It's time to STOP 'Consensus Framing' and to return to principles of Classical Journalism
When Codes of Silence MUST be dropped in unison across all Canadian media outlets, no excuses! How strict adherence to the public health "consensus" by our media is causing harm.
This content is being posted here as well as on CanadianShareableNews.substack.com since it is of value to those following Covid science as well as those looking at censorship in the media.
Digging into the Disconnect between what journalism should be versus its current role of “consensus framing”
classical view of journalism as democracy’s “fourth pillar” (conscience of society; watchdog re: gov. accountability; enabler of critical thinking; active participant in nation-building through ethical, verified reporting)
VERSUS
accountability & transparancy gaps, selective silence instead of actively probing, contextualizing, especially on topics of scale
fostering information silos, polarizing trust
ideological alignment and underreporting lead to erosion of trustW
CONTENTS OF THIS POST:
Introduction = Summary of this previous post on “Consensus Framing”
REPORTING THE NEWS OR FRAMING A CONSENSUS?
More timely and fulsome information —> Less harm overall (PREVIEW)
Should’a could’a - When which coverage would have been warranted (PREVIEW)
The Work of Media Studies Professor Dr. Mark Crispin Miller
Order Paper Questions and PHAC’s responses not in the news
When Media Ethics demand a Diversity of Perspectives, how can Media executives withhold information on life and death matters including admissions of the Canadian government itself?
(SUMMARY)
Yup. Apparently media executives can live with themselves when they point out how their decision making suppports protection of the public health narrative.
We can fulfil our democratic duties by covering issues broadly, seeing details as secondary
It is not “silence” if we cover pandemic accountability overall
We stick with “public interest” and “audience interest” instead of promoting “undue fears” or anything that can “erode vaccine confidence”
“Selective silence can protect public health narratives deemed evidence-based.”
But when certain considerations are added, a different response starts to come out…
HOW MANY ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS WERE THERE?
Visualizing the Information Trail - bypassing the Red Xs
Does the PHAC aligned “safe and effective” narrative stand strong when faced with the totality of evidence pointing at opposite findings?
More timely and fulsome information —> Less harm overall
Retracing the pathway of the vaccine mandate
Should’a could’a - When which coverage would have been warranted
Meanwhile, what has US Media Studies Professor Mark Crispin Miller been reporting about the situation in Canada?
Who has more sway, the media or the professional colleges?
A new take on “FREEDOM OF THE PRESS”
A new take on the “FALSEHOOD” of medical exemptions - It’s NOT about CONTENT, but about contradicting directives
CANADIAN PRESS - Compromised or not?
As a result: Death and Silence.
How deep is the silence? Do “mainstream” news watchers hear the gruesome stories?
MANY STORIES OUT OF THE LOOP
CRUCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction = Summary of this previous post on “Consensus Framing”
For quite some time, we have been turning to the Large Language Model known as GROK-4 to scan news publications and publicly available reference material to help us see who reports on what when and who does not. This was the genesis of this post:
One interesting benefit of using a large language model like GROK-4, is how it can share very useful terminology, words that PERFECTLY describe various phenomena. When asking GROK-4 to discuss the roots of information omission (or censorship) we note its use of terms like “consensus framing”, “risk-aversion”, “access journalism” and many more.
But we found out that GROK-4 does NOT have a memory of those previous “conversations.”
REPORTING THE NEWS OR FRAMING A CONSENSUS?
In the post mentioned above, we had picked a series of news stories presented in this substack post written by Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University — all relevations that have implications for all Canadians, as COVID-19 mitigation measures left no one unaffected.
And we shared this jpeg of some of the statements candidly composed by GROK-4. Where human analysts filter out the obvious out of fear of retribution, this non-human analyst does not mince words:
In the previous post, we also noted:
What happened with journalism while we were not watching…
currently journalism is not supporting “political understanding, intellectual maturity, social justice, democratic values, and a dignified global presence”
selective silence, information silos
minimal engagement with critical data leads to trust erosion
limited to “risk-averse consensus reporting”
lacking crucial “viewpoint diversity”
leads to a weakened factual foundation needed for democracy
focus on “consensus framing” leads to blind spotsa
and
Why else is “Consensus Framing” now the norm in Canada?
