Ninety-Eight Mentions. Zero Coverage. Canada, Are You Serious?

https://canadafirstparty.substack.com/p/ninety-eight-mentions-zero-coverage

Something extraordinary just happened - and in Canada, you wouldn’t know it.

The latest release from the U.S. Department of Justice Epstein document archive includes 98 mentions of two of Canada’s most powerful political figures: Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau.

That fact alone should have triggered at least basic reporting in this country.

Instead, there has been total silence.

No CBC explainer.

No Globe and Mail context piece.

No political panels debating transparency or public trust.

Nothing.

Before anyone misrepresents this, let’s state the obvious clearly and upfront:

A name appearing in the Epstein files does not mean criminal guilt.

It does not imply wrongdoing.

It is not an accusation.

But it is news.

In any functioning media environment, the appearance of senior political figures - especially former and potential prime ministers - dozens of times in one of the most scrutinized document archives of the modern era would at least merit explanation. Even if the explanation is mundane. Even if the conclusion is “there’s nothing here.”

Sunlight comes first. Conclusions come after.

In the United States, that standard has been applied aggressively. Public figures with far less influence than Carney or Trudeau have seen their names reported, contextualized, and caveated extensively. Journalists have gone out of their way to explain what mentions mean - and what they don’t mean - so the public can make sense of it.

In Canada, the approach appears to be: ignore it and hope no one notices.

Mark Carney appears 69 times in the archive.

Justin Trudeau appears 29 times.

That’s 98 documented references tied to Canada’s recent political leadership.

And the Canadian media class has decided this information is unworthy of even minimal scrutiny.

Why?

Continue reading this post for free, courtesy of Fight for Canada.