Ezra Levant exposes government-funded disinformation campaigns targeting truckers and vaccine skeptics, citing Scott Gottlieb’s alleged Twitter censorship push and Pfizer’s $2.3B fine for false advertising amid $100B vaccine investments. The Trucker Convoy Commission falsely accused police of seizing pets/children, while universities and media like CBC demonized dissenters as "far-right" extremists despite Trudeau’s controversies. In California, AB 2098 aimed to silence doctors over COVID-19 views, blocked for vagueness but echoing Canada’s College of Physicians’ disciplinary actions against vaccine critics. Courts now reject mandates as vaccines fail to stop transmission, revealing how "misinformation" labels weaponize dissent while shielding state narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello my friends, a new study is out saying that Russia was definitely involved with the trucker convoy and the proof.
Well, they certainly talked about it a lot on social media.
Therefore, of course, they organized it.
I wish I were making this up, but that's how stupid academia has become.
I'll take you through the study and who's promoting it.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
Go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe.
It's only eight bucks a month, and you get the video version of this podcast.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, more government-funded disinformation smearing the truckers.
It's February 1st, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Well, it's been more than a week since I had my walking scrum with Avi Yamini, where we peppered Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, with questions on the streets of Davos at the World Economic Forum.
And I think we asked some good ones.
But the number one question I wish I thought of at the time, and it was a very intense few minutes there, so I don't want to beat myself up too badly for not thinking of it, was this news that has not been reported in the CBC.
But of course, the foreign press is often more balanced than our domestic press.
Look at this story in the Daily Mail.
Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb leaned on Twitter to censor tweets, which argued against vaccine passports and claimed natural immunity was stronger than the shot.
Latest Twitter files dump reveals.
I checked the search engine on the CBC, not a word about that.
It's actually worse than that.
Scott Gottlieb is on the board of Pfizer, but he was actually the former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner.
He was engaging in a cover-up of alternative points of view, which were true.
He was censoring or pressuring Twitter to censor medical voices that said natural immunity is strong.
That's actual disinformation, actual harmful lies.
How many people unnecessarily took the jab then?
How many people were panicked because of what Pfizer said and did?
That's disinformation.
We saw that during the Trucker Commission too: government disinformation.
Remember, it came out during the Trucker Commission of Inquiry that the police were lying about seizing children and pets from protesters.
They made a public announcement that Child and Family Services was going to seize children and that the SPCA was going to seize pets.
Neither organization said that.
It was just the police engaging in psychological warfare against its own citizens.
You could call that misinformation.
And of course, the chief of police in Ottawa terrorizing any donor, any grandma or grandpa across the country who chipped in 10 or 20 bucks.
The police chief barking at them that he would hunt them down.
Now, of course, it was partly true.
Under the Emergencies Act, 200 people had their bank accounts seized, but not the thousands that donated.
So there is disinformation in the world, but most of it, by my judgment, comes from the government.
Most of the time, it's what the government calls disinformation.
It's just skepticism or dissent, having a different opinion.
That's not disinformation.
It's just another point of view.
And in fact, so many conspiracy theories have later come true.
I mean, this is just the craziest clip here.
This is the same Albert Burla at the World Economic Forum a few years ago talking about something that if you saw it on Alex Jones and Infowars, you'd say, oh, that's a crazy conspiracy theory.
No, they really did say this.
Take a look.
Secrets and Biological Chips00:03:35
It is basically a biological chip that it is in the tablet.
And once you take the tablet, and dissolves into your stomach, sends a signal that you took the tablet.
So imagine the applications of that, compliance.
The insurance companies to know that the medicines that patients should take, they do take them.
It is fascinating what happens in this field.
So many of the things that are being spoken about by conventional wisdom today were considered radical and illegal misinformation just years or even months ago.
Here's Bill Gates talking about the vaccines and basically the fact that they don't work.
The current vaccines are not infection blocking.
They're not broad.
So when new variants come up, you lose protection.
And they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.
And every one of those things is fixable.
In fact, doing that work is going to help vaccinology very, very broadly.
The current vaccines are not infection blocking.
They're not broad.
They have very short duration.
I didn't know you were allowed to say that, but I guess if you're Bill Gates, you can say whatever you want, and that becomes a new normal.
