QV said:
The LPC has most of the media backing them. If only facts were reported, and less opinion, the public would make their own judgement. Presently, some of the media only cover what they feel they need to in order to maintain the appearance of non-bias, then add all kinds of op-eds to shape public opinion. Katie Telford spoke of having favourable op-eds on tap in the SNC scandal, Catherine McKenna talked about if you say it loud enough and long enough "everyone will totallybelieve it!". I have not seen a steady stream of media playing the PM's lies when he publicly stated there was no influence or pressure on the AG. Just Twitter. Is this not a major scandal? The fourth estate is on it's last legs IMHO. Only because of the internet and social media are we able to see the contradictions, otherwise it would be difficult to know any better. Warren Kinsella commented on Twitter the Dion report is even more damning than the Mueller report.
"Fake news media is the enemy of the people". I don't think you can argue with that. The question is; which outlets are peddling misinformation and when? Is Trump right?
I keep hearing that the Liberals have the backing of MSM, but that's inconsistent with what I've actually been reading in the same MSM. CBC has had consistently damning reports on the handling of the current government on SNC and the JWR scandal, MMWIG, the electoral reforms, etc. G&M lead with a lot of the damning reports on the Adm Norman trial. National Post had similar coverage. At the same time they all were critical of the Conservatives over things like Scheer pleading ignorance to the white supremacist leanings for the Western convoy and other things, and in Ontario the previous provincial government and current Ford govt have both been taking to task. The Sun is a bit of a rag, but even then, their support isn't unconditional.
Generally I find the news articles reasonably free of obvious bias. Op eds are another story, but even there if they are critical, it's generally for a good reason and based on facts, with no party safe from criticism from their supporters when they drop the ball. I really don't buy the line that MSM is biased, and find the fringe media can be shockingly loose with facts and are effectively PR for a specific political group. You can't just look at op eds and say that the whole MSM is biased; their entire point is to give someone with an inherently biased opinion a platform.
Polls show Canadians are overall socially liberal and fiscally on the conservative side, which is why even our Conservative party is more centrist that even the US 'left wing' party. I think people confuse having liberal/conservative views with supporting the Liberal or Conservative party, and seem to think that reporting on issues that reflect the centrist values of the average Canadian is somehow supporting one or the other.
People have been predicting the end of the fourth estate since the advent of radio, and most internet columnists still seem to be shooting for a gig with the NYT or whatever. Smart papers business models are evolving, and if you look at outfits like the Guardian, have been successful at adopting an increasing number of online subscribers to offset the bottom line. They have done that by going with a low dollar value volume approach, which works with the internet when you can tap into a large international audience.
TL;DR: Calling BS on MSM bias; put up facts to support.