Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Media

CTV News caught splicing misleading clip of Poilievre

Published

6 months ago

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By AnthonyMurdoch

CTV News has since apologized for airing the doctored footage, but claimed it was the result of a ‘misunderstanding’ during the editing process. The Conservatives have since hit back saying they are ‘boycotting’ the outlet until it is admitted the footage was intentionally manipulated.

Canada’s Conservative Party is livid after one of the nation’s largest corporate media outlets, which gets funding from the Trudeau government, was caught splicing a video clip to make it appear party leader Pierre Poilievre said something he did not.  

On Monday, Sebastian Skamski, media relations person for Poilievre, took to X to explain that mainstream media news outlet CTV News ran a doctored video clip of the Conservative leader on television misleading viewers, accusing the news outlet of “propagating” the “Trudeau Liberals’ narrative.”

Skamski explained, and proved, that the news outlet had spliced video of Poilievre talking to make it seem as though he was calling for an election because he opposed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s dental plan, when the real footage was about the Conservative leader’s opposition to the carbon tax.

“Today @CTVNews was caught splicing a clip of @PierrePoilievre to propagate the Liberals’ narrative. This is not only a total fabrication designed to deceive Canadians but also a major breach of journalistic ethics,” wrote Skamski on X.

“CTV must apologize for their flagrant use of disinformation.” 

Skamski then shared a clip of the original video footage, compared to the doctored CTV footage. 

“Not only is @PierrePoilievre’s quote clearly about the carbon tax (cut from CTV’s broadcast), @CTVNews bizarrely manipulated it,” he wrote. 

The real quote by Poilievre was, “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.”  

The incident drew immediate backlash from Conservative MPs.

“@CTVNews, you spliced three parts of different sentences together to create a new one that Pierre never said. That’s not a misunderstanding during editing, that’s fabricating disinformation. Where is your apology for that?,” wrote Conservative MP Chris Warkentin on X Monday.  

Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman ripped CTV News as untrustworthy and an outlet that “pumps” out “disinformation” to protect Trudeau.

“CTV gets caught pumping disinformation to protect the Prime Minister who subsidizes them,” she wrote on X Monday. 

After the backlash, CTV News issued an “apology” for the altered news clip, admitting that the clip was presented in an “out of context” manner, claiming the debacle was the result of a “misunderstanding during the editing process.” 

“Last night in a report on this broadcast, we presented a comment by the Official Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre that was taken out of context,” said CTV.  

“It left viewers with the impression the Conservative non confidence motion was to defeat the Liberals’ dental care program. In fact, the Conservatives have made it clear the motion is based on a long list of issues with the Liberal government including the carbon tax. A misunderstanding during the editing process resulted in this misrepresentation. We unreservedly apologize to Mr. Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada. We regret this report went to air in the manner it did.”

The Conservatives did not buy the apology, however, announcing Tuesday that the party will refuse to engage with CTV News reporters until “they explicitly acknowledge their malicious editing & omission of context to undermine” Poilievre.

The Liberal federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pumped billions into propping up the mostly state-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) as well as large payouts for legacy media outlets including CTV, ahead of the 2025 federal election. In total, the subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers $129 million over the next five years.   

Tomorrow, the Conservatives will be voting on a motion of non-confidence in the House of Commons. If successful, it would trigger an election.

The motion is likely to fail, as even though NDP leader Singh pulled his official support for Trudeau’s Liberals two weeks ago, in recent days he has been mum on whether he will vote for or against the Liberals when a vote occurs. 

As for the Trudeau Liberals, it is widely accepted that they are floundering, having lost two recent byelections, one in Quebec and the other in Ontario, in what were considered “safe” Liberal ridings. 

The most recent loss suggests that Trudeau’s Liberal government is indeed hanging on by a thread, as all recent polls show that Poilievre’s Conservative Party is set to win big when the next federal election takes place.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Opinion / 3 hours ago

Some scientists advocate creating human bodies for ‘spare parts.’

International / 6 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Alberta / 8 hours ago

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on March 30, 2025

By

logo

By Cam Wakefield

“It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,”

“We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”

You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages.
For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?
What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”
Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

Make a one-time donation
Continue Reading

Media

Top Five Huge Stories the Media Buried This Week

Published on March 30, 2025

By

#5 – CNN panel lectures America on military “accountability”… and then melts down when Scott Jennings points out that no one was held accountable for the disaster in Afghanistan or Biden’s open border.