Remember my question to Albert Burla about the changing efficacy and transmissibility?
First 100%, then 90%.
Remember this question I asked him?
You said it was 100% effective, then 90%, then 80%, then 70%.
But we now know that the vaccines do not stop transmission.
Why did you keep that secret?
Have a nice day.
I won't have a nice day until I know the answer.
Why did you keep it a secret that your vaccine did not stop transmission?
Those questions were inspired by this online video montage.
I don't know who made it, but this was on my mind when I asked Boiler those questions.
So again, is that misinformation from the head of Pfizer and the many people he paid?
Well, of course it was misinformation.
Or as it used to be called, advertising.
Of course, there are some rules about false advertising.
As the Department of Justice called it, deceptive marketing, when they convicted Pfizer, made them pay the largest fine to that point in history, $2.3 billion.
Now, the establishment loves vaccines, and they'll tell misinformation and disinformation to get you to buy vaccines and take vaccines.
And the establishment hates the truckers, in part because the truckers were against forced vaccines.
Misinformation and Propaganda00:15:19
And the new official message track, of course, for the past year is that the Ukraine war and Vladimir Putin are central to our lives.
So the perfect storm was gathering connecting all three of these things, vaccines, truckers, and Vladimir Putin.
So obviously the CBC put it all together in this perfect comment.
I do ask that because, you know, given Canada's support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia, I don't know if it's far-fetched to ask, but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, but perhaps even instigating it from the outset.
Well, that was an embarrassing joke.
Even more embarrassing was the CBC, whose own ombudsman admitted it was sloppy, even for them.
Their own internal review wrote a long justification of it, but said in the end, quote, I did, though, come away from my review with some broader concerns.
I am disappointed that it took others to point out to CBC that the question was off.
It should have been caught before broadcast.
I am also disappointed that programmers were not more sensitive in advance to the perils of speculating on subjects such as the convoy or Russian interference in Canadian affairs.
Yeah, no, the CBC lied.
It took them the better part of a year to half own up to it.
And of course, they promoted that liar.
So yeah, misinformation, disinformation, which brings us to the news today.
The Pfizer lies are enormous.
$100 billion turned on it, so of course they're going to lie.
The CBC lies are just huge.
Smear the truckers, Trudeau's real enemy, the first real opposition to Trudeau in nearly a decade, smear them.
But what is the biggest lying machine in Canada?
What machine has lied to an entire generation?
Our universities, of course, are woke professors, partly because they're naturally leftist, but partly because they are, in many cases, funded by Trudeau and his grants.
Trudeau has colonized academia just like he has colonized the news media.
Here's a longtime regime journalist Stephen Maher who said, it is reasonable to infer that RT, Russia today's extensive coverage of the convoy, may be just the most visible sign of a broader influence campaign encompassing other actors and activities, including proxy sources, cyber operations, social media accounts.
RT is Putin's state broadcaster like the CBC is to Trudeau.
And he was linking to this.
I published a 7,000-word analysis in the Journal of Intelligence Conflict and Warfare today, documenting evidence of Russian influence activities targeting the 2022 Canadian Freedom Convoy by a state-funded media, proxy sources, and telegram groups.
Now, I did my best to read this 7,000-word essay, but really, it didn't need to be 7,000 words long.
I don't know, unless she was getting paid by the word or something, which could be.
Or she was trying to make it look like there was more substance there, like there was more than there than there really was.
Let me read to you the abstract, which is an academic way of saying a summary of an article.
Russia's role in the far-right truck convoy sort of gives away where she's coming from right there, doesn't it?
An analysis of Russian state media activity related to the 2022 Freedom Convoy by Caroline Orr Bueno, University of Maryland, United States.
Because who knows more about the Canadian truckers than someone writing in Maryland.
But please let me read to you the abstract in full because it is just so perfect.
This is, I remind you, fighting against misinformation.
It's a kind of a fact check.
It's scolding you.
It's telling you why you are not just wrong, but why you are morally wrong.
You are bad.
She's good.
You're a racist.
Trudeau is a hero.
Let me read to you the proof that the Russians were, in fact, orchestrating the Trucker Convoy.
You're going to laugh.