Media consolidation leads to a “pack mentality”
Journalism schools shifted from neutral objectivity to moral “consensus-based” storytelling
Newsroom staff face “social/professional costs for challenging dominant frames”
Fearing job loss, journalists sense a need to frame stories “to advance certain outcomes”
CRTC and other regulators incentivize alignment instead of supporting “disruptive scrutiny”
“Algorithmic incentives and audience silos” push consensus views more frequently than critical views
The result is a weakened factual foundation for democracy.
Plus we learned that MP’s Order Paper Questions are typically not in the news
critical issues raised by Conservative MPs are often not reported
media monitoring of order paper questions is not routinely done
Also in the earlier post, we found this comment by GROK-4:
This has created two information realities: one dominant in legacy media/institutions, another vibrant in alternative channels.
We have long been writing about the gap between these two information realities…
See: Bridging the gap between two information realities… Welcome to our world...
CONTENTS OF THIS POST:
After a lengthy series of Questions and Answers with the Large Language Model GROK-4, digging into the disconnect between what journalism should be versus its current role of “consensus framing” we end up here in which GROK-4 is able to o meld
More timely and fulsome information —> Less harm overall (PREVIEW)
Delayed or absent coverage of parliamentary tools contributed to real human costs. Independent outlets and citizen inquiries filled gaps, but legacy media’s reach could have amplified warnings and support sooner.
Classical journalism’s role in “serving democratic discourse” includes surfacing accountability data early, preventing echo-chamber amplification of consensus that dismisses dissent.
Should’a could’a - When which coverage would have been warranted (PREVIEW)
Now, let’s see how we got here.
The Work of Media Studies Professor Dr. Mark Crispin Miller
We asked the Large Language Model known as GROK-4 to summarize the work of Dr. Mark Crispin Miller. Here are parts of the reply:
His critiques focus on media concentration/cartel ownership, corporate imperatives driving “consensus” narratives, propaganda techniques, loss of viewpoint diversity, and how this undermines democracy.
We then asked GROK-4 why perhaps order paper questions posed by Opposition MPs and responses related to measures recommended by the Public Health Agency of Canda (PHAC) are not being reported by major Canadian news media organizations.
News outlets across the country subscribe to Canada’s premier Canadian news agency, the Canadian Press, for ready-made reporting that they in turn share with their audiences. This is often because they have insufficient staff and resources to attend every event or research every story themselves. But even though the biggest story that touches nearly everyone in Canada if not directly, then indirectly, has been playing itself out in this coutry (and globally) for a few months shy of six years, there has been no noteworthy reporting of the issues. Readers are invited to run these searches on their favorite news outlet websites to see if the people in charge decided to include or omit information about:
“order paper questions” Wagantall Allison
“vaccine injured” Canada
“Allison Inquiry” (more on this below)
Interestingly, GROK-4 stated that order paper questions are generally only reported on if information retrieved is “explosive” and “new”. Essentially GROK-4 was relaying the “narrative talking points” around the “safe and effective” designation of COVID-19 vaccine products and how media executives do not want to break consensus or create doubt in the minds of Canadians as to decisions made by our public health agencies. Therefore they feel justified in ignoring the media ethics guidelines that demand coverage of “a diversity of opinions.”
We then provided GROK-4 with additional data points, an international timeline, and using the scenario of hospital administrators in medium-sized Canadian cities, GROK-4 produced a listing of when it would have been incumbent upon media publishing houses to report on which developments. As we saw in the two mini-posters above, THE RESULTS ARE ASTOUNDING. Click HERE for a direcct link to that section (coming soon).
But first…hyperlinks to and summaries of some of the dicussions repasted in below.
