Canadian News Media

[LightingGuy]

Last year I started using Google News to get all of my news. Prior to that I had basically just looked at the Star and CBC. Now I get articles from all the outlets including the Post, Sun, Star, CBC, Globe and Mail, TVO (a personal fave), and many more across the country/world.

One thing that I find interesting is how the different outlets will put a spin on the exact same story to fit the bias of their audience/funders. I find that it is extremely beneficial for me to read news stories from multiple outlets on the same story, to get to the root of it, and figure out what actually happened, and then form my opinion.

Case in point: An NDP MP put in a motion to reduce some of the PM's powers. Here are some of the headlines that followed from the various outlets:
https://i.ibb.co/1JncBdC/Media.jpg

As you can see, the stances are all over the place. From tame (CBC) to extreme (National Post).

So this thread is an attempt for all of us to help each other get to the bottom of major stories, to get through the spin, and understand what is actually happening. When a new story breaks, I think we should help each other by posting multiple articles from different outlets on the same story here, so everyone (including myself) gets multiple perspectives.

Let me know if you think this is a good idea, or not.

[thewave46]

The National Post ones amuse me in their contradictory stances.

1. The PM’s a dictator and that’s bad.
2. The NDP is trying to undo the dictator system and that’s bad.

[Wigs]

When it comes to shilling for Canada's right wing, National Post reminds me of Roman Roy from the HBO show Succession. Bedfellows to the end.
The hype they are giving Danielle Smith (while accusing Alberta's NDP of fooling voters) for fear that NDP might retake control of Alberta is something else.

[LightingGuy]

I find I agree with the Financial Post about 90% of the time. However the NP's political articles I agree with roughly 50% of the time. As a paper they are definitely a lot more socially conservative than I am.

Of the major outlets, I find Globe and Mail to be the most "balanced" in terms of their pieces. They provide the most equal coverage from both left and right wing points of views.

On a side note, a took a political spectrum test last week (this one I think (https://www.politicalcompass.org/test)), and the results we re interesting but not surprising. I didn't save the result, but this is roughly where I ended up:

https://i.ibb.co/42bS8gD/Spectrum.jpg

[esquire]

The National Post ones amuse me in their contradictory stances.

1. The PM’s a dictator and that’s bad.
2. The NDP is trying to undo the dictator system and that’s bad.

Until 2015 it was the CBC that was mainly concerned with a dictatorial Prime Minister. Then something must have changed that year because at that point the CBC became fine with everything and it was the National Post that started sounding alarm bells.

[1overcosc]

The National Post ones amuse me in their contradictory stances.

1. The PM’s a dictator and that’s bad.
2. The NDP is trying to undo the dictator system and that’s bad.

The way the National Post works, almost all of their stuff is written by editorialists, and often different journalists will write different takes on the same topic, resulting in this sort of thing.

If you browse National Post, you'll find that a lot of the editorials that are lower down on the page are often fairly well written takes that include a fair amount of discussion of both sides of an issue. The top of the page, however, is dominated by click bait rage-farming articles.

The Star arguably does this too, although their tone is a lot less angry.

[1overcosc]

I find I agree with the Financial Post about 90% of the time. However the NP's political articles I agree with roughly 50% of the time. As a paper they are definitely a lot more socially conservative than I am.

Of the major outlets, I find Globe and Mail to be the most "balanced" in terms of their pieces. They provide the most equal coverage from both left and right wing points of views.

On a side note, a took a political spectrum test last week (this one I think (https://www.politicalcompass.org/test)), and the results we re interesting but not surprising. I didn't save the result, but this is roughly where I ended up:

https://i.ibb.co/42bS8gD/Spectrum.jpg

The political compass test you took is pretty bad. It results in almost everyone being in the bottom left quadrant as the tone of the questions it asks cause people to skew their answers to be more Libertarian and more Left.

[harls]

Google's suggested 'news' in Android is garbage. It is mostly rewritten bot shit about 'this guy on reddit said'..

[harls]

When it comes to shilling for Canada's right wing, National Post reminds me of Roman Roy from the HBO show Succession. Bedfellows to the end.

I LOL at every line they give him, because it is sad and true.