Nearly a year after the start of Canada's 2022 Freedom Convoy, a series of protests and blockades that brought together a wide variety of far-right activists and extremists, as well as ordinary Canadians who found common ground with the aggrieved message of the organizers, the question of whether and to what degree foreign actors were involved remains largely unanswered.
Yeah, no, sister, it's been pretty exclusively and exhaustively answered.
This paper attempts to answer some of those questions by providing a brief but targeted analysis of Russia's involvement in the Freedom Convoy via media and social media.
The analysis examines Russian involvement in the convoy through the lenses of overt state media coverage, state-affiliated proxy websites, and overlap between Russian propaganda and convoy content on social media.
The findings reveal that the Russian state media outlet RT covered the Freedom Convoy far more than any other international media outlet, suggesting strong interest in the far-right Canadian protest movement on the part of the Russian state.
State-affiliated proxy websites and content on the messaging platform Telegram provide further evidence of Russia's strategic interest in the Freedom Convoy.
Based on these findings, it is reasonable to infer that there was Russian involvement in the 2022 truck convoy, though the scope and impact remain to be determined.
So because Putin's TV channel covered the truckers, it is reasonable to infer that the Russians were organizing it, they were involved with it, they orchestrated it.
So there's actually no evidence of that.
Just, of course, just infer it.
Just fill in the blanks with your own made-up facts.
That's a conspiracy theory.
That's disinformation.
This is a scholar published in a scholarly paper, proving things.
This is science.
Russian state media arm RT, formerly Russia Today, covered the convoy more than any other international media outlet, particularly during the crucial early weeks of the protest, which may have given RT an opportunity to influence the tone and framing of coverage for the duration of the convoy.
Do you watch RT?
I bet you don't because you can't actually find it on TV in Canada anymore.
It was banned by Trudeau.
You can try and find it online, but you'll find that tough too, since it was banned by YouTube as well.
But this expert says that because RT covered the protests, that influenced other media, influenced the protesters themselves.
Do you think the truckers or those covering them were going to RT to see how RT was covering them?
Do you think that happened?
And if they were, do you think that is evidence that Russia was running things?
I do ask that because, you know, given Canada's support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia, I don't know if it's far-fetched to ask, but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, but perhaps even instigating it from the outset.
Listen to this scholar some more.
Underneath all these seemingly distinct movements is a rising tide of right-wing populism infused with a toxic blend of conspiracy theories, disinformation, grievances, and scapegoating that is now dominating political narratives and leading to increasingly inflammatory rhetoric that at times has spilled over into violence.
Violence?
The truckers?
I guess so.
I guess so.
That's when Trudeau's police and their horses stomped on peaceful protesters.
When Trudeau's police shot our reporter, Alexa Lavoisier, I guess they did have some violence and grievances and scapegoating.
I guess that's true, like when Trudeau scapegoat of the unvaxxed.
It is extremists who are in the science that are racist, but tolerance is Jean.
But this is scholarship, people.
This is a self-described disinformation expert.
So because Russia today covered the truckers, they were involved with the truckers.
Got it.
Okay.
Imagine treating this study as legit.
I promise you'll see it everywhere in tomorrow's newspapers.
Of course you will.
Now, I opened up the report on my computer and I did a word search.
The phrase far-right appeared 30 times.
Propaganda appeared 35, disinformation 42 times.
It's so boring, so dreary.
It's the kind of thing that was probably written by that chat GPT artificial intelligence website.
Have you ever used that website?
It's just a kaleidoscope of buzzwords.
Write a piece scaremongering about the truckers and disinformation and Russia.
You would get this report.
One of the things that bothers the author is criticism of Trudeau and that he was heavy-handed.
Six times in her study, she complains about how Trudeau was characterized.
Here's an example.
It was claimed that protesters were being demonized and abused by the media and the government and accused the Trudeau government of ordering the use of violence against demonstrators.
Yeah, that can't possibly have been a legitimate criticism to Trudeau invoking martial law and asking if we should even tolerate the unvaccinated.
Must be Russian propaganda then.
Just like that Calgary disinformation professor, Jean-Christophe Boucher, who accused rebel news of being Russian agents because we undermined support for Trudeau and the liberals.
That was proof, he said, that we were Russian propagandists.
I mean, who other than Putin could possibly be against Trudeau?