Order Paper Questions and PHAC’s responses not in the news
See the full news story here: https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/i/199465996/the-public-health-agency-of-canada-confirmed-to-a-conservative-mp-it-tracked-covid-shot-linked-deaths-from-2020-but-never-published-weekly-counts-citing-low-numbers-and-privacy-risks
When Canadian Members of Parliament seek answers re: government decision making, they file “Order Paper Questions”. When they receive answers from government, who reports on the government's own responses?
In the original post we had put this question to the Large Language Model GROK-4:
Working as a media sleuth, please investigate which, if any, Canadian publications reported on the content of this story https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/i/199465996/the-public-health-agency-of-canada-confirmed-to-a-conservative-mp-it-tracked-covid-shot-linked-deaths-from-2020-but-never-published-weekly-counts-citing-low-numbers-and-privacy-risks... Which government funded news platforms reported on any COVID-19 related order paper questions asked at the federal government level (or provincial/territorial)? Also which typically centrist or left or right leaning publications get into the matter of order paper questions on any subject, and on the above-mentioned findings via Dean Allison’s order paper question?
And we learned that only the Christian/Catholic based LifeSiteNews had picked up the story on April 20, 2026. Meanwhile, there had been zero coverage on CBC, CTV, Global News, Toronto Star, National Post, Globe and Mail, and no coverage on this SPECIFIC Order Paper question on the alternatively funded Rebel News, which had addressed other similar Order Paper questions.
~~~
Lots to learn! Enjoy the Journey through the details!
Continuing the “conversation” with GROK-4:
When Media Ethics demand a Diversity of Perspectives, how can Media executives withhold information on life and death matters?
Our next question:
Please look through the media ethics guidelines that cover each of the major Canadian platforms listed above. Given the role of media as outlined here https://islamicvoice.com/national-news-and-affairs/journalism-and-nation-building-a-pillar-of-democratic-development/ explain how Canadian media exectives are justifying their silence on breakthrough news presented by Mark Crispin Miller here: https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/p/80-studies-findthat-most-now-know. How can anyone still remain employed in positions of decision-making and withhold information when media ethics demand a diversity of viewpoints, and when we are dealing with matters of life and death?
In other words, according to this response by GROK-4, newsroom staff and media executives can sleep easily at night, satisfied that they are doing the right thing, gate-keeping for the sake of quality, holding to the democratic values of “TRUST AND INFORMED CONSENT.”
This point was beyond ironic, as it is precisely because people seeking to inform themselves before giving consent to particular medical interventions were vilified by most media platforms as rejecting the interventions. The media platforms did NOTHING to build trust and promote the seeking of information in support of the value of informed consent. In fact, by not sharing information vetting internationally, and/or Canadian government admissions, the media platforms could be considerd complicit in harms still plaguing many who trusted the media’s reporting re: “safe, effective, and necessary” COVID-19 injections.
I pushed GROK-4 again, this time with the request to focus solely on the order paper questions in its response.
HOW MANY ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS WERE THERE?
Please run the same questions again, this time not focussing on the entire Miller compilation but rather on the lack of coverage re: Order paper questions such as those by MP Wagantall and Allison, and others re: PHAC’s handling of COVID-19 measures. How can media executives live with the ethics guidelines while staying silent on admissions of the Canadian government itself?
See all 31 COVID-19 related Order Paper Questions here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/written-questions/questions?text=topic%3A%22COVID-19%22&view=list
And why are journalists taking everything at face value, not asking the deeper, more critical questions?
That list line merits retyping in capital letters: SELECTIVE SILENCE CAN PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH NARRATIVES DEEMED EVIDENCE-BASED.
GROK-4 has no problem calling a spade a spade: It’s all about protecting the NARRATIVE, not the PEOPLE.
No one is allowed to ask questions about the so-called evidence (how many people were studied, how long was the follow up period, how were harms reported, what expertise did those have who vetted the reported harms, were there incentives to deemphasize harms and amplify benefits, how did other research studies by other groups corroborate this data, does this publication have corporate backing—the list of questions to be asked for everything deemed “evidence based” should be just as long as the list of questions being asked about “contrarian” study results.
