Criticism is useful when it is accurate and substantive. A continual stream of attacks based on fears, misconceptions, and speculation can be corrosive and even destructive of good government. The media have as much responsibility to get things right as the government has.
A good journalist challenges me to think deeper on issues. We also know that foreign and Cdn actors look for dissent and use algorithms to boost it ie undermining trust in democratic institutions including the press. Trump et al pushes the mantra of "balanced reporting ". Media headlines for click bait also feed the extreme partisanship that hurts our democracy . So I agree with you in principal but professional media need to do their share to protect freedoms.
There are so many issues to unpack here, I don't even know where to start. So I will go randomly:
- Any healthy democracy necessitates independent journalism and a loyal but rigorous opposition. They are not the enemy of government, they are an integral part of a functioning democracy.
- Having said that, when it comes to international relations especially with the current US administration, it is good to be critical "inside Canada" but present a united front when dealing with the US. One thing does not preclude the other, in my work I always encourage people to tell me "Why am I wrong", but once we make a decision we all own it when facing the public.
- Your comment about subscriptions ebbs and flows based on your level of critique point to something very concerning: journalism and deep thinking in 2025 depend on the same economy than an Uber driver: Self-employed, without a safety net, and relying on the largesse of those who can afford to support you and others. But resources are finite; I struggle between CanadaLand, you, and The Line. All worth of support, but I have to pay the bills to keep my house warm and with lights on... This model is not sustainable. Perhaps we should treat journalism as a public utility. I know this is controversial and I can be proven wrong, but some form of licensing or adherence to standards for the profession may not be awful, if we then fund those journalists to do good, independent work.
- The issue is not about accepting different view points, that is step one. Step two is to be able to adjust our priors if the argument we are listening or reading to is superior to ours. It takes humility and a willingness to say "hey, you have a better argument" or "hey your data proves me wrong". We have lost that capacity and many in the media and in politics punsh those who change their minds. It should be celebrated!
As someone who has been described as to "the left of Karl Marx", I go out of my way to read right wing thinkers so I come to understand where they are coming from to gain perspective-context. I do not assume that I know it all- that they don't have insights that can be helpful. Good faith is essential. Essential for not dismissing or dehumanizing- othering people opposing views. For example, one could dismiss Rod Dreher as white Christian racist replacement theorist and miss his finer insights that he shares with the likes of Iain McGilchrist an extraordinary inclusive thinker.
Subscribed to you because you wrote something that resonated with me, the more I read you the more I knew we are not alike. That is why I will continue to read you, I can agree to disagree and amazing sometimes we agree. Like this article.
I find your words fascinating; and I agree on the rational of following those you disagree with. My question is if you agree with free speech, freedom, what could you possibly disagree with a man who thinks that way?
freedom of speech has nothing to do with beliefs. it is the ability to openly debate disagreements. I do not always agree with Mr Miscrop because I do not find his reasoning sound in all cases ( my opinion) . I need his opinion as a sounding board on my own opinions. Freedom of speech is not about everyone reciting the same thing but ability to offer dissenting opinion.
freedom of speech itself is an act, and you are correct, speech in itself has nothing to do with beliefs. However your description is flawed. Beliefs are what you speak about. And to the next section; Yes, I agree to disagree all the time. Next; maybe we all do? Epilogue; Yes, speech is not reciting the same jargon.
I'm still waiting for a Canadian or North American Journalist to write about and elucidate the real status quo about Despotic Democracy and Particratic Rule. You seem a likely figure able to do both for the sake of Democracy and the Freedoms we take per granted while we enjoy them.
I would add a thought on the underlying reason for the forced silence. Why are they doing this? Certainly we all agree it is to cover up their lies. But that is one single surface effect. The other is it causes frustration, division, as they demand we get along...
The most calculable notion they initiated, was people brainwashed with different educations, religions, and climes, can reasonably get along.
When it proved we could not, they told us (the one side raised here), to shut up. We can not legally say how we feel about all that; men need to vent; the calmest are always the fighters; they get it all out. I bet you feel good )))
Hey, good take on why criticizing the government should stay fair game, even amid crises. But history shows how quickly that changes: during the First World War, Ottawa invoked the War Measures Act for widespread press censorship and to ban anti-war publications. It jailed radicals too. Nuances like that highlight why we need safeguards against overreach today.
For the record, the Pentagon's "embed" program was Donald Rumsfeld's ingenious way of controlling the media -- not giving them access. 0f the roughly 600 journalists who were approved by the Pentagon, fewer than 60 got access to actual combat.
I’m pleased to subscribe to read your take on what’s happening in this changing world and the impact on Canada and Canadians. I respect your journalism. I also subscribe to other publications by authors/opinion-ists simply to get a sense of the biases out there. I’m not a fan of foreign owned ‘media’ but find it interesting to read these perspectives. Some I even pay for. And I frequently comment to question the validity or rationale. So my bias is people first- Canadians first and given the global economy, neoliberalism is manifesting itself as personal insults against citizens rather than fixing the policies enabling continued monopolies and greed. (A bit of my rant!!)
I also subscribe to another Canadian politics newsletter that I certainly agree with less than I agree with you, but they do raise some good points (even if I don't agree with their solutions a lot of the time), so I grit my teeth and keep reading.
Criticism is useful when it is accurate and substantive. A continual stream of attacks based on fears, misconceptions, and speculation can be corrosive and even destructive of good government. The media have as much responsibility to get things right as the government has.