Disinformation, fact-check, censorship, it's all an attempt to control you, to gaslight you, to lie to you, to propagandize you, to sell you.
You might even say it's a bit of a Soviet kind of thing to do.
Stay with us for more about misinformation.
It's been almost three years, and yet the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to weigh in on any of the civil liberties infringements emanating from the pandemic.
I guess they're busy with more important things, or maybe they already did weigh in on the matter.
As you know, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court early on announced he was imposing a vaccine mandate on Supreme Court staff themselves.
So, really, he telegraphed to the world before a trial, before a hearing, that his view was vaccine mandates were obviously okay since he was imposing one himself.
That is the quality of our justice in Canada.
And indeed, the message was heard by all lower courts.
This day, there has yet to be a single substantive civil liberties law or regulation that was struck down, even though our vaunted Charter of Rights was, well, it was said to be second only to the Bible in terms of defining what Canadians were.
It is therefore with great jealousy that I cast my gaze down to the United States, where their courts, even in blue Democrat states, are not shy about striking down overreaching legislation that uses COVID-19 as an excuse.
And what I find very gratifying is that when there is a battle in an American court for freedom against a lockdown overreach, odds are you will find our next guest there.
I'm talking about our friend Janine Eunice, a lawyer with the new Civil Liberties Alliance.
And what a delight to have her on the show today.
Janine, great to see you, fresh on the heels of a victory in California.
Congratulations.
Tell our viewers all about it.
Oh, thank you so much, Ezra.
Thanks for having me in again.
So, yeah, this was a law that prohibited doctors from giving misinformation to patients, disseminating misinformation to patients.
And misinformation is defined as false information contradictory to the scientific consensus and contrary to the standard of care.
Sorry, contrary to the standard of care.
There's no and in there, which was one of the sticking points.
So it's this phrase that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Mishmash the whole standards together, standard of care, scientific consensus.
And when you take into account, of course, that this whole issue has been politicized and the bill's legislative history, which is clearly designed to, shows it's clearly designed to silence doctors who disagree on COVID-related matters, especially masks and vaccines, the judge was right to halt it.
So this is a preliminary emergency motion.
So there's still more work to be done, but it's a really good sign.
Well, I feel great about it.
When you throw in words like COVID-19 and misinformation, you're touching all the buzzwords used for censorship in other parts of society.
That's what YouTube says in their quote, community guidelines.
That's what they used to shut down discussion on social media.
So when the legislature of California thought, well, let's just combine those two things, talk about COVID, talk about misinformation, it's a slam dunk.
And indeed, it was in the legislature.
But the judge called the definition of misinformation, if I'm quoting correctly, he called it nonsense, as in he couldn't make heads or tails of it.
I can see that because really one man's misinformation is another man's truth.
And by the way, we don't quite yet know what all the truths are because let truth and falsehood grapple.
All progress depends on revealing new truths that we don't yet know.
So the idea that you can define what idea is good and what idea is bad in advance by a legislature is so, it's the opposite of science, Janine.
And yet this was being imposed on doctors.
Exactly.
And so the state's argument was basically that, well, doctors have to abide by a standard of care anyway, right, to prevent medical malpractice lawsuits.
That's a term they're familiar with.
And there are other parts of the California disciplinary code that prohibit fraud.
So if you tell a patient that, I don't know, COVID is caused by laser beams, I just heard that in a podcast I'm stealing from, you know, that would be deception or fraud.
Viewpoint-Based Law Impacts00:10:15
The law doesn't protect that.
But our argument was, first of all, yes, standard of care is a term in medical malpractice lawsuits, but you're putting it together with the term scientific consensus in a way that, you know, that term is not one that doctors are really familiar with in operating their practices.
So it doesn't make a lot of sense.
And if the two terms are the same, then why do you have both of them?
It seemed to me obvious that what it's trying to do is to make doctors afraid so that they don't say, you know, they don't tell patients, you know, I'm not sure that masks work, which many doctors are asked about, or maybe you don't need the vaccine because you're 15 and you just had COVID.
And that's in fact what our, I'm representing five doctors in the case, and they said they're, you know, those are things that they've said to patients in the past, they intend to say in the future, but they're afraid to say them now because they think they could be disciplined under the law.
And the state attorney actually acknowledged the judge directly asked her, well, could these plaintiffs be disciplined for the things they're saying?
