{"id":97191,"date":"2025-08-18T05:00:15","date_gmt":"2025-08-18T09:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=97191"},"modified":"2025-08-17T12:16:29","modified_gmt":"2025-08-17T16:16:29","slug":"canadas-state-subsidized-media-now-seem-to-see-their-job-as-pro-government-pr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2025\/08\/18\/canadas-state-subsidized-media-now-seem-to-see-their-job-as-pro-government-pr\/","title":{"rendered":"Canada’s state-subsidized media now seem to see their job as pro-government PR"},"content":{"rendered":"

At The Rewrite<\/em>, Peter Menzies<\/a> considers the state of Canadian media in how they reported on the Maritime provinces’ draconian policies during the ongoing wildfire season:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Screencaptured image of one of the August 2025 wildfires in the Maritimes from Global News via The Rewrite<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

There will always be conflicts between collective rights and individual liberties. One is valuable in ensuring there is order in society, which is important. The other is necessary to maintain freedom, which lots of people live without but is nevertheless desirable. When there’s too much freedom, people look for politicians who will restore order. When there is too much order, people rebel and demand freedom (see everything from the French Revolution to the Freedom Convoy).<\/p>\n

Traditionally, those inclined to the order side if the ledger have been viewed as conservatives while “liberals” have led the fight for individual freedom manifest in the civil rights movement, the emancipation and advancement of women, freedom of speech, etc. that are now viewed as fundamental to the maintenance of a modern, liberal democracy.<\/p>\n

But as Pete Townsend wrote<\/a> a little more than half a century ago, the parting on the left is now the parting on the right (and the beards have all grown longer overnight). Journalists tend to lean left, which means their traditional opposition to the imposition of order has been replaced by a collectivist tendency to sympathize with those imposing it. It is left to the newsroom minorities on the right to carry the torch for individual liberties.<\/p>\n

To wit, this CBC story<\/a> on Nova Scotia’s wild fire-induced ban — enforced with a $25,000 fine until Oct. 15 — on walking anywhere in the woods was oblivious to the impact on personal freedom. Never crossed their minds. When the issue was raised on social media, Twitter journos took up the cause. Stephen Maher dismissed individual liberty concerns as fringe views and maintained that the restrictions could be justified<\/a> as “reasonable” limitations of Charter rights. While the Globe and Mail<\/em>‘s editorial board called the Nova Scotia move “draconian”, Globe<\/em> columnist Andrew Coyne nevertheless wondered<\/a> “How the hell did the right to walk in the woods of Nova Scotia during a forest fire emergency get elevated into the right’s latest cultural obsession?”<\/p>\n

It was left to commentators such as Marco Navarro-Genie<\/a> to point out the intellectual flaccidity fueling parts of the collectivist argument when New Brunswick followed Nova Scotia’s lead and NB Premier Susan Holt said this:<\/p>\n