You Don't Hate The Media Enough

 

 There is a BIG story in Canada right now about a school shooter in northern British Columbia (B.C.). There are not a lot of mass shootings in Canada, so when one happens, and it happens at a school, it is big news. But the coverage of this has been anything but honest.

 

I was first hearing about this shooting last night, as my wife fed me tidbits as she found them. What my wife was telling me, in the approximate order that I heard it, was that there was a shooting in B.C., it was at a school, the suspected shooter was a "female in a dress with brown hair", 10 dead, 25 injured, the shooter killed themselves.

As soon as I heard that phrase, "female in a dress with brown hair", I said to my wife that women don't do mass shootings; that shooter is a transgender.

This morning, I decided to do a media dive to see what the world is being told about this incident. I have a strong disdain for the media, for very good reason, so I was not holding out much hope that the story has been shared accurately. The media did not disappoint...well, they did disappoint, but in the expected way.

Once a day I will look at Ground.news, to see what is being reported from across the country and around the world. I don't use that site for the integrity of the reporting; they don't report anything, they just share the articles from news agencies, coalescing media from other sources. Ground.news is a site that gathers news articles from publishers and claims to present the news in an unbiased manner, indicating the apparent biases of the actual publishers of the different articles that they present. Of course, there is a definite skew of bias in the initial headlines that they use to grab your attention. Once you click on a headline, you can see what the left, centre and right leaning publishers are saying about a story, but it is almost never a right leaning headline that is the initial hook from the home page. So I went to Ground.news to see what the spin was going to be on this story.

Keep in mind that this shooting happened on February 10, 2026; what is now yesterday for me, and I am writing this article on the morning of February 11, 2026. This incident was first reported to the local police around 1:20 pm on February 10, so by the time this article posts, it will have been around 24 hours since it started. That should be plenty of time to get the basics of this story correct and to issue corrections to original stories that were posted in the early minutes after the incident hit the air waves.

As I looked at the media coverage, I decided to look first at the left leaning media, then the centre, then the right leaning media, and take notes about the time that the article was released as well as the nature of the coverage. Let's look at the left leaning coverage first.

I looked at the first ten articles or so, though some were skipped because they were either in a foreign language or the sources were from overseas. My goal was to keep the coverage as close to home as possible. I examined eight specific articles. I tried to keep the coverage to North American sources, though I have since seen that one source is from Latin America. Four sources are from Canada and the remaining three are from the U.S. These articles ranged in age from 7 hours old to just 11 minutes old.

 

All but one of those articles made the statement "female in a dress with brown hair" their main descriptor of the perpetrator, while four of the articles referred to the deceased shooter as "female" or "woman". As I recall, most, if not all of the articles mentioned the shooter only about halfway down, after having talked about the reactions of the Prime Minister and various other world leaders or recounting other non-relevant fluff details. It's almost like they are trying to bury the most damning information of this story. Quite a number of the articles were copy-paste with the primary source of the article and the information being the Canadian Press. Overall, this coverage was disappointing, but not surprising.

Then I moved to the centre aligned media; the supposedly most honest reporting available since they apparently do not support any type of narrative, right? HA!! What a joke that premise is!

I looked at six articles from the centre. After that point they were becoming completely foreign sources. I am pretty sure that all of these sources were from the U.S. I guess we do not have any centre aligning news agencies in Canada?? The reporting that I found ranged in age from 2 to 6 hours old.

Every, single article referred to the deceased shooter as being "female" or a "woman"; this reporting was unequivocal with absolutely no wavering. Not one of the articles mentioned the initial police description of "female in a dress with brown hair". I am unsure of the sources for the information shared by these publishers. I will be honest; I had more hope for the centre aligned media. They may be worse than the left leaning media for spin.

Then I moved on to the right leaning articles. The pickings here were even slimmer than the centre aligned media. In order to get the seven sources that I ended up comparing, I needed to cast a wide net of coverage, ranging from the U.S. to South Africa, to Germany to Greece in order to find enough articles to make a comparison. I even had to brush off my German skills to read the article from Germany. There is no right-leaning Canadian coverage to be found on Ground.news. These articles are all the oldest available, seeming to be in the area of about 7 hours old. Based on that fact alone, you would think that they would have the least detail and the vaguest coverage.

It was in this coverage that the truth begins to come out. Four of these articles use the "female in a dress with brown hair" in their article. One American, small town publisher was non-specific in their reporting of the sex of the shooter other than that quote. One article, from Kenya, was careful to state that "the media" was reporting that the shooter was a female (It's almost like they didn't trust their own sources).