[Doady]

The political compass test you took is pretty bad. It results in almost everyone being in the bottom left quadrant as the tone of the questions it asks cause people to skew their answers to be more Libertarian and more Left.

I just took the test it seems very accurate, at least for me:

https://i.ibb.co/9g25VGx/politcal-compass.png (https://ibb.co/F3JT0nQ)

[Acajack]

I just took the test it seems very accurate, at least for me:

https://i.ibb.co/9g25VGx/politcal-compass.png (https://ibb.co/F3JT0nQ)

I am just slightly above the middle of the green quadrant.

And I always seem to end up with around the same profile as the people who hate my guts on here and think I am an evil person. Guess that's quite troubling to them!

[esquire]

Google's suggested 'news' in Android is garbage. It is mostly rewritten bot shit about 'this guy on reddit said'..

I find that much of the time Google tries too hard to serve up news stories related to things I've searched before. Which is fine when it comes to things like civic politics in Winnipeg, the war in Ukraine, etc.

But let's say I Google Emperor Hirohito once for whatever reason, I know that for the next 6 months I'll be getting Buzzfeed articles like "10 Ways that Emperor Hirohito Shaped the Modern World" in my "For You" feed.

[kwoldtimer]

Three squares down and three across from the centre in the green. More or less where I'd expect to be. I'm invariably "centre" in these things.

[Wigs]

I LOL at every line they give him, because it is sad and true.
overall he's the biggest scumbag among a sea of abhorrence :haha:

I find that much of the time Google tries too hard to serve up news stories related to things I've searched before. Which is fine when it comes to things like civic politics in Winnipeg, the war in Ukraine, etc.

But let's say I Google Emperor Hirohito once for whatever reason, I know that for the next 6 months I'll be getting Buzzfeed articles like "10 Ways that Emperor Hirohito Shaped the Modern World" in my "For You" feed.

very funny and true :D

[rousseau]

Until 2015 it was the CBC that was mainly concerned with a dictatorial Prime Minister. Then something must have changed that year because at that point the CBC became fine with everything and it was the National Post that started sounding alarm bells.
:haha:

[harls]

I find that much of the time Google tries too hard to serve up news stories related to things I've searched before. Which is fine when it comes to things like civic politics in Winnipeg, the war in Ukraine, etc.

But let's say I Google Emperor Hirohito once for whatever reason, I know that for the next 6 months I'll be getting Buzzfeed articles like "10 Ways that Emperor Hirohito Shaped the Modern World" in my "For You" feed.

Yeah.

'In case you missed it' - here's an instant pot pot roast recipe for Beef bourguignon you searched for that one time.

Now it's going to show up again because I typed it at SSP. Along with esquire magazine.

[Architype]

Here's a sample, they can always find some good news amongst the bad. If the news drives you to drink; three great bars right in my neighbourhood.

3 bars in Vancouver's Mount Pleasant debut on list of top 50 in Canada, which includes 11 spots in B.C.

Eleven bars in British Columbia are celebrating—perhaps with an adult libation or two—after being ranked among the 50 best places to grab a drink in the country.

The magazine Canada’s 100 Best released its 2023 edition of its best 50 bars list this week, which includes three spots in B.C.’s capital and another eight in the Lower Mainland.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/3-bars-in-vancouver-s-mount-pleasant-debut-on-list-of-top-50-in-canada-which-includes-11-spots-in-b-c-1.6402863

[Wigs]

Here's a sample, they can always find some good news amongst the bad. If the news drives you to drink; three great bars right in my neighbourhood.


https://bc.ctvnews.ca/3-bars-in-vancouver-s-mount-pleasant-debut-on-list-of-top-50-in-canada-which-includes-11-spots-in-b-c-1.6402863


https://i.ibb.co/JpPhnwQ/lucille-vancouver-beer.jpg

[rousseau]

When it comes to shilling for Canada's right wing, National Post...
The National Post is a weird one. I don't have any time for Conrad Black or Rex Murphy, but in spite of those ossified blowhards the NP seems to be the least ideologically captured/most objective news organization going. They go to both sides of issues and are willing to post stories that cast the right in a bad light. I don't know of any other media outlet that doesn't solely stick up for its "side." Plus Jonathan Kay, Tristin Hopper and Chris Selley have to be among the very best reporters/columnists Canada has right now in terms of their intellectual honesty and reasonableness. Doug Saunders is up there too.