NEERA TANDEN: “The military requires accountability. It’s the most accountable organization. You are supposed to be accountable to higher-ups. Politics isn’t supposed to have to do with any of this, and the fact that that’s happening, that they’re just basically saying nothing to do here, is a big problem, I think, for those who believe in accountability.”

@ScottJenningsKY: “I think Republicans aren’t interested in any lectures on accountability in the military after the Biden administration. I mean, the bar for getting rid of a Secretary of Defense is apparently pretty high. You can get 13 people killed and go AWOL and not tell the commander in chief, and that’s not a fireable offense.”

“But these lectures about accountability and national security after letting 10 million people into the country who raped and murdered and committed violent acts and no remorse or accountability.”

NEERA TANDEN: “What are you talking about? They closed the border.”

#4 – Bill Gates says we won’t need humans “for most things.”

During an appearance on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon asked Gates a pretty direct question: “Will we still need humans?”

Gates responded, “Not for most things. We’ll decide … There will be some things that we reserve for ourselves, but in terms of making things and moving things and growing food, over time those will be basically solved problems.”

VIDEO: @TheChiefNerd

#3 – Rep. Jim Jordan hammers NPR CEO Katherine Maher for three straight minutes over political bias, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and NPR’s 87-to-0 Democrat staff ratio.

REP JORDAN: “Is NPR biased?”

MAHER: “I have never seen any political bias.”

JORDAN: “In the DC area, editorial positions at NPR have 87 registered Democrats and 0 Republicans.”

MAHER: “We do not track the voter registration, but I find that concerning.”

JORDAN: “87-0 and you’re not biased?”

MAHER: “I think that is concerning if those numbers are accurate.”

JORDAN: “October 2020, the NYPost had the Hunter Biden laptop story, and one of those 87 Democrat editors said, ‘We don’t want to waste our readers and listeners’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.’ Was that story a pure distraction?”

Video + Transcript via @Kanekoathegreat

While you’re here, don’t forget to subscribe to this page for more weekly news roundups.

#2 – Utah becomes the first state to officially BAN fluoride in all public drinking water.

For decades, fluoride was accepted as a safe way to prevent tooth decay. Few questioned it.

But last year, in a dramatic legal twist, a federal judge ruled that fluoride may actually lower children’s IQ—and cited evidence that could upend everything we thought we knew.

That ruling sent shockwaves through the public health world.

Judge Edward Chen pointed to scientific studies showing a “high level of certainty” that fluoride exposure “poses a risk” to developing brains.

He ordered the EPA to reexamine its safety standards, warning that the margin for safety may be far too narrow.

At the center of the case: dozens of peer-reviewed studies linking everyday fluoride exposure—even at levels found in U.S. tap water—to reduced intellectual capacity in children.

It wasn’t just one paper. The National Toxicology Program, a branch of the U.S. government, also concluded that higher fluoride levels were “consistently associated” with lower IQ in kids.

They flagged 1.5 mg/L as a risk threshold. Some communities hover right near it.

In response to the growing evidence, Utah passed HB 81, banning all fluoride additives in public water.

The law takes effect May 7. It doesn’t ban fluoride completely. Anyone who wants it can still get it—like any other prescription.

And that’s the point: Utah’s lawmakers say this is about informed consent and personal choice.

This issue is no longer on the fringe. Across the country, cities and towns are quietly rethinking water fluoridation—and some have already pulled out. Utah is the first state to take bold action. It may not be the last.

The conversation surrounding fluoride has shifted from “Is it helpful?” to “Is it safe?” And for the first time in nearly a century, that question is being taken seriously.

VIDEO: @TheChiefNerd

#1 – RFK Jr. Drops Stunning Vaccine Announcement

Kennedy revealed that the CDC is creating a new sub-agency focused entirely on vaccine injuries—a long-overdue shift for patients who’ve spent years searching for answers without any support from the government.

“We’re incorporating an agency within CDC that is going to specialize in vaccine injuries,” Kennedy announced.

“These are priorities for the American people. More and more people are suffering from these injuries, and we are committed to having gold-standard science make sure that we can figure out what the treatments are and that we can deliver the best treatments possible to the American people.”

For years, the vaccine-injured have felt ignored or dismissed, as public health agencies refused to even acknowledge the problem. Now, there’s finally an initiative underway to investigate their injuries and to provide support.

Thanks for reading! This weekly roundup takes time and care to put together—and I do my best to make it your go-to source for the stories that matter most but rarely get the attention they deserve.

If you like my work and want to support me and my family and help keep this page alive, the most powerful thing you can do is sign up for the email list and become a paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X