Trump’s media demonization exposes left-wing outlets like CBC and Reuters using photo manipulation—e.g., artificially reddening his skin in a 2017 video, freezing aggressive frames of Oval Office meetings—to push propaganda. Photographer Kevin Lamarck’s selective edits contrast with flattering Melania Trump images suppressed by the same media. The New York Times’s "orange screaming" claim was debunked by unaltered CNN/CBS footage, yet bias persists. Legal battles like Killing Europe’s banned screening and Trinity Western’s shifting ACLU support highlight Canada’s media-censored free speech climate, where dissent risks "Nazi" labels while leftist narratives go unchallenged. [Automatically generated summary]
I go through various photographs of Donald Trump that have been doctored or that certain color filters have been added to by the mainstream media.
You can listen to the story, but boy, I wish you could see it in video because I take you through about three or four photographs and videos and I talk about the color of Trump's face.
Now that sounds funny, but his enemies say he's orange.
I actually don't think he's orange.
I think just a few photographers put on an orange filter.
I'm going to try and prove that.
Anyways, if you want to see the video version of this podcast, go to premium.rebelnews.com.
Sign up for the video version.
It's eight bucks a month.
Anyways, enjoy the podcast.
I hope it makes you curious enough that you check out the vid.
Tonight, a small case study in propaganda, how the left-wing media demonizes Trump through photographs.
It's October 3rd, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Do you remember this outrageous story by Trudeau's CBC State Broadcaster?
It was right after Donald Trump was inaugurated.
And the CBC literally hired actors to go around Canadian cities pretending to be racists and trying to entrap unsuspecting Canadian citizens into saying or doing racist things in reply.
It was so contrived.
It was the definition of fake news.
It was a Jussie Smollette style hoax.
It goes to show you how unhateful Canada is.
The Trudeau's state broadcaster had to literally pay actors to be racist because they couldn't find any naturally occurring racists.
Just awful, unethical in every way.
By the way, they also stole our trademarked hats, Make Canada Great Again, and tried to imply that making Canada great again was somehow racist.
We had our lawyers write to their lawyers and they actually apologized and agreed never to do it again and they destroyed all of their counterfeit hats.
What a bunch of thieves they are.
Anyways, one of the things that always stood out to me, and remember this was done by a consumer production show on the CBC called Marketplace, a show that's supposed to expose fraud, not conduct fraud.
One of the things that stuck out to me was the deceptive coloring of Trump's face.
Look at this.
Look at how they make his face redder and redder and redder.
Take a look.
We want to know if the Trump effect has come to Canada.
We want to have the wall, a great border wall.
They're bringing drugs.
They're rapists.
A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.
We don't want them in our country.
We will make America great again.
Look at that.
In 20 seconds, the CBC made his face redder and redder.
Look at how it was 15 seconds ago.
It was normal.
Maybe they made it a little bit redder there to begin with.
And then look at how red his face was 15 seconds later.
That's a form of propaganda.
That's deception.
It's altering an image.
It's literally fake news, just like hiring fake actors to be fake racists.
I mean, if you can't find any racists in Canada other than the racists you've hired, maybe it's not the Trump effect.
Maybe it's the CBC effect.
You're causing the racism.
Maybe Captain Blackface is the racist.
Anyways, I've been thinking a lot about that outrageous instance of fake news because they do that trick all the time, particularly with Donald Trump, because he is an unusual looking man.
His hair, his face, his skin color, a little bit unusual, especially when it's matched to his personal style.
Now, perhaps the CBC would say, well, that marketplace video, it was just for dramatic effect.
It was all artistic license.
They're not trying to fake you out or deceive you.
It's just an artistic interpretation.
Yeah, right.
On CBC Marketplace, a show dedicated to fighting against false advertising and deceptive practices.
Like I say, it was a disgrace.
But how about a straight news show?
Literally just a random video on CBC News.
Well, look at this picture that the CBC used as a thumbnail on a video about a Trump meeting.
Look at that picture.
Is that touched up too?
Now, CBC itself didn't take that picture.
