Establishment media is making the case for mandatory service, quietly cultivating public consent for a more heavily-armed society
It’s probably on Canada’s best interest to have more people serve. And that doesn’t have to be a bad thing, it’s kind of like a public servant job with extra steps. A lot of it is administrative or technical desk jobs. It’s the one rare situation where conservatives will allow any sort of public spending or inflated budget, because it’s camouflaged (literally).
So yeah sure, let’s get the army to hire more civil engineers and put them to handle climate change infrastructure changes. Train more tactical operations and lend a hand on wildfire emergencies. The military is very flexible, and if it’s a bipartisan approach to get more tax dollars dedicated to good things, go ahead.
Irrespective of the topic, I am a bit tired of this kind of journalism that accuses others - in this case, the “elite media” - of “cultivating public consent,” while at the same time it is exactly what they are doing themselves.
That’s a sensationalist headline that gives you the desired opinion (you don’t even need to click) and a poor content ignoring major facts important to the issue that are not even mentioned.
Overall, they have a strong bias in narratives, it’s by definition neither independent nor quality media imo.
Overall, they have a strong bias in narratives <…>
Advocacy journalism is popular for a reason. When average corporate media tries to find middle ground position between someone working 2 jobs to survive and someone owning 10 yacths, it’s refreshing to hear postions that represent 99% instead of 1% of people.
In this particular case, they are pretty open about what they stand for: https://breachmedia.ca/about/
<…> it’s by definition neither independent nor quality media imo.
It’s objectively independent as they are not funded by any single interest group, but actual readers. That doesn’t mean they don’t have their own opinions and perspectives.
Except for the Ukranian or Venezuelan people… for “some reason” they will remind us of how badly the 1% of Russia and Venzuela have been treated. They’ve been pretty good about Palestine, but they’ve been getting shelled every day and only al Jazeera still cares.
When average corporate media tries to find middle ground position …
Is the “elite media” now is trying to “cultivating public consent” as the article says, or - as you say - do they try “to find middle ground”?
This ‘advocacy journalism’ is no journalism at all. It doesn’t even intend to research all the facts but rather only those that fit into a certain predefined narrative (while accusing others of being biased). Based on this half-truth, they then give you a desired opinion.
This is inherently bad as it only aims to sow division and makes any civilised political discourse increasingly impossible. That’s exactly what extremists from the right and left as well as malign foreign state actors want.
Is the “elite media” now is trying to “cultivating public consent” as the article says, or - as you say - do they try “to find middle ground”?
Both. As you said in the first few words of your comment, my comment was also “Irrespective of the topic <…>” and instead a direct response to you, not the attached article.
Look at how corporate media tried to justify US illegally kidnapping a president of a sovereign country. It’s against both US and international law, but media tried to manufacture consent for it by saying that Maduro was a bad guy.
Now look at flight attendants union strike in Canada where corporate media represented the postion of the government, the airlines and called flight attendants unreasonable for inconveniencing the travelers by demaning that they get paid for full day of work instead of just when they are in the air. That’s clear anti-worker reporting that hurts working people and defends corporate interests.
The corporate media coverage of the last two major union fights - flight attendants and Canada Post was pretty anti-working class. I distinctly recall how segment after segment there was representation only from the bosses. Next to no airtime was given to the union leaders. Almost like there is a class war being waged on the working class. 😉
E: Sorry it’s all the manufactured consent propaganda making me want to fight the rich. /s
This ‘manufactured consent’ is a very widespread propaganda buzzword, and from the way it is mostly used there are strong doubts that many people have read the book where it comes from. But Herman and Chomsky’s book “Manufacturing consent” is heavily used in Chinese propaganda circles, there is even a Chinese translation as you may know (while other Western books are censored in China. Why?)
This is pure propaganda that leads any discussion always to some sort of ‘class struggle.’ It’s always a fight. It’s all about us and them. If you don’t share the opinion, you are the enemy. In this setting, no other solution is possible. Period.
There we go. It took a total of 3 replies to get from concern trolling about Canadian independent media to Chinese propaganda allegations. Unhinged.
Why does all of this shit sound like an evil corporate cabal doing even more dastardly shit? Clicks for fear…even more clicks for hate. There is more profit in a dark hell-scape than there is in the areas that contain sunshine, flowers, and critical thinking. Fuck capitalism!
Let’s fucking gooooooooo!
Edit: The article posted is a biased hackjob by idiots pushing an agenda.
“Elite media” Uh, what? This is Canada, we don’t have that here.
But once the Liberals won a minority government, they pledged to up it to a whopping five per cent by 2035,
NATO was in discussions for raising target spending long before the Liberal minority government. It was being pushed for since Russia invaded Ukraine. It was only finalized by NATO members at the June 2025 NATO summit in the Hague.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_5%25_NATO_defence_spending_by_2035
Carney didn’t run on a 5% target. That’s the point of calling it out.
It’s not like the already-governing Liberals wouldn’t have known about quiet NATO discussions before the election, so this criticism of the article makes zero sense.
No PM runs on NATO negotiaton points. You make zero sense.
The pivot was immediate, let’s not rewrite history just because of some personal distaste for criticism of dear leader
Deliberate disinformation is a stinky cologne. Your post history is like mad cow haggis.
You’re the one telling people that the public has no right to question an immediate pivot to spending +$150 Billion/year on warmongering and then telling someone else they’re pushing disinfo?
Go on then, tell me what specifically you’re referring to. This oughta be fun
Behind the “elbows up” rhetoric, Carney’s increase in military spending will tie Canada closer to the U.S. One Canadian Army program will spend up to $500 million on U.S. equipment. Another major defence contract from last July included technical requirements that reduced candidates to just one U.S. company.
We should all be willing to serve Canada’s needs, and we absolutely need a much stronger military to survive the unfortunate dumpster fire that the rest of the world has chosen to make itself into. I would volunteer for service if they would have me (they won’t, because I’m old and fat now and they aren’t flexible enough to give me the support I would need to handle my other responsibilities while I would serve) but if we end up at war, you better damn believe I’m going to find a way to serve somehow, bureaucracy and other responsibilities be damned.
I served. If you want to serve then you make changes in your life and expectations.
Being old is the only hard wall if you really want to serve.
Sounds good, let’s do it
I want to serve in the military.
I don’t want to hide at home like a pussy coward if my nation gets taken over, end of story.
And if it happens, I’ll revolt just like my ancestors did.
EDIT: What a wonderful way to put the constitutional problems at the forefront and maybe cause a new crisis.
