Canadians’ trust in the legacy media reaches a new low: report

[Fishbone Jones]

Well, bless their little hearts.

Canadians’ trust in the legacy media reaches a new low: report.

"Canadians’ trust in the legacy media has reached a new low, according to a report from the Reuters Institute and the University of Oxford."

Canadians’ trust in the legacy media reaches a new low: report

Canadians' trust in the legacy media has reached a new low, according to a report from the Reuters Institute and the University of Oxford. The loss in media trust shown by the 2022 Digital News Report was mainly among anglophone Canadians, with francophones having higher trust levels in legacy ou

tnc.news

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Example of why: How The Media Fumbled the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Verdict

 

[Furniture]

I'm not a fanatic one way or the other, but I have seen enough obvious misrepresentation and/or outright untruths in the MSM to take everything they say with a healthy dose of salt.

I suspect individual reporters think they are doing "god's work", so don't worry too much about representing the "other side" when reporting on a story. As a fun game, read any article about the CAF, or firearms, and I bet you can spot the reporter's political leanings within the first couple of sentences... Take that perspective and apply it to everything you read.

 

[CBH99]

Example of why: How The Media Fumbled the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Verdict

Another example, but for some reason the link won’t copy. (Will post link soon.)

Legacy media - RCMP brutally assault Indigenous man due to expired license plate (shows 3-5 seconds of a police officer punching a man already on the ground)

______


Edmonton Journal releases the full incident via dashcam & mic, which is over 10 minutes long.

It shows a very drunk and aggressive man cursing, shoving, and taking up a fighting stance towards an officer who is very tolerant and calm until he needs to end the situation, and another officer arrives.



Literally, it was a deliberate lie of omission by the MSM who all had a copy of the same video, but only showed the 3-5 seconds they could manipulate.

Was absolutely low, even for them…

 

[lenaitch]

Another example, but for some reason the link won’t copy. (Will post link soon.)

Legacy media - RCMP brutally assault Indigenous man due to expired license plate (shows 3-5 seconds of a police officer punching a man already on the ground)

______


Edmonton Journal releases the full incident via dashcam & mic, which is over 10 minutes long.

It shows a very drunk and aggressive man cursing, shoving, and taking up a fighting stance towards an officer who is very tolerant and calm until he needs to end the situation, and another officer arrives.



Literally, it was a deliberate lie of omission by the MSM who all had a copy of the same video, but only showed the 3-5 seconds they could manipulate.

Was absolutely low, even for them…

I remember that. Was it a conscious decision to 'flavour' a story or a decision that nobody will click on a 10 minute video. Although I agree that the reporting could have referenced the complete video in describing the full story (if they even watched it).

Back in the day, newspapers (the only MSM of the day) were very blatant in their agenda and political leanings and made little attempt to disguise it. The fact that media have political and social agendas should come as a surprise to few. Then again, the 'non-MSM' sources are hardly paragons of neutrality and professional journalism.

 

[Good2Golf]

Only 27% percent of anglophone Canadians believe the media is not politically influenced, down 17% from 2016. The figure held up at 38% for francophones, making for a combined trust rating of 29%.

That’s still a huge proportion of naive people….heck, the politicians themselves have been clear on how much more money they have directly contributed to fund the media.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I remember that. Was it a conscious decision to 'flavour' a story or a decision that nobody will click on a 10 minute video. Although I agree that the reporting could have referenced the complete video in describing the full story (if they even watched it).

Back in the day, newspapers (the only MSM of the day) were very blatant in their agenda and political leanings and made little attempt to disguise it. The fact that media have political and social agendas should come as a surprise to few. Then again, the 'non-MSM' sources are hardly paragons of neutrality and professional journalism.