A photographer with Reuters named Kevin Lamarck took it, and it was widely published by every anti-Trump newspaper in the world.
Is that really what Trump looks like?
Or did they touch it up a bit?
Like the kids do on their Instagram photos.
Did they make him look a bit more orange?
That's what they say.
They call him the orange man.
They love it as their insult.
Did this professional photographer at Reuters alter his photos to make him more orange?
I mean, that's obviously why the CBC chose that photo.
Save them the trouble of altering it themselves.
Here's the link to Kevin Lamarck's entire body of work.
Scroll through it.
He hates Trump.
Forget about just coloring the photos.
He must take hundreds of photos or more likely just takes a high-definition video stream and then selects the instant, the one instant, the one frame that makes Trump look like a total idiot.
That one moment where he makes a certain shape with his mouth that we all do when we pronounce a certain thing, but if you froze it there, you'd look insane.
Like this one.
Or this one.
This is actually another one.
Kevin Lamarck isn't doing this by accident.
If he was this bad in all his photos, he'd be fired.
Reuters has him do awful photos only on this one subject, Donald Trump, because they want to make Trump look like a blithering fool who gets his tongue caught in his orange mouth.
It's the same reason why the glamorous supermodel, Melanie Trump, who has graced the cover of every fashion magazine in the world, hasn't been on a single magazine cover since she's been First Lady, whereas the less photogenic Michelle Obama was on a new glamour mag every month.
They hate Melania, or they hate her only because of her marriage to Trump.
If they do show Melania Trump, it's always looking sad or sullen.
They actually have a media narrative.
She's so unhappy.
She truly feels trapped by Trump.
We must save her from him.
She's a beautiful woman who always smiles.
But do you really think Reuters, the company that specifically signs Kevin Lamarck to cover Donald Trump, do you think they'd ever show her smiling to let her look pretty?
It's literally fake news.
But let me show you something I just noticed now.
Trump just had a press conference with the president of Finland.
Obviously, all the questions from the American media were about the fake news scandal du jour impeachment or something, Ukraine or something.
I mean, not one in ten of those White House reporters could find Finland on a map.
Here's how I first heard of this meeting with the Finnish president.
It was in a tweet from the New York Times.
This tweet.
Donald Trump responds to reporters' question about Ukraine during a meeting in the Oval Office.
Wow, he literally looks insane there.
He looks like he's screaming.
And the color of his face, orange, red, pink, and his teeth are so white and his hair is so light, it serves to make the orangeness of his face impossibly sharp.
It's almost like you're looking at a negative photograph, you know?
Super white, super dark, white teeth, white hair, orange red face.
And oh, he's shouting, isn't he?
And it reminded me of the other photographs, the Kevin Lamarck specials.
And I thought, I wonder if I can check what Trump really looked like before they put him through the filter.
Let me check, because I think this is more fake news.
This time, it's not from some losers at Justin Trudeau's CBC State Broadcaster in Canada, and it's not from that weirdo Kevin Lamarck, I don't think.
The tweet, at least, is from the New York Times.
Is that really what Trump looked like, really, at the Finland meeting, really?
Well, let's see.
I'll show you some video first, which is what I watched, because I wanted to see if Trump really was screaming.
So here's, I don't know, 30 seconds from CNN.
Not exactly Trump fans over there.
What does Trump look like?
What did he sound like at this meeting?
You are putting the whistleblower's light in danger.
Well, the whistleblower was very inaccurate.
The whistleblower started this whole thing by writing a report on the conversation I had with the president of Ukraine.
And the conversation was perfect.
It couldn't have been nicer.
I saw Rick Scott.
I saw many of the senators talking about it.
Many of the congressmen talking about it.
Not a thing wrong.
Unless you heard the Adam Schiff version where he made up my conversation.
He actually made it up.
It should be criminal.
It should be treasonous.
He made it up, every word of it, made up, and read to Congress as though I said it.
And I'll tell you what, he should be forced to resign from Congress.
Adam Schiff.
He's a lowlife.
He should be forced to resign.
Oh, so he wasn't screaming at all.