And she said, I don't know.
And he said, well, that's the problem here.
If you don't know, then that shows the law is unconstitutionally vague, which was the argument that we won on at the hearing.
Well, I find it so encouraging that a judge would ask just normal judge-y questions like that.
We haven't seen that in Canada yet.
I want to ask, did this law, which has now been temporarily frozen, did it apply only to COVID-19?
That's my understanding, which again shows the weirdness to it.
I mean, there are many ailments and diseases that there's sort of a traditional or mainstream viewpoint.
And then there's always second opinions or alternative treatments or unusual or even desperate treatments.
We've all heard of cases where people have tried the tried and true, and they're so desperate, they're going to very unusual treatments.
And we know about that.
And we typically feel bad for someone driven to such ends.
And I'm sure those doctors who have unorthodox methods are scrutinized, but only COVID-19 was caught by this, if I'm not mistaken.
Is that correct?
That's right.
And that was one of our arguments.
So we had two separate arguments.
One was the vagueness argument, which was what we won on.
The other was First Amendment.
So the First Amendment prohibits, among other things, the government from censoring people for expressing certain views, disfavored views.
And so we were arguing that this was effectively viewpoint discrimination.
The judge actually decided, for reasons I can only speculate about, not to address that.
So he said, I find it vague, so I'm not even going to go to the First Amendment question.
But in terms of our First Amendment argument, we said our argument was one of the reasons you know that this is designed to silence doctors who disagree with the state is it's just about COVID.
If you're so concerned about misinformation causing death, why aren't you concerned about misinformation with cancer?
You know, there are lots of doctors who say maybe you don't need chemo or, you know, who embrace alternative treatments for cancer or heart disease.
I mean, you have doctors now telling people it's perfectly healthy to doughnuts are just as good as fruits and vegetables, which I would call misinformation for other political reasons.
But the fact that they're targeting COVID shows that this is a viewpoint-based law.
So I think that's a good argument.
And I imagine it'll be addressed on appeal.
Yeah.
I understand that the California Medical Association actually supported this law, which, if true, is deeply disappointing.
I mean, they're supposed to be advocates and champions of doctors.
It's sort of like a doctor's union, if it's the same as the Canadian Medical Association.
And yet they look like they've been colonized.
They're the enforcers, just like in Canada, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is actually a regulatory body has been, in fact, in their own way, Janine, implementing this California law.
They have been suspending or prosecuting or at least investigating any doctor who issued an exemption or spoke out against it or called for alternative treatments, like let's say Ivermectin.
But the CMA, why would they support it?
Are they just a political creature posing as doctors' advocates?
Yeah, I mean, I think at this point, that would be my take.
All of these organizations, you know, CDC, the California Medical Association, any doctors association in a blue state has really just become sort of political actors who, and, you know, any, they're just designed, or at this point, their main goal is just to further a certain viewpoint, which is, you know, COVID restrictions.
So I think that's the explanation there.
And one of the interesting things about the proponents of this bill was a number of them have threatened my clients on social media saying, you know, we can't wait to get your licenses taken away using AB 2098.
So that was another argument we used to say this is clearly designed to silence doctors who have different views from the state.
This isn't some kind of benign or reasonable law, you know, preventing doctors from saying that vaccines have a microchip or, you know, will turn you into an alien or something, which I don't think any doctors have ever said anyway.
And other, you know, other parts of the state's business and professions code prevent them from saying those things.
Yeah, it's very crazy.
Well, let me ask you this.
The CMA was on the other side.
You were on the side of the angels.
I understand you had five doctors who were your clients.
Were there other interveners?
Were there other people in the court or who submitted briefings to the court one way or the other?
Sometimes that's a good barometer of where other civil liberties groups are, where other interest groups are.
Was there any other intervention other than the new Civil Liberties Alliance?
Yeah, so we had amicus briefs.
I don't know if you have the same concept or term in Canada, but it's, you know, they're not parties to the lawsuit, but they have an interest based on what their organization's mission is.
So actually the ACLU submitted an amicus brief, which is somewhat unusual because the ACS is, sorry, the ACLU has been a bit absent during the COVID pandemic, one might say.
So I should check which side they on whose side they intervene.