The CBC and the Toronto Star are too far gone. The woke-lefty activism is so in your face, they're not even pretending to be objective anymore.

[chowhou]

The National Post is a weird one. I don't have any time for Conrad Black or Rex Murphy, but in spite of those ossified blowhards the NP seems to be the least ideologically captured/most objective news organization going. They go to both sides of issues and are willing to post stories that cast the right in a bad light. I don't know of any other media outlet that doesn't solely stick up for its "side." Plus Jonathan Kay, Tristin Hopper and Chris Selley have to be among the very best reporters/columnists Canada has right now in terms of their intellectual honesty and reasonableness. Doug Saunders is up there too.

The CBC and the Toronto Star are too far gone. The woke-lefty activism is so in your face, they're not even pretending to be objective anymore.

Give me the Globe and Mail over any PostMedia publication any day.

[Nouvellecosse]

The problem when it comes to media bias is that people often use heuristic shortcuts that aren't very accurate. Obviously we're all familiar with the people who complain when the media says anything that they don't personally like or agree with and write it off as bias to avoid changing their minds. But there's also a very common and perhaps more insidious form of audience bias that I refer to as "balance" or "neutrality" bias. They assume that anytime there is a disagreement between different media sources, that all takes are equally biased and that the truth is somewhere in the middle or some aggregate between the sources. It's a bias because it makes an a priori assumption about the accuracy of the reports without actually assessing them individually on their own merits.

The opposite of biased reporting is objective reporting. Objective reporting is simply doing one's best to gather pertinent facts and report the truth about them regardless of one's personal interest in the topic. That means reporting the un-spun findings whether or not the facts match your expectations, will make you or cost you money, or lead to conflict with those whom your report cover or affects. But balanced or neutral reporting doesn't do this. It says that one must either present both sides as equal and not state that either side is right or wrong in a particular story or not have too many stories that are critical of one side versus another. But objective reporting doesn't care about that and simply reports as factually as possible regardless of who would agrees / disagrees or likes / dislikes it. But that's very difficult to do with a profit motive involved.

It's also difficult because when you have opposing sides who disagree with one another, the disagreement should be limited to values or opinions about the importance of facts rather than the facts themselves. For instance, given the facts of the matter, side A thinks we should do X and side B thinks we should do Y. But in reality, people often reject facts that they don't feel will forward their position. For example, if side A likes driving instead of using active transportation or public transit, they may outright deny the environmental benefits and fiscal efficiencies of the latter and simply say that driving is actually better for the environment and is more cost-effective. But if the media were to report on this disagreement and affirm the actual facts, side A would then call the media biased and claim that they were parroting talking points for side B. Then they'd call the media fake news or some such. And that's a big problem because then if the media actually does make a factual error or is in some way biased against side B in the future, when side B calls them out for it the audience is tempted to just say, "Well every side whines when the media says anything they don't like. So they're both just equal and opposite sides of the same thing." When of course the correct thing to do would be to look at the specific details of each situation and determine which side is correct.

So the strategy of using a variety of news sources as a way to protect oneself from media bias doesn't on its own work because if you don't have strong critical thinking and analytical skills you aren't going to know which if any reporting is actually correct. And even worse, you can adopt a sort of postmodernist cynicism which assumes that there's no such thing as correct and that the only thing that exists is different perspectives. Biases are sometimes very subtle making them hard for anyone to detect. Someone without strong analytical abilities isn't likely to even recognize the subtle differences between sources. Especially since the audience often has stronger biases than even heavily biased media sources. So for most people, unless they're consuming blatant mis-information, they can achieve more by addressing their own biases rather than externalizing the problem by worrying about the media.