I expect the media to be biased. Each media outlet, newspaper, TV station, blog, etc is a very human organization; expecting them to be unbiased is silly. I respect media outlets - like The Economist and the Toronto Star - that make no bones about their biases and proudly state them for all to read. Pretending to be unbiased is dishonest.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Exactly, no such thing as unbiased, everyone is pushing some sort of agenda. There maybe less of a related agenda, such as news coverage by foreign media (ex. BBC covering non-British news tends to be more towards the less biased side simply because they don't have skin in the game for that region), however at the end of the day they all have a bias. My issues with the legacy media is threefold.

1) Blatantly pushing a biased opinion well claiming that it is unbiased
2) Purposely omitting information which doesn't suit that bias
3) Pushing opinions as facts

I expect media to have bias, I simply prefer they be honest about it. You can put your own spin on information as well, but the key part of it is to put the information in there so others can make their own decision.

Personally I believe the decline in quality of reporting has a lot to do with the speed which information is shared now. Legacy Media is basically in damage control mode by time they put out a story as they need to be seen as first on the spot. As such the story hasn't received anywhere near the same amount of vetting as it would have historically. The information used is also significantly shakier as it is only the initial bit of information coming out. This leads to the initial stories being in some cases blatantly wrong.

I remember when Jacob Blake was shot in Kenosha and the family was claiming that he was unarmed and shot for no reason and the media jumped on it, which ultimately resulted in the rioting which had the Rittenhouse shootings. Turns out that he actually was armed with a knife, given multiple chances to stop resisting, and the cops were arresting him on sexual assault charges. Huge difference between the initial report and the final report.

 

[Weinie]

I expect the media to be biased. Each media outlet, newspaper, TV station, blog, etc is a very human organization; expecting them to be unbiased is silly. I respect media outlets - like The Economist and the Toronto Star - that make no bones about their biases and proudly state them for all to read. Pretending to be unbiased is dishonest.

And we, as consumers, can also display our bias by conspicuously choosing which media we follow. Win/win, je pense.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Watch the news. Especially stateside. At 6 o'clock every evening there are thousands of newscasters all repeating the exact same phrases, in the exact same tone and delivery as their political party.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good stuff there - thanks for sharing.

Snapshot of Canadian stats ...

Watch the news. Especially stateside. At 6 o'clock every evening there are thousands of newscasters all repeating the exact same phrases, in the exact same tone and delivery as their political party.

... or corporate headquarters ...

Deadspin | How America's Largest Local TV Owner Turned Its News Anchors Into Soldiers In Trump's War On The Media

Deadspin | How America's Largest Local TV Owner Turned Its News Anchors Into Soldiers In Trump's War On The Media

deadspin.com

And we, as consumers, can also display our bias by conspicuously choosing which media we follow. Win/win, je pense.

When it doesn't stop critical consideration of the other side, yup.

 

[Photopilot]

I am not surprised by this report. Under the Ontario Liberal government, I was working in the Cabinet Office. One of the things we did as part of our work was watching question period. I was amazed when I watched the news that evening. I wondered if we watched the same Question Period, due to the spin by the various news networks.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Can't blatant spin, bias and lies be considered some kind of sedition ?

Are we at the point we need to ask who reports on the reporters ?

 

[daftandbarmy]

A good reminder for any business, or other organization or individual, about what it takes to earn and keep trust:

7 Ways to Build a Business and Brand Consumers Will Trust​

“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently,” Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, famously once said. These words have never been more resonating than today in the age of social media, influencers, and “gotcha journalism,” where one misstep could be a business’s downfall. I’ve put together seven strategies you can use in creating a reputable business and brand your customers will trust.

#1. Convey Authenticity
In developing your brand, think about why you are starting your business. Are you tapping into something that’s missing in the marketplace? Are you responding to a consumer need or solving a problem? Build your brand around this truth, speaking to your potential customers and how your product or service is designed to help them, provide joy, or even simply add to their wish list, and do so authentically. Your brand’s visuals and messaging, including the tone and style of your content, should speak to your consumers in a way that resonates and is believable. When your brand reflects what’s in your heart and comes from your passion, customers will get it and gravitate toward what you have to offer.