I should double check because I don't know the answer.
Yeah, that's true.
You're right.
They haven't just been absent.
They've actually embraced vaccine mandates.
So they've actually been on the wrong side of this.
But they actually filed an amicus brief in support of us and made a lot of excellent points, actually.
So we were pleased to have their support.
Another organization, A Voice for Choice, submitted an Amicus brief.
It's sort of a physician's group that, you know, actually, I think it's a patients group that advocates for informed consent.
So we had some support.
I don't think any, no amicus briefs were submitted in support of the state.
So it was nice to have that support there.
Yeah, well, that's a surprise right there.
Well, listen, I just, I knew you'd be involved with this case because you in particular have been fighting the good fight on so many COVID-related and lockdown related battles, including, I remember, professors who were commanded to take a jab, even though they had natural immunity and things of that sort.
I think you're really fighting the good fight.
Let me ask you one last question before I let you go.
In Canada, most of the mandates are gone.
Not all, but most.
And I think a lot of the tickets and cases are, you know, not being prosecuted.
They're sort of aging out and they'll just sort of wither on the vine.
I think a lot of the more spectacular charges were just to scare people into compliance.
They wanted it to look so brutal out there, be so to make people afraid to go out.
I mean, some of the enforcement, I think, was literally designed to create shock in the community to scare people to stay home, to scare people to not travel.
So the abusiveness of it was actually the point of it.
And now that prosecutors have to take these tickets and charges to court, I think a lot of them are saying, yeah, in the cold morning after the wild party last night, I don't know if I want to go to a judge with this.
I guess what I'm saying is in Canada, I sense a lot of cases are just going to be stayed or dropped.
At least I hope that's the case.
What's it like in America?
Are there lots of cases out there?
Or are there lots of, is this a current issue?
For example, in some of the blue states, are they still banning people who are not vaccinated from working in hospitals or government or the military?
Yeah, there's some of that.
Most of the government mandates aren't in effect so much.
There are definitely still some employee mandates, some college booster mandates.
That's one thing I hear a lot about.
There are even some mask mandates, especially for kids in some of the blue states.
And a lot of private organizations.
I was just reading, I think, that Broadway somewhere is still requiring masks.
So there's still some of this.
The lawsuits are actually getting a little bit more successful.
Like there have been some recent vaccine mandate successes that I think wouldn't have been successful a year or two ago, because I think courts are starting to see, okay, this is ridiculous.
And even though the law is the same, it's the honestly, you know, the facts, the landscape has changed, especially now we know the vaccine doesn't stop transmission.
Yeah.
And I think some of the judges have sobered up a little bit.
I think some of the judges were honestly terrified.
I mean, judges generally are older people who may have been more, they're absolutely trusters of authority.
They love authority.
They live in authority.
So I think of all the people to adjudicate these matters, scared judges, part of the establishment, who, like other experts such as themselves, were probably the most locked down friendly people in society.
And I think that they have sobered up a little bit over the years.
Janine, great to see you again, folks.
She's fighting for freedom with the new Civil Liberties Alliance.
Look forward to your next battle, my friend.
Thank you so much.
What's the commonality between our two stories today?
Well, it's pretty easy to see.
The government banning ideas they don't like by calling your ideas misinformation and disinformation, but certainly not their ideas.
They're never wrong.
And when they are, it's your fault or it was all in good faith.
You're never right, even if your fears turn out to be true, as so often happened during the lockdown.
Justin's Misinformation Myth00:01:09
In California, they tried to actually pass a law banning misinformation, but the judge found the definition to be nonsense.
How can you tell if something is true or not in a piece of legislation?
It's like when Justin Trudeau banned rebel news from the leaders' debates, he couldn't come up with any criteria that would allow them to ban rebel news, but let in the CBC or the Toronto Star or some left-wing publications like, say, the Narwhal or the Taiye, because they literally could not describe rebel news and what they hate about us in a way that doesn't touch half the rest of the media.
Same thing with misinformation.
What Justin Trudeau calls misinformation can only be explained based on him, what he doesn't like, what he says you shouldn't believe.
There is no way to define it in an objective sense.
Anyone who uses the word misinformation or disinformation with you, or even fact check, which every journalist should be, anyone who uses that lingo with you, well, they're the misinformationists.