What's worse is that people who believe in the whole "balance" fallacy can be deceived when companies apply it strategically. A company that wants to appear objective may criticize its "side" for something that it doesn't consider particularly important in order to give itself cover for their ideological slant on topics that actually are important to them. For instance, organization with a corporatist stance may report critically on a right-learning political party's regressive social policies to prove that they aren't beholden to the right. Yet at the same time they're very biased against labour and use anti-worker framing when covering union-related stories. But because they've proven their neutrality, people assume any anti-left stances are justified and are less likely to accuse them of having a right leaning or corporatist bias. In reality, as a profit-seeking corporation they just have a vested interest in opposing unions while they don't care about social issues.

The takeaway is that there's simply no substitute for strong critical thinking and analytical skills. Someone with these skills can analyze and point out biases and omissions in the reporting of a story without seeing any other media reporting. Yet someone without those skills is likely to still succumb to media biases. They may even use their experience with multiple sources as fuel for false conclusions. If they used to just watch source A which is generally correct and then start watching source B which says very different (and less correct) things, they're likely to incorporate some of source B since they think greater "balance" means greater objectivity. I remember one landmark study from the US (https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?op=1) that showed how people who only consume media from a blatantly biased source are actually less informed than people who consume no news at all. So if blatantly biased news sources actually increase one's ignorance, it's hard to imagine how including such a source in one's media diet could cause a net increase in knowledge beyond what the other sources offer.

Not that there can't be any value in exposure to alternate perspectives. It can reduce polarization by help one understand other views and empathize with those who hold them. But that's information about what other media consumers think about news stories rather than the news stories themselves. It's still useful information about the world, but people who are truly open to understanding and empathizing with other views aren't usually the ones in need of such lessons.

[Architype]

... I remember one landmark study from the US (https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?op=1) that showed how people who only consume media from a blatantly biased source are actually less informed than people who consume no news at all. So if blatantly biased news sources actually increase one's ignorance, it's hard to imagine how including such a source in one's media diet could cause a net increase in knowledge beyond what the other sources offer.

Not that there can't be any value in exposure to alternate perspectives. It can reduce polarization by help one understand other views and empathize with those who hold them. But that's information about what other media consumers think about news stories rather than the news stories themselves. It's still useful information about the world, but people who are truly open to understanding and empathizing with other views aren't usually the ones in need of such lessons.

I like your post here. I agree with the point, put simply; garbage in, garbage out; it does not increase awareness in terms of real factual information, overall values, or objectivity, so one must assume there might be some other kind of payback, like entertainment, as with balancing your regular healthy diet with a few Big Macs now and then. Another question is; is it correct to assume that any of these problems or deficiencies have been improved, mitigated, or solved, with internet / non-mainstream / social / youtuber / independent media?

[ssiguy]

CBC News is so Toronto-centric that it's almost comical. Today CBCNEWS devoted a full hour of live airtime for the Earth shattering event of Mississauga and Brampton parting company. Somehow if White Rock joined Surrey or Dartmouth left Halifax, I don't just don't think it would get quite as much coverage.

[Architype]

CBC News is so Toronto-centric that it's almost comical. Today CBCNEWS devoted a full hour of live airtime for the Earth shattering event of Mississauga and Brampton parting company. Somehow if White Rock joined Surrey or Dartmouth left Halifax, I don't just don't think it would get quite as much coverage.

Just when I figure out what "Peel" actually is, there won't be any more Peel. ;)

Canadian internet "news" is similar. I get tired of seeing headlines on my feed referring to Toronto stories, without them saying that it's Toronto, just saying "city" (so . . . what city?).
Toronto is 2,000 miles away, the distance of London UK to Syria. Sometimes it's not even Toronto, but not here either, which is just as bad.

[Doady]

How many municipalities in Canada have 1.4 million people? White Rock has less than 3 percent of the population of Mississauga. Anyone who believes that White Rock deserves the same amount of media attention as Mississauga is only showing their own bias.

[Architype]

How many municipalities in Canada have 1.4 million people? White Rock has less than 3 percent of the population of Mississauga. Anyone who believes that White Rock deserves the same amount of media attention as Mississauga is only showing their own bias.

