One of my beefs with how Canada’s legacy media covers elections is they can be very superficial: Lots of commentary about horse race polls and staged events, not much focus on issues and ideas.
The reason something like @pressprogress exists is because bigger outlets keep missing important stories.
We focus on stories on underreported issues like social and economic inequality, big business and labour, right-wing politics and extremism, civic institutions, etc.
That’s our editorial mission. Those are our perameters. We basically spend our time looking for original stories inside those areas of coverage.
During this election, @pressprogress is going to keep doing what we always do, but we want to emphasize a few other things too:
1. We’re going to look specifically at how election platforms impact working-class people.
If you want to know what the nation’s business elites think about election promises, go read the @nationalpost. If you want a working-class lens, consider visiting pressprogress dot ca.
2. We’re also keeping our eyes peeled to fact-check bad information.
We have special tools we use to monitor the information that pops up in Canadians’ news feeds. Our team reguarly monitors a pretty vast network of right-wing Facebook pages and other fringe online communities.
3. We’re also going to scrutinize extreme candidates. That’s important, esp. given the disturbing numbers of people radicalized by unhinged conspiracies during the pandemic and Trump years.
Canadians should be informed about those who want the power to create and pass laws.
An election is a process for selecting who has the power to make life-or-death decisions that could impact you and your family.
It’s not a reality TV show, it’s not a sport.
That’s why @pressprogress will keep breaking stories and focusing on issues the big outlets miss.
Anyway, if you like what you hear and want to support our work over the next 36 days, we do investigative and explanatory journalism and we’re run on a non-profit model:
A man connected to a far-right group that's been camped out at the War Memorial followed a Radio-Canada journalist down Sparks Street today and physically attempted to place him under "citizen's arrest" as he tried to enter the CBC Ottawa building.
The far-right group that posted the video apparently thought they were attempting to place a Bloc Québécois MP under "citizen's arrest."
(I deleted an earlier tweet that misidentified the journalist in the video as an MP based on the info they posted).
In this @CBCTheNational segment, CBC fails to disclose both CBC and the Winnipeg Free Press (whom they interview) are both lobbying the government for the exact same policy change discussed in this segment.
That is a conflict-of-interest.
Earlier this year, CBC and other for-profit news publishers signed a letter asking the government to rewrite copyright laws to entitle them to money whenever a link to their content is shared online.
CBC asked *no* critical questions about this idea.
A website like @natnewswatch, influential among Ottawa journalists and decision-makers, would likely be forced to pay money just to post links to news articles and directing traffic to their websites.
BC’s Supreme Court did not sound impressed with the Fraser Institute’s health care expert in today’s ruling upholding public health care.
The judge said the expert had “no academic affiliation, no peer reviewed publications and no training or experience in medical issues.”
The judge concluded that the Fraser Institute’s expert is “minimally qualified as an expert.”
After looking at his qualifications, the judge said the expert made “embellishments of his experience” relating to claims about “being an expert witness” and doing “non-partisan work.”
The judge added that he “seriously question(s)” the idea that the Fraser Institute’s wait-time surveys can be “relied upon as providing reliable data,” pointing out their research has some “fundamental statistical issues.”
Oh wow, Canada’s heritage minister thinks it is “immoral” that big media conglomerates do not get paid money for people sharing links to their stories?
He seems to think the Internet should work like a top 40 radio station – which is a really bad idea.
There are a bazillion legitimate problems with social media platforms, but the idea that it is “immoral” to copy-paste links to websites for free is not one of them.
Every media outlet in Canada freely chooses to post their stories on FB & Twitter. No one forced them to do that.
Hell, if we’re seriously going down this road, then why shouldn’t everyone get money for their tweets?
Why does Global News get compensated if someone tweets a link to their story, but Twitter users don’t get compensated if Global News embeds their tweet in one of their stories?
Fun fact: In 1976, the House of Commons came within a whisker of banning scabs from the Parliamentary Press Gallery after a motion from NDP MP @LorneNystrom was defeated by Liberal and Tory backbenchers.
The Canadian Press had brought in scab journalists during a labour dispute.
A few days earlier, the Parliamentary Press Gallery itself actually voted to ban the Canadian Press altogether in response to its use of scabs.
(Hard to imagine the press gallery showing that kind of solidarity over a labour dispute today).
To illustrate how different attitudes were back then, both Pierre Trudeau and Joe Clark straight up refused to answer questions from CP’s scab journalists because doing so would "sanction strike-breaking."
Joe Clark told a scab to go “wait outside until the conference was over.”