having this disgraced disinformation peddler lie directly to their viewers under the guise of ‘news’. The Liberal media will do anything to ensure a fourth Liberal term.”"
CTV News caved under pressure from PP’s team as well as pushback from the right wing, so Rachel Gilmore’s fact checking will not be available to that audience.
I don’t know anything about this person, but this report wasn’t exactly neutral. Nothing about why the convoy was protesting, but lots on how they disrupted locals. So, why would that side, who had legitimate concerns, expect this person to provide accurate fact checking?
But sure complain that the conservatives blocked your person, what does the other side do? Rebel News kicked out of Carney event:
Fun points in video
CTV coverage seems to heavily favour unions, so the Cons are already going to be antagonistic. This came to a head in September 2024 when CTV apparently changed a quote Poilievre made using technology. IIRC the change was fairly trivial (making a quote seem like he was considering a non-confidence vote) but since then PP has been angry at them and their executive.
Poilievre’s pointed attack this time stems from CTV News’s decision to rearrange some of the words Poilievre uttered in a scrum with reporters. The Conservatives say CTV spliced together his words in a way that gave the impression that Poilievre was introducing a non-confidence motion — which would bring on an early election — because he wants to do away with the Liberal government’s fledgling dental care program.
In his scrum with reporters, Poilievre said: “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.” On the CTV broadcast, Poilievre was heard saying: “That’s why we need to put forward a motion.” Those words came right after the network’s reporter read from a script that said there are “questions” about dental care’s “future” with the non-confidence motion looming. In a statement, a spokesperson for CTV said it “presented a comment by the Official Opposition leader that was taken out of context.” …“A misunderstanding during the editing process resulted in this misrepresentation," the spokesperson said. “We unreservedly apologize to Mr. Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada.”
Same here. He comes to Nanaimo and gives a speech about law and order. He promises to punish the worst of the worst criminals. Okay, great. But the thing is, you can’t take people who are already in jail and sentence them to more jail. It’s not legal here to punish people again for the same thing they’ve already been convicted of. So all he is promising is that the next time we have a Paul Bernardo or a Robert Pickton, he’ll make sure they go to jail forever and ever (as opposed to now, where they only go to jail forever). That doesn’t help me, PP. Doesn’t do a damn thing for me not being able to afford a house. Doesn’t put any food on my table. Et cetera. In fact, from a certain point of view what he is actually promising is housing and food for criminals!
I am unsure why the Conservatives persist in wanting punishments unlikely to pass constitutional muster. (Mandatory minimums, mandatory life sentences, etc.). What a waste of effort.
So they can rail against the soft-on-crime justice system when rulings against their policies come down? Won’t get their policies enacted, but might fire up the base in the next election.
PP’s former boss (and former opposition leader/founder for the Reform party) Preston Manning throws a bomb into PP’s election campaign by writing a Globe & Mail OpEd invoking the threat of Western Separatism (a Manning classic) if Carney’s Liberals are elected. He even offers “rw nutjob wrangling” advice on how to democratically accommodate such voices in the case of a Carney government.
So what can be done? Here are two suggested actions, the first by voters in central and Atlantic Canada, and the second by Western political leaders.
Voters, particularly in central and Atlantic Canada, need to recognize that a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession – a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it. If you couldn’t care less about the concerns or actions of Western Canada, then ignore this unsolicited advice. But understand that separation of the resources-based economic engine of Western Canada from what’s left of the rest of Canada will have dire economic and social consequences for the latter.
Secondly, Western political leaders need to provide a mechanism for recognizing and addressing the growing support for Western secession in an orderly and democratic manner, so that its support and leadership are not surrendered to extremists or eccentrics for lack of thoughtful consideration of how best to proceed. Initially, this mechanism need not be a Western secession party after the Quebec model of the Parti or Bloc Québécois, but rather a democratic forum to first consider various alternative courses of action.
It is important to note that Manning is careful to not openly advocate separation himself, he admittingly wants to sway the Central and Atlantic Canadian voters by bringing up the threat of Western Separation as a reaction to electing the Liberals. PP (of course) distances himself from such views.
“No,” said Poilievre when asked during a campaign stop Thursday if he agrees with Manning’s provocative op-ed in the Globe and Mail this week.
“We need to unite the country. We need to bring all Canadians together in a spirit of common ground.”
This is why Harper (and now PP) have such a firm hand on their candidates. Running their mouths WILL get the CPC in trouble. Harper forbid ANYONE (minus a couple of handpicked ministers) to talk to the press, and the PP banned the press from traveling with him -in addition to forbidding the press from asking to many questions of him.
Unfortunately PP can’t silence Premier Smith, nor Manning. He just needs to roll with whatever comes (Kory Teneycke’s comments were particularly sobering thou).
Teneycke is the Conservative strategist who last week blew up PP’s campaign by criticizing his self-presentation by being too negative/Trump-like and also not tackling the most important issue this election (which is Trump).
It was sobering as PP seems to have took the thrust of Teneycke’s advice and started to focus and hit at Trump this week.