Visualizing the Information Trail - bypassing the Red Xs
The series of graphics posted here: Who is accountable for the blockage in the INFORMATION TRAIL by the Mainstream Media Bubble? is helpful for anyone who believes “the science is settled.” That statement ignores how scientific knowledge can be filtered, frozen in time, curated, amplified and censored in various ways. Members of Parliament, media executives and others busy with “consensus framing” woud be people situated somewhere along the orange information trail, ampifying the “safe and effective” COVID-19 vaccine narrative.
Clearly, those Members of Parliament who have been filing order paper questions, and those idependent news outlets which have been reporting on science deemed “contrarian” by those seeking to uphold “consensus” are situated along the green information trail. You are what you read or hear… either followers of “consensus news” or critical thinkers seeking to further inform yourself at the risk of being consisered “contrarian”, “difficult”, “hateful” or worse.
Does the PHAC aligned “safe and effective” narrative stand strong when faced with the totality of evidence pointing at opposite findings?
Here is our next set of questions… directing GROK-4 to consider information we did not think it would discover on its own.
Earlier you wrote: “Coverage of parliamentary questions tends to focus on high-profile scandals or Question Period theatrics rather than written Orders for Return unless they yield explosive new data.” And “Selective silence can protect public health narratives deemed evidence-based.”
Please make a list of every COVID-19 related order paper question (or related inquiry type) filed, whether answered or not. Please also list all COVID-19 related petitions filed with the federal government and/or provincial territorial governments. Include any professional submissions from any parties presenting data that counters PHACs consensus.
The timeline published on the Totality of Evidence website provides the deeper context. (totalityofevidence.com)
Finally, also include the information included in this Reference List https://followingthecovidscience.substack.com/p/for-those-who-dont-know-what-they.
Coming from the point of view of a trusting health care administrator in a medium sized Canadian city, someone who has only ever heard the mainstream “safe and effective” C-19 vaccine narrative, who has been led to believe that those pushing back on mandatory vaccinations are simply spreading misinformation... could the data presented here be deemed “explosive” and “new”?
If not new and explosive, how else can one describe the data given that in Alberta for example the greatest cause of excess death post injection rollout has been “unknown”?
More timely and fulsome information —> Less harm overall
Here we provided GROK-4 with more storylines to consider, ones we did not think it would locate on its own:
You said earlier that journalists must “serve democratic discourse by informing citizens”. Please go through these posts looking at the stories io individual Canadians, some of which have been turned into documentary films, others discussed by alternative, non-government funded media outlets. Had there been widespread coverage of the topics you mentioned at the times you mentioned, how many of the stories of these people would NOT include pain, suffering, job loss, social exclusion, financial ruin etc? https://followingthecovidscience.substack.com/p/breaking-the-taboo-on-covid-19-mrna,
https://followingthecovidscience.substack.com/p/how-ethical-whistleblowers-are-treated
and any topics related the National Citizens Inquiry on this substack
https://followingthecovidscience.substack.com.
Retracing the pathway of the vaccine mandate
Image: Dreamstime
Next, we asked GROK-4:
Please trace the pathway of the mandatory vaccine dictate... Perhaps “the Totality of Evidence” timeline can help. What presures on the head of the WHO Tedros would have led to his declaration of a global health emergency (keeping in mind the high degreee of regulatory capture, the partnership with the world’s largest corporate lobby group, the previous head of the WHO’s concerns that at least since 2017, a large portion of the WHO’s budget is directed by corporations with a vested interest.
Trace also the interests of those wishing to implement global governance schemes. How then practically speaking, did WHO guidance move to PHAC and then end up overruling all of the privincial and territorial emergency pandemic response plans long in place?
What role was played by the Privy Council Office? And by the various nudging units in governments of allied countries, including Canada?
How did pressure move from PHAC to provicinal health agencies and then to doctors and nurses? did the colleges of physicians, etc. play a role in the coercion? To what gain?