He was mad, I think, but he was in complete control.
He was emphatic, maybe, but he's just being himself.
And every once in a while, he sort of grimaced just for a second in between phrases.
He does that as a mannerism.
I think that's one of the split-second moments the photographer grabs to make it look like he was screaming.
It wasn't.
It's sort of like how he punctuates his phrases.
And the color.
His hair isn't white anymore, is it?
It's blonde.
His face is slightly orange in hue, I'll grant you that.
But it's not the bright orange and pink chromatic colors of that New York Times picture.
I think they whitened his teeth and his hair and reddened his face for the shocking contrast.
Look at that New York Times tweet again.
Sorry, that's fake.
That's Doctor.
That's what the kids do on the Instagram filters to make themselves look funny.
Okay, well, maybe CNN got it wrong.
Let's check with a pretty objective presidential chronicle, Mark Knoller of CBS.
He says, saying he has a duty to report corruption, president says Biden's son is corrupt, and Biden is corrupt, and I'd rather run against Biden than almost any of those candidates.
I think Biden has never been a smart guy, and he's less smart now than he ever was since Trump.
So Noller, as you can see, is reporting what Trump said, and it's accurate.
He doesn't imply Trump was screaming, because Trump wasn't.
And look at that photo.
Blonde hair.
I think that's a normal colored face.
At least nothing you'd say is insane.
Like the New York Times photo makes you do.
Like that old CBC Kevin Lamarck photo makes you do.
Here's the Washington Post video feed just for comparison.
Here, let's watch 30 seconds of this.
I won the case.
I didn't see one story that I won that case.
Not one story.
From the fake news.
I didn't see Steve write it.
I didn't see you write it.
I didn't see anybody write it.
So let me just tell you, just to finish, Nancy Pelosi and Shifty Schiff, who should resign, in disgrace, by the way, and Jerry Nadler and all of them.
It's a disgrace what's going on.
And we should be focused on making America great again and keeping America great.
You can see those split-second facial ticks that Trump does, like this just for a second, the ones that the newspapers grab to make it look like he's shouting like a gorilla.
He's not shouting.
They're his physical punctuation marks between his comments.
But again, my main point is the color here.
Trump's normal, normal hair, normal face, normal teeth in this Washington Post video.
Washington Post hates Trump, and that's fine.
It's a legitimate point of view, fair point of view.
But my friends, this photo that the New York Times published, I think it's actually a Reuters photo, it's a lie.
I mean, it's hard to imagine that a photo can lie.
You know, we like that saying, do you believe your lying eyes?
Your eyes, you know, you see the truth.
But your eyes can lie to you if the picture is a lie and it lies to you actually more effectively than any else can lie.
I mean, if someone was telling you a lie, telling you words, watching a video that was a lie, it would not be as effective as a lie in a photograph because the lie is instant.
You don't even think about it.
You don't have to pay attention and be convinced of it.
A lying photograph is an instant deception.
You saw it.
Trump is orange.
You saw it with your own eyes.
Trump is red and wild.
Maybe he's even insane.
He was shouting.
You saw the proof of it.
But the words of the media party are fake news.
They're deceptive.
In the case of the Canadian CBC, they outright literally did a hoax.
But these photos, they're just as bad.
They're far more powerful.
You just can't trust a word the mainstream media says.
Court Case Over Library Contract00:07:20
And you know what?
You can't even trust the photographs either.
Stay with us for more.
You have no-go zones, you have rape epidemics, you have all kinds of problems.
The most that I've been told about was a young woman that was taken to a flat and she stopped counting at 36.
What?
30s.
Six adults.
Yeah, in one night.
But what happens here left-wing feminist movements?
They seem many of them to be strangely silent on this issue.
They do not understand that they are digging their own graves.
It's normal for these people when they think like that because it's our religion.
It's already al-jihad?
It's just, I don't know.
I don't even know what to say.
I'm speechless.
This is surreal.
And I have to warn you.
It doesn't matter how you produce and how you cut this documentary.
You have to know that you will be labeled a Nazi or a racist just because you made this movie.