 

One article from the U.S. and which seems to come from a Christian conservative parent company, specifically noted the wording used by the on-site police sergeant when he stated that the "gun-person" was deceased. This reporting tickled my sarcasm nerve - "The cautious phrasing and refusal, for the privacy rights of the dead suspect, no less, to name the gun-person curiously described as 'a female in a dress' has only served to blow speculation about the true identity of the individual sky high." They also quote a post on X; 

 

"Breaking: RCMP Staff Sgt. Kris Clark refuses to name the Tumbler Ridge school shooter — citing PRIVACY REASONS

When it's a trans homicidal maniac behind a mass killing, suddenly privacy trumps victims families knowing the truth.  

Peak Liberalism"

 

Another article which I believe was also from the U.S. used the word "gunman" in their headline. Compared to the other coverage, that is a bold move! Now we're getting closer to the truth.

 

The article from Germany uses the word "Trans" in the headline, refers to the general description regarding the dress, specifically refers to the gender-neutral language that the on-site police sergeant was using, and openly speculates in the article about whether or not the shooter was a trans "woman", based largely upon that language and the refusal to be direct with the media. How very astute!

The Greek article was the only one to report that "authorities" identified the shooter as Jesse Strang, 17 years old, (otherwise reported as Jesse Van Rootselaar [trans name?], 18 years old) and has also reported that the family has confirmed that Jesse identified as a transgender. So there the truth is finally found; but how many people will actually hear it? If this is any indication of Canada's news agencies, almost nobody will know that it was a dude with a mental illness in a dress unless they search for it.

It took me about an hour to dig up some truth about this horrible event, even knowing what I was looking for. Most people do not have the time and are not interested in digging into the media reports that much to find out what is really going on, so most people are misinformed or disinformed due to the blatant media bias that we are subjected to every single day, especially here in Canada.

See how the only coverage that I found on Ground.news that was from Canada was from the left leaning media? There is a very good reason for this. All of the highly funded and well resourced media networks in Canada are left leaning. This situation stems largely from government subsidies.

 

There are only two right leaning news sources in Canada that I consider reputable, and only one of those had the manpower to cover this story, which they appear to have done honestly. They have three stories spanning about the last 12 hours as of the time that I am writing this, and all three identify the shooter as being trans right in the headline; as of five hours earlier than the left leaning media's coverage. So why is it that the left and centre aligned media are still not able to report this? The answer is that their liberal bias will not allow it unless there is backlash against the current reporting. The trick is to report on it right away, sharing only speculation and innuendo, then quietly move on to other stories. 

 

The facts of this story will get buried; just watch. It has to. This story goes against the left's narrative.

 

There is also the aspect of the cover up of the the poor reporting and Ground.news has already begun that cover up. There were two main headlines on the Ground.news home page about this shooting when I started looking. By the time I had finished with reading the articles from one headline, the other had already been removed from the home page. The one that was left up was the first one with the earliest reporting; the headline that would lead to updates was the one that was removed. Curious.

 

As the title of this article states; you don't hate the media enough! They no longer exist to inform you, they exist to control what you see and what you think. There is still enough "integrity" in the media to report on the big stories right away: hmm..."integrity" is the wrong word; they are still forced to report on the big stories, because to fail to do so would show everyone what their game is. As long as there are alternative news sources, their feet are held to the fire to a certain degree. They have to report it, but they don't have to do so honestly and they don't need to leave their reports on their home page for very long.

 

If the media is willing to obfuscate the truth in a story as tragic as this one, what are they willing to obfuscate when they are covering their Sugar Daddy, the Canadian Liberal government? Think about that for a minute.

 

We have had a Liberal government for about 11 years now and Canada has almost never been in as sad a condition as it is now. Yet do we hear that from our media? No. They parrot the government talking points. Yes, we can all see the costs of living increasing, but the government would have you believe that this is due to "global difficulties" and not a decade of destructive Liberal policies that have been kneecapping our resource industries and overburdening our manufacturing industries. They would rather have you believe that their prime opposition, the Conservative Party under Pierre Poillievre, are somehow evil, and that they are somehow undermining the future of Canada by opposing government bills and that it is this opposition that is holding back Canadian prosperity.

Canada was doing well when Justin Trudeau took the reins of government from the Stephen Harper Conservatives, very well actually, and our decline began almost right away, but the first step was to buy positive media spin with government subsidies to the media. But not all media were eligible (and not all media were interested). Only certain media sources were willing to sell their souls to the government for money with strings attached. Any and all negative coverage of the government and Trudeau specifically had to stop if you wanted the money. 

 

Okay Sugar Daddy! The legacy media lined up for their gravy train and haven't looked back, except for a little while in December and January of 2024/2025 when Trudeau was obviously hated by the vast majority of Canadians and to report otherwise would have been journalistic suicide. But then Carney the saviour came on the scene and all positive reporting on the Liberals and the government could resume.

Have you ever wondered why the media spends so much time attacking the opposition leader in this country instead of challenging the party that is in power and its talking heads? The purpose of the media is to challenge those who are in power and to ask them the hard questions about where they are steering this country. Today, the media ask mostly softball questions of the government and accept word salad topped with fluff as the official response.