True, but he does have a point; when Dartmouth merged with Halifax so many years ago (1996), I did not know about it until I joined this forum. If Burnaby were to merge with Vancouver (recommended by me :)) I expect it would be covered by CBC, but who knows? :shrug:

[Doady]

Halifax and Dartmouth were part of a wave of amalgamations of lower tier municipalities in Canada. And this is completely the opposite of that movement, breaking up an upper tier municipality to create three new single tier municipalities. Two of these future single tier municipalities are currently the seventh and ninth largest cities in Canada, one of them larger than Vancouver, and combined they are larger than Calgary. If the City of Calgary were to be broken up into 3 separate single tier municipalities, you think the CBC wouldn't talk about that? This is going to have a big effect on a lot of people and there are a lot of question marks.

[Architype]

Halifax and Dartmouth were part of a wave of amalgamations of lower tier municipalities in Canada. And this is completely the opposite of that movement, breaking up an upper tier municipality to create three new single tier municipalities. Two of these future single tier municipalities are currently the seventh and ninth largest cities in Canada, one of them larger than Vancouver, and combined they are larger than Calgary. If the City of Calgary were to be broken up into 3 separate single tier municipalities, you think the CBC wouldn't talk about that? This is going to have a big effect on a lot of people and there are a lot of question marks.

Oh I was being slightly facetious, it sounds like Peel Region held powers similar to the GVRD, except only for three municipalities, and perhaps it's a step backwards. That doesn't counter the fact that we do get a lot of "local", often enigmatically presented, Toronto news.

[LightingGuy]

Peel region is equivalent to a county. The GTA suburbs are divided into 4 of these counties at the moment, and each one contains various cities/towns. Schools, garbage, police and certain roads are managed by the county. This is irrelevant to the rest of the country though.

[niwell]

I remember hearing about the suburban Montreal de-amalgamations in national news, which I found very interesting.

[Acajack]

I remember hearing about the suburban Montreal de-amalgamations in national news, which I found very interesting.

The Quebec de-merger issue with respect to these municipalities had a language politics angle, as most of them were anglophone enclaves that did not want to be part of larger predominantly francophone cities.

The national media loves that kind of stuff.

[Acajack]

How many municipalities in Canada have 1.4 million people? White Rock has less than 3 percent of the population of Mississauga. Anyone who believes that White Rock deserves the same amount of media attention as Mississauga is only showing their own bias.

Peel Region also has 3.5% of Canada's entire population. In terms of the CBC's market ("Anglo-Canada"), Peel Region makes up 4.5% of it.

Is it worth an hour of daytime coverage (if indeed that's what it was)? I dunno.

But it's definitely worth talking about on the national news.

Plus it's a story of interest for the entire GTA which has an even greater share of the population.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Peel Region also has 3.5% of Canada's entire population. In terms of the CBC's market ("Anglo-Canada"), Peel Region makes up 4.5% of it.

Is it worth an hour of daytime coverage (if indeed that's what it was)? I dunno.

But it's definitely worth talking about on the national news.

Plus it's a story of interest for the entire GTA which has an even greater share of the population.

It's still a local story to the GTA. IMO of course.

[kool maudit]

Just on the question of bias... in the mid-20th century, newspapers provided a lot of services (e.g. classifieds, jobs listings etc.) that encouraged them to seek the broadest possible readership, as of course did print advertisements for mass-market products. Subscription fees and newsstand prices barely covered distribution. This favoured a middle-of-the-road approach that ideally would leave no significant of the population feeling too left out. Of course, there was still a degree of branding, and a paper could be the working man's paper or the cerebral paper or whatever, but all of them needed to gather multiple constituencies in order to provide these key non-editorial services.

Now, online advertising never pulled in a fraction of what print did, and has been been a subset of social media anyway since 2010 or earlier. The classifieds are at craigslist and the want ads are on LinkedIn. What you need now are eyeballs and a tribe, and this favours a flashy, combative, in-group/out-group style of coverage.

It's very similar with visual media, what with the differences between the capital investment needed for even a small, local network vs. YouTube or TikTok or Liveleak.

Like 90% of this is structural rather than because we (this is more commonly phrased as "they", i.e. the out-group) have become a certain way.

It was the same in the late 19th century. The consensus society was an epiphenomenon of a lot of mid-20th century commercial and ownership structures.