So I have to warn you, watch out.
Well, that is a clip, various clips from the movie Killing Europe.
I haven't watched the whole thing.
I've skimmed it.
It's a little bit low production value, as they say.
If you went to see it in a big fancy movie theater, you'd say, oh, that felt a little homemade.
Could have used a little more editing.
That's my recollection of when I watched it.
But the subject matter and even some of the personalities in it should be very familiar to rebel viewers.
Some of them I interviewed when I myself visited Europe, including Sweden and other places.
As you can see, the main subject of it is the mass wave of Muslim immigration to Europe, both on the continent and in the UK, and how that has transformed society.
There's no doubt about it.
The movie criticizes it.
Look at the title, Killing Europe.
But should people be able to watch that movie at all?
Should Canadians be able to pay to see it?
Well, that was a matter that was before an Ontario court recently.
As a group of Canadians wanted to show that film in a public library in Ottawa, they rented the space.
They were selling tickets to people who wanted to see it until the censors deployed and de-platformed the event, banning it.
Well, the good news is there's still one or two Canadians who believe in freedom of speech, and our old friend John Carpet of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom took the case for freedom of speech, and he joins us now in Studio John.
Good to see you again.
Good to see you.
Did I properly summarize what happened in Ottawa?
It was an Ottawa Public Library, private room rental by a group of people.
They were going to show it to a group of ticket buyers, and then some Antifa-style censors basically shouted the library into submission.
I don't know if the censors were as bad as Antifa.
I mean, they were non-violent as far as we know, but people said some individuals agitated on Facebook and social media and whatnot and said, this is anti-Muslim hate speech, and so no platform for hate.
And they put pressure on the library.
The library had signed a contract.
They had agreed to do it.
And of course, as always, there's no formal complaints of hate speech, criminal hate speech.
There's no complaints filed with police, and there's no prosecution for hate speech.
And it's not criminal hate speech.
But people say, oh, oh, it's hate, it's hate.
And then the Ottawa Library caved into political pressure, canceled the contract, and then the two ladies, Madeline Weld and Valerie Price Thomas, took the library to court.
And we lost the first round with the court saying, kind of sidestepping the whole issue, but saying, well, we don't really have authority to review the decision made by the public library.
So they didn't say whether the public library's decision was right or wrong.
They just said we don't really have jurisdiction over that.
Well, I mean, I don't practice law anymore, but, you know, a contract's a contract.
Why would the court claim it doesn't have jurisdiction to enforce a contract?
Well, because the claim was brought as a declaration that it was for judicial review.
So the claim was brought forward not as a breach of contract.
Oh, but as in this government.
It was brought forward as a judicial review because the Ottawa Library is a government body.
Right.
And then the court said, oh, we don't have jurisdiction.
And the court actually said you could sue in contract.
But I think that misses the whole point.
Right.
Because the big point, in my view, is that you've got a public authority, a governmental body, and they've decided, and they don't have to do this.
They could fill up all their rooms with books.
But they've decided we're going to have some rooms that are publicly as a service to the public.
We're going to have some rooms that you can rent out.
And then they've injected their own personal politics into this and said, well, you're not allowed to rent the room because you don't have the correct political views.
So you're barred from renting the room.
That's a problem.
Yeah.
You know, I remember in law school many, many years ago, one of the cases that we studied, and I remember it because it was just so interesting.
It was called Ron Corelli versus JPC.
And it was the Jehovah's Witness restaurant owner.
And the Premier of Quebec was very upset with him.
Because he was always posting bail.
All these Jehovah's Witnesses were doing things.
Street preaching.
And then they're getting arrested.
And then this guy, Ron Corelli, kept posting their bail.
And so Duplessis was so mad, he said, who is this Ron Corelli?
Oh, he's got a liquor license?
Take away his liquor license.
And it was for that political reason.
And that case, and you correct me if I'm wrong, set the rule that if you're in government, you can't use the instruments of government for your personal vendettas.
One of the many good principles out of that case, absolutely.
It's the rule of law.
