Connect with us

COVID-19

“If you tell the truth consistently, trust is automatic” – Former CBC Reporter blasts media coverage during pandemic and Freedom Convoy

Published

5 minute read

Article submitted by Adele Paul

Former CBC reporter testifies at National Citizen’s Inquiry in Toronto

At the National Citizens Inquiry in Toronto, former CBC reporter Rodney Palmer delivered testimony critical of Canada’s public broadcaster during the COVID-19 crisis. Palmer testified to a series of events that he called engaging in ‘propaganda’ and censorship rather than good faith ‘newsgathering’ at CBC.

The events included an April 4th, 2020, piece from Adrienne Arsenault entitled “How to talk to your family about COVID-19 misinformation” which offered suggestions on how to talk to family members who might falsely suggest the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from a lab. Palmer asserts that there was insufficient evidence at that time to make any definitive claims about the virus’ origin.

Other events of concern to Palmer were the steps taken by the CBC to promote ‘trust’ in journalism since 2021 which include joining international conglomerates including the Trusted News Initiative and the Trust Project, among others, which sought to control the spread of ‘misinformation’. This, according to Palmer, was an attempt to address a March 2021 survey which concluded that half of Canadians polled said they felt journalists intentionally try to mislead them. Palmer was critical of this approach stating, “If you tell the truth consistently, trust is automatic.”

In addition, Palmer testified that CBC actively engaged regularly in censorship. One such event happened in 2021. CBC Marketplace reported over 800 pieces of content to social media giants demanding that they be censored, many of which were subsequently taken down.

Another red flag for Palmer was the public broadcaster’s reporting on early treatment of COVID-19. In fall of 2021, CBC issued a series of stories which reported that ivermectin, a widely administered anti-parasitic drug cited by many medical professionals as a treatment for the disease, was primarily for use in livestock and warned that it could potentially kill or make humans seriously ill. Their reports, he said, failed to include that ivermectin was a nobel-prize winning and widely-used medication for humans and cited in extensive scientific literature as having a therapeutic benefit for COVID-19.

Palmer concluded with some of his own work covering the Freedom Convoy in which he interviewed a number of truck drivers, many of them people of colour, who denounced the notion that the movement was led by racists or white supremacists, a narrative espoused by Canadian politicians including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and bolstered repeatedly by the CBC.

When asked what might be done to improve the prospects for Canadian media, Palmer was reserved. He said they might be forgiven for the exceptions they took early on in the emergency when they acted as a mouthpiece for Public Health when little was known about the virus, but finished by saying “the emergency is over, but the exception still exists.”

The National Citizens Inquiry, a citizen-led initiative aimed at giving voice to citizens regarding Canada’s response to COVID-19, kicked off its second round of testimonies in Toronto Thursday morning. The inquiry launched in Truro on March 16 and will facilitate 8 hearings across the country throughout the spring collecting testimonies from ordinary Canadians and expert witnesses.


From the National Citizens Inquiry Facebook page

Rodney Palmer is an award-winning journalist who has worked for 20 years as a foreign correspondent for CTV news and investigative reporter for CBC Radio & Television in Canada and abroad. He was the CTV News Foreign Correspondent and Bureau Chief in India, China, and the Middle East.
Rodney’s explosive testimony during the NCI #Toronto hearing on day 1 provided evidence as to how #CBC in particular is not conducting newsgathering, they are focusing on propaganda.

 

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

Business

Trudeau gov’t threatens to punish tech companies that fail to censor ‘disinformation’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A report from the House of Commons Heritage Committee claimed that ‘some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.’

A report from a Canadian federal committee said MPs should enact laws to penalize social media and tech companies that don’t take action to quell so-called “undesirable or questionable” content on the internet.

MPs from the ruling Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP), and separatists Bloc Québécois party on the House of Commons Heritage Committee summarized their opinions in a report.

“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money,” reads the report titled Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.

“Disinformation creates ‘doubt and confusion’ and can be particularly harmful when it involves health information,” it continues.

The report notes how such “disinformation” can cause “financial harms as well as political polarization and distrust in key institutions,” adding, “The prevalence of disinformation can be difficult to determine.”