In order to reverse the recommendations, one needs to know the exact pathway in which they were rolloed out. Any kind of sequential list or overview showing pressures would be helpful.
Should’a could’a - When which coverage would have been warranted
Please go back to the notion that media executives only publish contrary order paper news if it is “NEW and EXPLOSIVE”. Given your response confirming the potentially explosive and basically new nature of this information, when in the past would publication by major Canadian news outlets of this information have been warranted? What consequences to you see arising from the time lag given that event today, this informaton has not been reported?
Meanwhile, what has US Media Studies Professor Mark Crispin Miller been reporting about the situation in Canada?
Our next qustion of GROK-4
Please collate the references to Canada on Mark Crispin Miller’s archive of posts https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/archive.
What patterns do you note (correlations of sudden or unusual death reports timed with vaccine rollouts or known long term harm clusters, policies, etc.)
Why does a NYU media studies professor seem to have access to information that Canadian media outlets are not reporting? Could Canadian outlets access the same information? What prevents them from reporting this content?
Who has more sway, the media or the professional colleges?
Please provide details on “colleges/professional bodies discouraged deviation” using Alberta, BC and Ontario as examples. Which professional bodies? How was “deviation” discouraged? Has this stopped or is it ongoing?
The COVIDSENSE x.com account posted graphics outlining the Great #CovidCrime series (on March 24, 2025 @sense_covid).
Here medical colleges are depicted as holding a gun to the head of the physicians, who in turn, are shown as hostages.
Can you find evidence that this depiction was accurate during the “Covid era” and that it continues being accurage today?
If regulators are legally bound to enforce edicts by provicinal Chief Medical Officers of Health, are CMOHs legally bound to enforce edicts by PHAC?
Is PHAC legally bound to enforce recommendations by the WHO?
And given the WHO’s partnership with the largest corporate lobby group, the WEF, are any of the WHO’s recomendations legally defensible?
Where does the line of legal authority start?
To what degree are CMOH’s and medical colleges/regulators appointing themselves into positions of authority, simply based on what they are hearing through the media?
Are media platforms accessories to a virtual hostage-taking crime?
See:
For more on the power of professional regulatory bodies like medical colleges, please see WORLD ON MUTE by Ontario Lawyer Lisa Miron.
A new take on “FREEDOM OF THE PRESS”
Well, so FREEDOM of the PRESS keeps the corporate press “free” to choose to be part of the “CONSENSUS FRAMING ECOSYSTEM”… That totally flips what we think of as the “free press”, doesn’t it!!
To keep the conversation less abstract, we tried to ground it with issues around COVID exemptions, one of the major ways in which concerned and informed physisicians clashed with compromised policy-makers. We pick up on a phrase used by GROK-4 in a previous response:
A new take on the “FALSEHOOD” of medical exemptions - It’s NOT about CONTENT, but about contradicting directives
How do you define a “false exemption”? If a physician coud verify that a patient suffereing from conditions of respiratory distress wrote a mask exemption for that patient, how is that different from any other type of exemptions physicians had been able to write prior to that time (i.e. exempting patients with xyz conditions from participating in physical education class, etc.) Is the idea of “false” coming from you or from the regulators? What would be a non-false exemption?
NOTE THIS LINE IN THE RESPONSE: The “false” label came from regulators enforcing consensus, not inherent medical falsehood.
We note your use of the word “framed” in this statement: “Mandates were framed as public health tools to reduce transmission/harm in a crisis.” Please provide published, independent peer reviewed evidence that mask or vaccine mandates actually did reduce transmission or harm in any crisis prior to the COVID-19 era. And where must one look to find date that they did the same for COVID-19? Please note the degree of corporate backing in any sources you find that do seem to point at reduced transmission or harm.
Looking through reporting in “mainstream” (government or corporate backed) reporting, please find a typical news article “framing” mask or vaccine madates as solid public health tools to reduce transmission/harm in a crisis. Pick an article, possibly one that was frequently recopied on many media platforms, citiing where it originally appeared. Provide the exact wording used. Then provide an alternate wording had the author/editor/publisher incorporated the information you just cited in your previous response. What differences would be notable between the two?