So why should the Premier of Quebec, a mighty position, has to be neutral in how he exercises the power of the state, why should the Ottawa Public Library be able to get away with it?
Well, they shouldn't.
And we're talking about appealing the case.
We'll be announcing a decision at some point in the near future about whether we're going to appeal it or not.
There are pros and cons, and there are costs, and there's risks of furthering a bad precedent.
It's complicated.
So we're in discussion with the clients on it right now.
Did any lawyers intervene on behalf of the library?
No.
No.
So this is not becoming a huge national case where everyone's lining up on either side.
This was just really a case of deplatforming and censorship.
Recent Censorship Trends00:08:02
In my view, that's absolutely that, deplatforming and censorship saying, you know, I don't like your opinion.
I don't like what you're saying.
So no platform for hate.
I get to censor you.
And I get away with it because I'm this holy angel or this wonderful person fighting against hatred and bigotry.
So I can get away with silencing you just by calling you hateful.
This is the dynamic that's at play and it's very, very toxic.
It's very bad that you can simply censor something by calling it hateful and ending the discussion.
Hate is a human emotion.
It's natural.
We want to control our hate.
We don't want to become violent.
We don't want to.
We want to direct our hate at injustice.
Yeah, and we want to transform our hate into something positive.
We want to use it as fuel to be constructive and to fix the underlying grievance.
I mean, hate often comes from a feeling of injustice.
And if you can take that and fix the underlying grievance, you've not only fixed a problem, but you've turned off the tap for hate.
So you can't just say, we're going to all love each other.
And that's the law, because if you haven't fixed the underlying problem, you've just, it's like painting, it's like putting paint over a deeply rusted metal.
You might have hidden the rust for a little while.
But you didn't fix the problem.
You know what?
This movie is a tough movie.
I mean, I haven't watched the whole thing through, but I watched a large chunk of it.
My main reaction was, boy, this could have used a bit more spit and polish before it being out there.
But these people who wanted to see it, they wanted to see it.
And I have to tell you, the censors who blocked it, they didn't change anyone's mind.
If anything, I think they would convince people that this film is powerful.
It's so powerful that people want to block it.
Like, there's something mysterious about something that's banned.
I mean, every schoolboy who's told he can't read some book because it's too grown up, well, that's the only book they want to read.
You know, it adds a mystique to hate, to ban it, I think.
Well, I saw the whole movie.
It is as biased as any other documentary.
think I've ever seen an unbiased documentary.
When people put together a documentary, typically they do have an opinion, a perspective, something that...
And some documentaries are better than others because they're more honest.
There's that movie, The Red Pill, for example, and the author said, you know, she went into it, author, producer, creator person went into it to, I guess, discover just how bad the men's rights movement is.
And over the course of time, through interviewing a whole bunch of people, she had a shift in her opinion.
And at the end of the movie, she says, I no longer call myself a feminist.
Okay, so maybe that, but the point is this.
Every documentary has got some kind of perspective or viewpoint or bias.
And every media story has bias, even if they're trying to be objective.
This is a very negative take on the negative impact of the Muslim migrants coming into Europe in 2015.
But it is open to anybody else to argue that it's wrong, that it's biased.
Other people can produce documentaries that show the positive impact of immigration into Europe and how positive impacts could include, you know, this, maybe it's enriched the culture or it's done this, that, the other thing.
But just to shut it down with the name-calling, I think, is that's bad for the free society.
Yeah.
I got a question for you, because in recent weeks we've seen a lot more censorship, more and more brazen all the time, I think.
And there are groups that maybe 30, 40 years ago would have roused themselves.
I mean, I think back to the best moments of the ACLU, where they would send a black or a Jewish lawyer to defend Ku Klux Klan members.
Or anti-Semitic speech.
The reason they sent the Jews and the blacks is to make the point, obviously we don't agree with the Klan, we're Jewish and black, but we understand that you have to fight for freedom for everyone.
And there was something really noble about that, I thought.
And in Canada, there was a moment where we had that when Alan Boravoy ran the Canadian Civil Liberties Union.
I think he was part of that old school 60s mentality, civil liberties.