 

In Parliament, the opposition is almost nothing. We never used to hear about the opposition in Parliament. They had to fight to get their faces on the news as they worked to hold the government to account; you know, doing what they were elected to do. Now, Pierre Poillievre is almost daily dragged onto the news cycle with claims that he is unapproachable, cold and angry. I think our opposition leader gets almost as much air time as the Prime Minister, but it is usually in the context of others talking about him and not him sharing the positions of the opposition party.

During the last election, I got to see more of Pierre than at any time prior. There was quite a bit of very good coverage of his rallies across the country thanks to independent media sources, typically on Youtube and other social media. When the independent cameras were rolling before and after the rallies, you would see Pierre shaking as many hands and hugging as many people as possible before the rally. Then, when the rally was done, he would stay at the venue until every, single person who wanted to talk and/or have a picture taken with him had an opportunity. There was so much footage of him listening to Canadians who are struggling open up to him about their struggles and their concerns about this country and the direction that we are going. 

 

Do you think that Trudeau or Carney have ever done that? I have never seen it. Their appearances are so tightly scheduled that they could not actually meet the people even if they wanted to. I don't believe that they want to. They want to speak, be adored, and disappear, maintaining the 'mystique'.

 

Pierre would stick around, sometimes for hours, even against the wishes of his own campaign team, and the time investment exhausted him, though the interactions fuelled him. It was a winning strategy, gaining the Conservatives the highest seat count that I think they have ever had short of holding government. In a typical election, they would be the governing party, but the collapse of the NDP undercut the gains and gave the Liberals a slim victory.

The legacy media will not show you how much Pierre is loved and appreciated. To do so is actually against their current mandate. The media needs the Liberals in power as much as the Liberals need a majority government so that they can ram through their dangerous policies without opposition. 

 

We will see an election this year; I can almost guarantee it. Mark Carney, the board chair, does not like that he has to answer to anyone. He will continue to ignore Donald Trump and claim that it is Trump that is being difficult, and Carney will continue to act in ways to call down upon Canada sarcastic comments from Trump, because every time he gets a reaction from Trump, his poll numbers get a bump.

Canada, you are being played by your government, and the media is the method that they are using. You need to learn to see through what you are being told and find the truth. This takes time and persistence, but it will pay off.

 

In today's media landscape, you need to pay attention to what the media is saying, but do not trust them. If you fail to pay attention to the media you will be uninformed; if you pay attention to the media you will be misinformed. That is a no-win scenario. It is due to the uninformed and the misinformed that the Mark Carney Liberals are currently sitting in the seats of government. Had eastern Canada learned to distrust the media as they should, we would have a very different Canada at this time.

 

You need to find alternative voices that you can trust that speak in opposition to the government; that are not swayed by the government spin, but that rather challenges it rightly. There are a few sources on Youtube that I go to regularly. The reporting is solid and doesn't rely on emotions to get you to believe them. Some of these are Northern Perspective, The Elevate Report, Moose on the Loose and Jasmin Laine. I have also recently found Bakes on Things whose opinions I have been coming to appreciate, and the Toronto Sun tends to have good political opinions as well; especially from Brian Lilley, Adrienne Batra, Lorrie Goldstein and Warren Kinsella . 

 

Take these as suggestions if you like, and share them with those you know who are Liberal supporters. There are some other right leaning political Youtube channels, but too many of those tend to try to get you emotionally involved, which can affect your perceptions and cause you to be lead by their views instead of thinking critically about their views.

 

I also want to drop a link here to a site on which one can watch the various committees as they work through the bills that are introduced in Parliament or they examine budget issues. If someone is good at multitasking, you can probably have this playing in the background while you do something else, but some stuff that goes on here will catch your attention. The OGGO committee (the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates) meetings are especially eye opening. This is for policy junkies and political addicts. On this page you will get a much better understanding about how our government works and doesn't work. 

 

It is amazing what you can learn by observing how the government reacts to questions from parliamentarians regarding different issues being discussed in these committees. And it can be infuriating to watch government ministers and bureaucrats try to avoid answering the questions, or other government ministers trying to defend the witnesses or impede opposition questioning. The failures to answer shed as much light, and maybe more, than the actual answers do. When you see the government ministers wriggle in discomfort when they are getting challenged and subsequently giving non-answers to run the clock out, that is when you see how untenable the government positions actually are.

 

Critical thinking is the key to getting Canada out of the mess that we currently find ourselves in. We need to find ways to expose the Liberal voters to concise and truthful alternate positions on government policies; voices that will punch through the fog of obscure language and translate what the government is actually trying to do.

 

And most important of all, the thing to keep in mind is; You Don't Hate the Media Enough!

#maketransamentalillnessagain