As noted in Blacklock’s Reporter, the report claims that many of Canada’s “major societal harms” have come from “unregulated social media platforms relying on algorithms to amplify content, among them disinformation and conspiracy theories.”

Of note is the committee failed to define what “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories” meant.

Most of the MPs on the committee made the recommendation that Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms, which ironically have at one point or another clamped down on free speech themselves, “put mechanisms in place to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”

“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” the report stated.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian legal group The Democracy Fund (TDF) warned that the Liberal government’s Bill C-63 seeks to further clamp down on online speech and will “weaponize” the nation’s courts to favor the ruling federal party and do nothing but create an atmosphere of “fear.”

Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.

Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, recently accused the bill of attempting to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation.

Conservative MPs fight back: ‘A government bureaucracy should not regulate content’

Conservative MPs fought back the Heritage Committee’s majority findings and in a Dissenting Report said the committee did not understand what the role of the internet is in society, which is that it should be free from regulation.

“The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada and the role played by tech giants and the current federal government,” the Conservatives wrote in their dissenting report, adding, “Canadians are increasingly being censored by the government and tech giants as to what they can see, hear and say online.”

The Conservative MPs noted that when it comes to the internet, it is “boundless,” and that “Anyone who wants to have a presence on the internet can have one.”

“A government bureaucracy should not regulate which content should be prioritized and which should be demoted,” it noted, adding, “There is space for all.”

LifeSiteNews reported how the Conservative Party has warned that Trudeau’s Bill C-63 is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced or become known before the next election.

The law calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.

The bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying pre-emptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.

Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Blue Cross Blue Shield forced to pay $12 million to Catholic worker fired for refusing COVID shots

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

A jury ruled that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan committed religious discrimination against 30-year IT specialist and Catholic Lisa Domski when it denied her a religious accommodation from the company’s COVID shot mandate.

A former IT specialist for Blue Cross Blue Shield has been awarded $12 million in damages and lost wages for her lawsuit over being fired for refusing the COVID-19 shot, in a major victory for religious liberty.

Newsweek reports that the insurance company fired 30-year employee Lisa Domski in 2021 after she sought a religious exemption to their jab mandate and was turned down. The insurer reportedly questioned the sincerity of her religious objections as a Catholic, but denied religious discrimination in the trial. 

Domski further maintained that the rationale behind mandating the shot didn’t apply in her case, as 75% of her work was remote before the pandemic and had shifted to fully remote during it, meaning she could not possibly have endangered others even if the shot did prevent transmission, which has since been admitted to not be the case.

“Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom for each American to practice his or her own religion,” declared her attorney Jon Marko. “Neither the government nor a corporation has a right to force an individual to choose between his or her career and conscience. Lisa refused to renounce her faith and beliefs and was wrongfully terminated from the only job she had ever known. The jury’s verdict today tells [Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan] that religious discrimination has no place in America and affirms each person’s right to religious freedom.”

In response, the company said it was “disappointed” in the jury verdict and would be “reviewing its legal options and will determine its path forward in the coming days.”

Many religious and pro-life Americans like Lisa Domski have a moral objection to using medical products whose existence is owed in some way to abortion.

According to a detailed overview by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson all used aborted fetal cells during their vaccines’ testing phase; and Johnson & Johnson also used the cells during the design and development and production phases. The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s journal Science has admitted the same, and even the left-wing fact-checking outlet Snopes acknowledges the statement “that such cell lines were used in the development of COVID-19 vaccines is accurate.”

Moral qualms are just one of the reasons for the ongoing controversy, next to a large body of evidence identifying significant risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the first Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 38,068 deaths, 218,646 hospitalizations, 22,002 heart attacks, and 28,706 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of October 25, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

All eyes are currently on former President Donald Trump, who last week won his campaign to return to the White House and whose team has given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which he has long taken credit. At the very least, Trump has consistently opposed mandating them and is expected to fill more federal judicial vacancies with jurists favorably inclined to the rights of employees in similar lawsuits.

Meanwhile, some hope that legal action can succeed in bringing accountability on the issue by legally targeting the companies for misrepresentation rather than their products directly. In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the shots’ manufacturers is slated to release a highly anticipated report on the injections, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of fraud for calling the shots “safe and effective.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X