A good journalist challenges me to think deeper on issues. We also know that foreign and Cdn actors look for dissent and use algorithms to boost it ie undermining trust in democratic institutions including the press. Trump et al pushes the mantra of "balanced reporting ". Media headlines for click bait also feed the extreme partisanship that hurts our democracy . So I agree with you in principal but professional media need to do their share to protect freedoms.
First sentences are redundant.
There are so many issues to unpack here, I don't even know where to start. So I will go randomly:
- Any healthy democracy necessitates independent journalism and a loyal but rigorous opposition. They are not the enemy of government, they are an integral part of a functioning democracy.
- Having said that, when it comes to international relations especially with the current US administration, it is good to be critical "inside Canada" but present a united front when dealing with the US. One thing does not preclude the other, in my work I always encourage people to tell me "Why am I wrong", but once we make a decision we all own it when facing the public.
- Your comment about subscriptions ebbs and flows based on your level of critique point to something very concerning: journalism and deep thinking in 2025 depend on the same economy than an Uber driver: Self-employed, without a safety net, and relying on the largesse of those who can afford to support you and others. But resources are finite; I struggle between CanadaLand, you, and The Line. All worth of support, but I have to pay the bills to keep my house warm and with lights on... This model is not sustainable. Perhaps we should treat journalism as a public utility. I know this is controversial and I can be proven wrong, but some form of licensing or adherence to standards for the profession may not be awful, if we then fund those journalists to do good, independent work.
- The issue is not about accepting different view points, that is step one. Step two is to be able to adjust our priors if the argument we are listening or reading to is superior to ours. It takes humility and a willingness to say "hey, you have a better argument" or "hey your data proves me wrong". We have lost that capacity and many in the media and in politics punsh those who change their minds. It should be celebrated!
Ok, rant is over.
As someone who has been described as to "the left of Karl Marx", I go out of my way to read right wing thinkers so I come to understand where they are coming from to gain perspective-context. I do not assume that I know it all- that they don't have insights that can be helpful. Good faith is essential. Essential for not dismissing or dehumanizing- othering people opposing views. For example, one could dismiss Rod Dreher as white Christian racist replacement theorist and miss his finer insights that he shares with the likes of Iain McGilchrist an extraordinary inclusive thinker.
Subscribed to you because you wrote something that resonated with me, the more I read you the more I knew we are not alike. That is why I will continue to read you, I can agree to disagree and amazing sometimes we agree. Like this article.
Thank you!
Why?
I find your words fascinating; and I agree on the rational of following those you disagree with. My question is if you agree with free speech, freedom, what could you possibly disagree with a man who thinks that way?
freedom of speech has nothing to do with beliefs. it is the ability to openly debate disagreements. I do not always agree with Mr Miscrop because I do not find his reasoning sound in all cases ( my opinion) . I need his opinion as a sounding board on my own opinions. Freedom of speech is not about everyone reciting the same thing but ability to offer dissenting opinion.
freedom of speech itself is an act, and you are correct, speech in itself has nothing to do with beliefs. However your description is flawed. Beliefs are what you speak about. And to the next section; Yes, I agree to disagree all the time. Next; maybe we all do? Epilogue; Yes, speech is not reciting the same jargon.
This Public Servant thanks you for your service 🙌🏻
I'm still waiting for a Canadian or North American Journalist to write about and elucidate the real status quo about Despotic Democracy and Particratic Rule. You seem a likely figure able to do both for the sake of Democracy and the Freedoms we take per granted while we enjoy them.
Thank You and may you continue your good work!
Define particratic for me please.
Well written.
I would add a thought on the underlying reason for the forced silence. Why are they doing this? Certainly we all agree it is to cover up their lies. But that is one single surface effect. The other is it causes frustration, division, as they demand we get along...
The most calculable notion they initiated, was people brainwashed with different educations, religions, and climes, can reasonably get along.
When it proved we could not, they told us (the one side raised here), to shut up. We can not legally say how we feel about all that; men need to vent; the calmest are always the fighters; they get it all out. I bet you feel good )))
Hey, good take on why criticizing the government should stay fair game, even amid crises. But history shows how quickly that changes: during the First World War, Ottawa invoked the War Measures Act for widespread press censorship and to ban anti-war publications. It jailed radicals too. Nuances like that highlight why we need safeguards against overreach today.
For the record, the Pentagon's "embed" program was Donald Rumsfeld's ingenious way of controlling the media -- not giving them access. 0f the roughly 600 journalists who were approved by the Pentagon, fewer than 60 got access to actual combat.
It is my god given right, duty and honour to criticize every single government on the face of the planet
I’m pleased to subscribe to read your take on what’s happening in this changing world and the impact on Canada and Canadians. I respect your journalism. I also subscribe to other publications by authors/opinion-ists simply to get a sense of the biases out there. I’m not a fan of foreign owned ‘media’ but find it interesting to read these perspectives. Some I even pay for. And I frequently comment to question the validity or rationale. So my bias is people first- Canadians first and given the global economy, neoliberalism is manifesting itself as personal insults against citizens rather than fixing the policies enabling continued monopolies and greed. (A bit of my rant!!)
Sticking to a bubble of news you only agree with is not good for you or society.
Really good post (paid subscriber here).
I also subscribe to another Canadian politics newsletter that I certainly agree with less than I agree with you, but they do raise some good points (even if I don't agree with their solutions a lot of the time), so I grit my teeth and keep reading.
Breadth of intake results in validity of output.
Results in validity of doubt?