In an election campaign that has been obnoxiously micromanaged, where the aspirants to lead our country have treated journalists 鈥 and, by extension, the public 鈥 with varying levels of disdain, last night鈥檚 debates should have been a breath of fresh air.聽
Instead, the whole affair was hijacked by right wing conspiracy-minded outlet Rebel News and another right-wing network. We should blame the wildly inept Leaders鈥 Debates Commission for letting it happen. These debates are critical parts of the democratic process, and they don鈥檛 deserve to be turned into a mockery.
Established in 2018, the Leaders鈥 Debate Commission has three jobs: Help the major broadcasters and parties agree on a format; set eligibility for the participating leaders; and accredit media wishing to cover the event and ask questions of the leaders afterwards.
The Commission bungled those first two jobs, having suddenly moved the debate up two hours the day before and disinviting the Green Party the morning of.
On the question of what media would be allowed into the venue: To manage the high volume of reporters, and to avoid the prospect of one outlet monopolizing the floor, the Commission set a simple rule that each outlet could field one reporter to quiz the candidates.
Inexplicably, in the days before the debate, the Commission broke its own rules to allow, and I鈥檓 quoting Rebel News founder Ezra Levant here, 鈥渘ot one, not two, not three, not four, but five Rebels to ask questions鈥 of party leaders. (It had requested space for all 16 of its staff in the venue.)
The Rebel got its way by sending a series of legal threats in which Levant insisted that if other outlets with the same owners 鈥 such as the CBC and Radio-Canada, or the Ottawa Citizen and the National Post 鈥 each got a reporter in the scrum then the Rebel deserves the same level of access.
The Commission rejected this baseless argument, but wrote to Levant that 鈥渞ather than devote further resources toward answering your letters and a potential injunction鈥 they would simply roll over. Rebel could have five reporters.
Rebel wasn鈥檛 the only right-wing outlet represented. There was also Juno News, another media outlet with opaque funding sources and a penchant for spreading half-truths. Early in the campaign, the outlet ran a disgusting and piece attacking Mark Carney鈥檚 child for their gender identity.
Even before the debate concluded, the staffers for the Rebel and Juno raced to the microphones from which journalists would quiz the leaders.聽
Over the course of the scrums 鈥 where each leader had 10 minutes to take questions 鈥 Rebel and Juno managed to ask nearly half of all the questions, despite this “one outlet, one question” rule.
The Rebel and Juno鈥檚 questions were inane.聽Several were about Rebel News itself and its supposed marginalization, one accused the NDP of being a 鈥渄angerous radical party,鈥 while another questioner asked Carney to list as many genders as he could. It was all a sideshow. Some of the questions were longer than the answers, as the Rebel staff used the opportunity to grandstand. (Some other reporters and I shouted 鈥済et to the question!鈥 when their rants went on particularly long 鈥 Levant has since complained that this constitutes heckling.)聽
Rebel News, if you鈥檙e unaware, is a right-wing media outlet that has revelled in spreading misinformation, taking positions which help its fundraising efforts, and whipping up hatred against our politicians 鈥 including conservatives. (Full disclosure: My reporting on Rebel earned me a libel lawsuit from Levant in 2021. Levant ultimately asked to withdraw that lawsuit, which I agreed to, in exchange for a donation to charity.)
In past years, the Commission had tried to ban Rebel and other partisan media outlets from participating in the scrums, but Levant successfully had the decision in federal court.
This is all particularly galling when you consider that Rebel is registered with Elections Canada as a third-party advertiser. According to filed with Elections Canada, the Rebel raised more than $20,000 in the first week of the campaign and spent $8,000 in 鈥減artisan activity.鈥 Rebel hired a U.S.-based firm to do voter outreach.
Levant told me in an email that reporting this information to Elections Canada was a 鈥減rophylactic registration鈥 to cover their outreach to Rebel supporters 鈥渋n case any of those phone conversations contain partisan content during the writ period.鈥 Rebel has previously had to pay for conducting inappropriate election advertising.
Hours after sending me that email, Levant was in front of the Radio-Canada building in Montreal, advertising a website which claims that 鈥淢ark Carney stands with Hamas.鈥
In summary: The Debate Commission, in a rash and inexplicable decision, decided to give right-wing partisans space to disrupt a critical part of a national leaders鈥 debate. As such, we missed a critical opportunity to hear our leaders pressed on important policy issues.
It鈥檚 not too late to rectify some of these problems ahead of tonight鈥檚 debate. The Commission could permit Green co-leader to join the debate stage. It could recognize that Rebel and Juno have already taken up far too much space, and forbid them from ruining tonight鈥檚 press conferences. But the most useful thing they could do is also the thing they’re not going to do 鈥 dissolve themselves, and let the media figure out the debates themselves.
To join the conversation set a first and last name in your user profile.
Sign in or register for free to join the Conversation