I have not seen in five, maybe ten years, an organization in Canada, Penn International, Canadian Association of Journalists, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Amnesty International.
I have not seen any of these so-called civil liberties groups, including ones with a focus on journalism.
I just simply haven't seen one of them stand up for free speech at all, even for leftist free speech.
Can you think of one case?
Like banning movies?
And everyone's, yeah, that's so cool.
It's okay.
There is a good exception.
In British Columbia, the BC Civil Liberties Association has consistently defended the free speech rights of pro-lifers.
Okay, good for them.
Even though the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is avowedly pro-choice, disagrees with the pro-life speech entirely, but says they have a right.
And they represented the Youth Protecting Youth, which was a pro-life club at the University of Victoria.
Okay, well, I'm very glad to be corrected on that.
So they're good.
But sadly, you know, you look at the Trinity Western litigation in 2001, when the BC Teachers College took the same approach that the law societies did and said, you know, because you, the BC Teachers College said to Trinity Western University, because you believe that gay sex is sinful, you are not eligible or qualified to run a teacher's program to train up teachers.
That was it in a nutshell, right?
And then 15 years later, the Law Society says the same thing, because you think that gay sex is sinful, and for that reason alone, for no other reason, you're not allowed to start a law school, even though we admit that the law school that you propose is academically sound and meets all the professional criteria.
But there they shifted.
And 15 years ago, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association came down on the pro-freedom side with Trinity Western, saying they have a right to have their teaching program because if they happen to think that sex outside of marriage is sinful, well, they have that freedom.
15 years later, Civil Liberties Association came down on the side of the law societies against Trinity Western University.
Very disappointing.
Well, disappointing is the understatement.
They might still be good on free speech.
You know, credit where credit's due.
Well, show me where that's the case.
I accept your statement that the BC Civil Liberties Group is good.
I haven't seen a thing out of the Canadian version, not one thing.
And maybe I've missed it, but I think I've got my finger on the policy of free speech, at least in Toronto and nationally.
And I haven't seen that peep from them ever.
If you go to their website, let me just use the Canadian Journalist for Free Expression.
Pretty clear in their name what they stand for.
Never are they against censorship rules that I've seen.
In fact, their last big petition was to ban Donald Trump himself from speaking in Canada when trying to get him banned from speaking at the G7 conference.
First of all, what's that got to do with your function?
But I guess if the only thing is banning speech, your name is false advertising now.
Pink Shouting Online00:02:06
I find it deeply depressing, which is why I like talking to you, because at least it's nice to see one guy fighting back.
Well, listen, thanks for keeping us posted on this case.
I'm pretty sure you can find this movie online because that's where I would have seen it.
I watched it.
You can spend three, four, or five dollars and see it online.
I think that's what I did.
Yeah, it's called Killing Europe.
And I think everyone is fairly familiar with the story now because four years later we've learned so much more about that mass migration wave.
I'm glad you're fighting for free speech in Canada's capital city.
Thank you.
All right, there you have John Carpe.
He's the boss of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom.
You can check it all out at jccf.ca.
And like us, he doesn't take a dime from government, so he depends on you, my fellow viewer and friend of John.
All right, stay with us.
more ahead on the rebel.
Well, that's our show for today.
What do you think of my thesis I made earlier that a photograph is actually the most powerful propaganda tool?
Even more than words, even more than a video, because you have to pay attention to something that's unfolding in words or video or reading.
Photograph, you just see it in the corner of your eye.
You don't even know that you've ingested it.
Trump was orange and pink and shouting.
I saw it with my own eyes.
If someone said, hey guys, Trump was orange and pink and shouting, you'd have to pay attention.
You'd have to think about it.
You may be or maybe wouldn't be convinced, but you see it.
It's done.
It's in your mind already.
I think photographs are the most powerful propaganda.
And in politics, they're used all the time.
When was the last time you saw a bad media party photo of Justin Trudeau?
When was the time you saw a good media party photo of, I don't know, Stephen Harper, the late Rob Ford?
You never do.
I think we have to be alert to this, and I think the CBC is one of the worst of it.