[LightingGuy]

Just on the question of bias... in the mid-20th century, newspapers provided a lot of services (e.g. classifieds, jobs listings etc.) that encouraged them to seek the broadest possible readership, as of course did print advertisements for mass-market products. Subscription fees and newsstand prices barely covered distribution. This favoured a middle-of-the-road approach that ideally would leave no significant of the population feeling too left out. Of course, there was still a degree of branding, and a paper could be the working man's paper or the cerebral paper or whatever, but all of them needed to gather multiple constituencies in order to provide these key non-editorial services.

Now, online advertising never pulled in a fraction of what print did, and has been been a subset of social media anyway since 2010 or earlier. The classifieds are at craigslist and the want ads are on LinkedIn. What you need now are eyeballs and a tribe, and this favours a flashy, combative, in-group/out-group style of coverage.

It's very similar with visual media, what with the differences between the capital investment needed for even a small, local network vs. YouTube or TikTok or Liveleak.

Like 90% of this is structural rather than because we (this is more commonly phrased as "they", i.e. the out-group) have become a certain way.

It was the same in the late 19th century. The consensus society was an epiphenomenon of a lot of mid-20th century commercial and ownership structures.

This is an excellent observation! Never thought about it his way but it makes a lot of sense.

[kool maudit]

rather than because we (this is more commonly phrased as "they", i.e. the out-group) have become a certain way.




Or I guess we have, but the causality is flipped -- we're downstream of our cultural engines and their incentives, not the other way around.

[Acajack]

It's still a local story to the GTA. IMO of course.

I don't dispute that the national anglo media can be Toronto-centric and the franco media can be Montreal-centric, but I also think there are people who just don't want to hear anything about other parts of the country that could be construed as "local".

Right now the top stories on the CBC News site are all about the Alberta election. Technically irrelevant to 90% of the country.

[ScreamingViking]

I get tired of seeing headlines on my feed referring to Toronto stories, without them saying that it's Toronto, just saying "city" (so . . . what city?).

Even worse to me is when Toronto is referenced as "the city"

I hear it mostly from residents. People I know have said things like "Are you coming into the city this weekend?" or "Let me know next time you'll be in the city." More recently I have been asked "Why don't you move into the city?"

Yeah, because there is only one. :rolleyes:

This isn't Highlander!

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video_thumb/FJ_BqHQXEAI4cRN.jpg

[kool maudit]

San Francisco and New York use that too.

[esquire]

Hell, that's pretty normal just about anywhere. Go to Winkler, Manitoba and people will say that about Winnipeg.

[MonkeyRonin]

Even worse to me is when Toronto is referenced as "the city"

I hear it mostly from residents. People I know have said things like "Are you coming into the city this weekend?" or "Let me know next time you'll be in the city." More recently I have been asked "Why don't you move into the city?"

Yeah, because there is only one. :rolleyes:

This isn't Highlander!

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video_thumb/FJ_BqHQXEAI4cRN.jpg


Emphasis being on the rather than city. If you're in Southern Ontario, there's the city; and then there are some other cities.

[ScreamingViking]

Hell, that's pretty normal just about anywhere. Go to Winkler, Manitoba and people will say that about Winnipeg.

Yeah, I think it's very common for people living in places on the outskirts of larger urban areas to say they're going "into town" or "to the city"

My point was more about whether Winnipegers say it to their Winkler friends and family.

[ScreamingViking]

Emphasis being on the rather than city. If you're in Southern Ontario, there's the city; and then there are some other cities.

It's a quibble, I know. I just find it a bit pompous.

When I joked with one friend about it, years ago, the distinction never registered with her. :uhh:

[esquire]

Yeah, I think it's very common for people living in places on the outskirts of larger urban areas to say they're going "into town" or "to the city"

My point was more about whether Winnipegers say it to their Winkler friends and family.