#2. Make Transparency, Honesty Reign
Tell it like it is. Today’s consumers, particularly Millennials and Gen Zers, want transparency and honesty. While they realize no brand is perfect, they expect businesses to respect them as informed and smart consumers. Determine from the outset what you can commit to, be able to deliver on those commitments, and then communicate honestly what your business can do. Don’t overpromise, and ensure that your advertising is not misleading.

If, along the way, something comes up that is not aligned with your brand, say so. Let consumers know about any missteps, take accountability, and apologize. You don’t want conspiracy theories floating around and a loss of confidence-building up among consumers about the services or products you offer. Remember, consumers will pay a premium for brands with integrity.

7 Ways to Build a Business and Brand Consumers Will Trust - CEOWORLD magazine

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And we, as consumers, can also display our bias by conspicuously choosing which media we follow. Win/win, je pense.

There's the rub. Especially here. I'll admit to watching CTV, but mostly for the local news. I don't watch Global news. CBC is not even programmed into my TV. I'm lucky where I'm situated. I get about 25 OTA stations, mostly US, but there is a mix of opinion. Here we're stuck, basically, with three major producers. CBC, Global and CTV. The problem is, they all carry the same government message. There is no dissent among them. Even here, you'll find reporters from each separate company using the same phrases from the same stories. As if they were canned and sent out from head office



... or corporate headquarters ...

Oh, absolutely. Obviously, someone in each entity is receiving copy from the same source. Which creates the dilemma. Is Corporate unity coincidental? Or is it simply a matter where they are all part of the propaganda arm of the government receiving their material from a central source. There's been times when all three stations have read the same paragraph verbatim, at the same time. Which indicates to me, the possibility of collusion amongst the three or blind adherence to a higher entity running them all.

The part of the chart that disturbs me, is CNN. It appears that CNN is Canadians first choice of US news. Even coming out ahead of some Canadian outlets. Their viewership south of the border, on many occasions, has dropped below one million viewers, being beat out by the Hallmark channel. The stats indicate that CNN has a higher viewership in Canada, than in their own country. That's scary, because even the left think CNN is out to lunch.

 

[YZT580]

I expect the media to be biased. Each media outlet, newspaper, TV station, blog, etc is a very human organization; expecting them to be unbiased is silly. I respect media outlets - like The Economist and the Toronto Star - that make no bones about their biases and proudly state them for all to read. Pretending to be unbiased is dishonest.

bias is fine and understandable, direct fiction presented as news is not.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Can't blatant spin, bias and lies be considered some kind of sedition ?

Well, until "sedition" has a different definition (dictionary, not Criminal Code*) than "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority", nope. Some media may call for that explicitly, but not toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many and far from widespread.

Are we at the point we need to ask who reports on the reporters ?

Very good question right there. Some out there do a decent job, but they're few and far between.

 

[ModlrMike]

I may have said this elsewhere, but the last time I had any confidence in the news Huey Lewis was involved, and it was hip to be square.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We went to the local paper to cover some events at our Cadet Corp. There was no interest until my XO talked about his Indigenous background, then they were interested. In the CCG, the media got the details of incidents I was involved in about 40% wrong each time. My sister was a Labour Law Judge and we discuss the case she just heard and what she told me about the case was completely different than what was reported.
The MSM has worked hard to get it's failing grade and isn't willing to look at itself much. Instead it blames everyone else, like a spoiled child.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I was, unfortunately, involved in the Somalia Inquiry (at the periphery, not as a target. Thank god) in the 1990s. With the notable exception of 1 or 2 reporters (interestingly for the local Pembroke newspaper and TV station), what actually happened that day and what was reported that evening often bore only a passing resemblence to each other. The local reporters actually took the time to get things right and in context and any mistakes (everybody makes mistakes) they made were usually honest ones. Unlike their national “superstar” colleagues….