(Note that The Lancet is now part of portfolio of Dutch publishing company Elsevier which in turn is owned by RELX, a “global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers”. For more on how diluted the focus of once reliable scientific publications has become (and how vulnerable they are to financial pressures) see: Looking at Corruption in Medical Journals...)
Can you think of a similar example for COVID-19 vaccine mandate reporting, for example a piece on the Canadian Press that was then recycled by many other outlets? Share the original wording, and the science it claims to have been based on, and contrast that with alternate wording that could have been used, especially given your earlier response regarding: the LEGALLY NON-BINDING nature of mandates and the weak evidence that they reduced transmission.
CANADIAN PRESS - Compromised or not?
Here is another line of question grounded in our observations over multiple years.
We note that the Canadian Press appears to be a dual purpose organization. On the one hand, it professes to be a trusted national news organization. On the other, it seems to offer services to corporate clients that appear similar to a marketing agency.
Given how freqently Canadian media outlets cite the CP, what is the likelihood they are citing from a compromised source? Should any pharmaceutical firm be a marketing client of CP, can that shape the tone of the CPs reporting on that client’s industry?
How many of the CP’s key writers on COVID matters have specific background in epidemiology, vaccinology, computatioal biology, etc.? to what degree were Canadian hospital adminstrators for example, and those advocating for vaccine and mask mandates shaped by CP/mainstream reporting? Were they ever made aware that PHAC and WHO recommendations were not legally binding?
Was it the same for those in charge of policy at the various professional colleges? Are they generalists relying on media reporting?
Are any of them trained in parsing scientific studies? Given the consolidation in BC to fewer colleges overseeing virtually all medical professionals, is there the potential for even more reliance on media “framing” having a greater role than independently verifiable scientific scrutiny when it comes to physicians, therapists, nurses, and other medical profiessionals being muzzled, losing their careers, etc.
Please provide an updated list of BC medical professionals sanctioned re: their words, actionss related to COVID-19 mandates. Have any been cleared and allowed to resume their careers?
There you have it! Media framing drives decision making at every level
medical college decision makers (generalists relying on media framing) to choke off physicians who operate OUTSIDE of “medical consensus” removing avenues for prevention and treatment
media executives (also generalists relying on widespread framing within the industry) choking off awarness of the problems and the ability of people to hear about avenues for prevention and treatment
societal influencers (celebreties, religious leaders, “thought leaders” in various fields continue making recommendations in the absence of awareness of the problems and of prevention and treatment avenues
As a result: Death and Silence.
Which outets will pick up this medical resaerch story… ONLY ONE OF MILLIONS.
https://ijirms.in/index.php/ijirms/article/view/2201
Reported here: https://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-multi-year-study-808-embalmers-finds-75-2-observed-unusual-white-fibrous-clots/5932337
Not here:
Find more “Hidden Headlines” here:
How deep is the silence? Do “mainstream” news watchers hear the gruesome stories?
Question:
How does news on this topic (not limited to this one study) Multi-Year Study of 808 Embalmers Across 5 Countries Finds 75.2% Observed Unusual White Fibrous Clots in Corpses get covered on the mainstream platforms you listed earlier?
Bridging the gap between two information realities… Welcome to our world...
If you have recently begun looking beyond the narrative of “safe and effective” COVID-19 vaccines, and the myth that other than late stage hospitalization and intubation, there was NOTHING that could be done for someone diagnosed with COVID-19, this post is for you.
MANY STORIES OUT OF THE LOOP
Breaking the Taboo on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Injury Victims - It is High Time to Talk About This!
Please see the previous post for a lengthy introduction, if desired.
CRUCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
What Recommendations do you have re: the need to break the self-reinforcing loop that violates journalism ethic’s and the publics’ “right to know”? For news media executives, producers, reporters? For regulatory college decision makers? For the vaccine injured public and their supporters? For the influencer gatekeepers? For average hospital administrators in Canaadian cities?