Pretty common going both ways in the prairies, at least, because unless you live in Red Deer, there's generally no ambiguity about what is meant if you mention "the city" ;)

[chowhou]

BC: "The City" = Vancouver
AB: "The City" = South of Red Deer ? Calgary else Edmonton
SK: "The City" = Saskatoon
MB: "The City" = Winnipeg
ON: "The City" = Toronto
QB: "La Métropole" = Montreal
NB: There are no cities in this province
PE: Likewise
NS: "The City" = Halifax
NL: "Town" = St. John's

[rousseau]

Emphasis being on the rather than city. If you're in Southern Ontario, there's the city; and then there are some other cities.
With Toronto it's not actually analogous to New York though. You have to be fairly close to Toronto to use "the city" and be understood. Nobody in Stratford says that, for example. And if it were common anywhere on the western/southern side of the Golden Horseshoe I would have heard it, but you never do. I can't speak for Oshawa or points east.

[Acajack]

BC: "The City" = Vancouver
AB: "The City" = South of Red Deer ? Calgary else Edmonton
SK: "The City" = Saskatoon
MB: "The City" = Winnipeg
ON: "The City" = Toronto
QB: "The City" = Montreal
NB: There are no cities in this province
PE: Likewise
NS: "The City" = Halifax
NL: "Town" = St. John's

"The City" i.e. "la ville" is not something people would say in French in this way, most of the time. Sure you might hear "ce sont des gens de la ville" (they're city folk) in say the Gaspésie to talk about visitors, but this doesn't nececessarily mean Montrealers. They could be talking about people from Quebec City or some other city.

If you were to refer to "la ville" in St-Hyacinthe or Rouyn-Noranda, people would think you're talking about their municipal government.

If people speak metaphorically about Montreal without actually naming it in Quebec, they usually use the term "la métropole". (Yes, we know Toronto is bigger but our metropolis is still Montreal.)

We also use the term "en ville" which is equivalent to "in town" in English. As in "je déménage en ville" (I'm moving to town) or "je vais en ville" (I'm going into town).

If you're anywhere within striking distance of Montreal (say 100 km) references to "en ville" will almost always infer that it's Montreal. If you're in Chambly or even Mont-Tremblant, the "ville" people refer to in this usage will always be Montreal.

If you're in Ste-Anne-de-Beaupré or Lévis, it refers to Quebec City.

In the Outaouais it might mean Gatineau or it might mean Ottawa. Depends.

[ssiguy]

My point is that this is not national news and yes, it was on CBC Newsworld for a full hour.
the people in London or Lindsay couldn't care less little alone the people in Langley or Laval.

According to the CBC, everything that happens in Toronto is national news and something happening outside of it is merely local.

[1overcosc]

Emphasis being on the rather than city. If you're in Southern Ontario, there's the city; and then there are some other cities.

Maybe in the SW, but in Eastern Ontario "the city" definitely doesn't just mean "Toronto". Someone saying "the city" in Renfrew or Kemptville is almost certainly referring to Ottawa.

[chowhou]

[snip]

Pretend I said la métropole then.

[rousseau]

Maybe in the SW, but in Eastern Ontario "the city" definitely doesn't just mean "Toronto".
It doesn't in southwestern Ontario, is what I'm saying. My sister lives in Ithaca NY, four hours from "the city," which everyone in Ithaca knows means New York City.

Toronto doesn't have that. Nobody in Kitchener or Hamilton or St. Catharines or Brantford or London says "the city" to mean Toronto. I've literally never heard it used in this way in my entire life. This sounds like a Toronto adoption of a New York thing.

[Acajack]

I heard a report on Radio-Canada's national news this weekend about the dismantling of the Peel regional government.

No one could ever accuse Radio-Canada of being Toronto-centric.

[casper]

It doesn't in southwestern Ontario, is what I'm saying. My sister lives in Ithaca NY, four hours from "the city," which everyone in Ithaca knows means New York City.

Toronto doesn't have that. Nobody in Kitchener or Hamilton or St. Catharines or Brantford or London says "the city" to mean Toronto. I've literally never heard it used in this way in my entire life. This sounds like a Toronto adoption of a New York thing.

In BC "the city" does not mean "Vancouver" to people who live on "the Island".

[lio45]

We also use the term "en ville" which is equivalent to "in town" in English. As in "je déménage en ville" (I'm moving to town) or "je vais en ville" (I'm going into town).

If you're anywhere within striking distance of Montreal (say 100 km) references to "en ville" will almost always infer that it's Montreal. If you're in Chambly or even Mont-Tremblant, the "ville" people refer to in this usage will always be Montreal.

If you're in Ste-Anne-de-Beaupré or Lévis, it refers to Quebec City.

In the Outaouais it might mean Gatineau or it might mean Ottawa. Depends.It's amusing when translated directly (literally) into English:

This is a real-life conversation that occurred many times over the years:

My property manager, calling from downtown Sherbrooke and needing me or someone else to address something there: "Are you in The City right now?"

Me: "Nope I'm not, I'm at my Montreal jobsite; you'll have to send [Maintenance Guy]"

(original: "Es-tu en ville?" (from a Sherbrooke-based caller) / "Non, je suis à Montréal")

[Gresto]

According to the CBC, everything that happens in Toronto is national news and something happening outside of it is merely local.
I can understand that being insufferable, and apologize on Toronto's behalf. Is it possible the CBC just doesn't have the resources (anymore) to cover local stories nationwide? I don't know; I'm merely speculating. I have noticed that newsrooms of all stripes are down to skeleton crews; often, for instance, there's a single newsreader at 11:30 on CTV Toronto wearing multiple hats. Unquestionably, people in the R.o.C. should not be hearing about a car hitting a utility pole on Spadina, or some similar inconsequentiality.

[harls]

I can understand that being insufferable, and apologize on Toronto's behalf. Is it possible the CBC just doesn't have the resources (anymore) to cover local stories nationwide? I don't know; I'm merely speculating. I have noticed that newsrooms of all stripes are down to skeleton crews; often, for instance, there's a single newsreader at 11:30 on CTV Toronto wearing multiple hats. Unquestionably, people in the R.o.C. should not be hearing about a car hitting a utility pole on Spadina, or some similar inconsequentiality.

The news stories on my phone from CTV Ottawa are written by 'digital multi-skilled journalists'.

Meanwhile, reading the 'story' I get this creepy feeling it was not written by a human at all.

[Nouvellecosse]

Southern Ontario has about 1/3 of the country's population. But if you exclude Quebec which is majority Francophone and therefore a separate media market, it's a massive 43%. And considering how much more concentrated it is compared to the rest, it's not surprising that it's much cheaper and easier market for news outlets to cover.

[manny_santos]

Just when I figure out what "Peel" actually is, there won't be any more Peel. ;)

Canadian internet "news" is similar. I get tired of seeing headlines on my feed referring to Toronto stories, without them saying that it's Toronto, just saying "city" (so . . . what city?).
Toronto is 2,000 miles away, the distance of London UK to Syria. Sometimes it's not even Toronto, but not here either, which is just as bad.

I’m of the same mind being in Vancouver. There’s an umbrella stand with a digital screen in the lobby of the office building I work in, and it often includes news headlines of strictly local interest to Toronto - things like “things to do this weekend in Toronto”. Last week it showed a local headline from Seattle, which actually felt more relevant to me as it was related to a proposal to ban right turns on red there. Which would actually be great to know since many of us here drive to Seattle for day trips and such.

As far as Canada’s media goes, at the national level I find CTV to be the most Toronto/Ontario centric. I never really noticed this as long as I lived in Ontario, but I’ve really noticed it since living in BC. CBC seems to be heavily Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver centric; CBC’s national news does seem to cover BC news fairly well, and they even have Ian Hanomansing based here. Global National seems to focus the most on Western Canada out of the three English networks, with a lot of BC and Alberta content on their national programs. Global National has been based out of Global BC for much of its existence.

The kicker I always found in Ontario was the lack of local media outside of Toronto. CBC has improved tremendously on this in recent years in Southern Ontario, opening new radio operations in both London and K-W as well as adding some online presence in Hamilton and a reporter in Kingston - although I know they’ve also made cutbacks in the North, with a single afternoon show now covering the area from the Manitoba border east to Mattawa (which I listened to a couple times, it is not adequate for such a dispersed population, not to mention news in Thunder Bay being of little importance in Sudbury and vice-versa). Global has virtually nothing in Ontario outside Toronto; notably they have no local news presence in Ottawa - though in recent years they’ve brought the Corus TV stations in Kingston and Peterborough into the Global family.