The Department of Canadian Heritage, which helps to oversee the government’s response to a rising tide of false information online, confirmed it provided more than $17,000 to Common Ground magazine through a special program of the Canada Periodical Fund intended to help publications weather the pandemic.
The B.C. publication calls itself “Western Canada’s biggest and best-loved monthly magazine dedicated to health, wellness, ecology and personal growth.” It has published multiple stories about what it calls “forced coercive medical intervention of Canadians.”
“I think the reason this merits attention is the potential damage to the public good here,” said Chris Dornan, a retired Carleton University journalism professor.
“Just because you find the view objectionable is not enough to say, ‘Well, this publication should not receive the support of public funds,’ because all sorts of people find all sorts of views objectionable. But you will not want the resources of the government and the money of Canadian taxpayers to go toward something that is damaging to the public.”Over the past year, Common Ground, which has been around since the 1980s, published an article that claimed COVID-19 measures have killed more people than the “purported pandemic.”
It also ran an article suggesting children who receive the vaccine are at risk of developing cancer and becoming infertile later in life.
“The potential for late-onset effects, such as the development of autoimmune diseases, cancer, neurological disorders and infertility, is highly relevant for children and young people who have a lifetime ahead of them,” says the article.
The Public Health Agency of Canada has said repeatedly there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines cause fertility problems in women or men. So far, no credible study has shown a causal relationship between the vaccines and cancer.
A Common Ground article alleging a link between the vaccines and cancer argued that the mRNA technology used to produce the most widespread COVID-19 vaccines changes DNA forever.
The University of Oxford’s Vaccine Knowledge Project, an independent academic research group, said that while mRNA technology produces a harmless version of a spike protein inside the body, this code cannot be incorporated into the body’s DNA.
Another Common Ground article, entitled “Say No to Medical Apartheid,” claims ivermectin — a drug used to rid livestock of parasites that is sometimes prescribed to humans — can reduce COVID-19 mortality.
Health Canada says there is no evidence to suggest ivermectin prevents or treats COVID-19 and warns that consuming it could lead to “potential serious health dangers.”
The ‘great reset’
Common Ground also published a book review supporting the notion of the “great reset” — a conspiracy theory that claims a mysterious global elite is exploiting the pandemic to its benefit — and the musings of anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy Jr., who claims health officials have “collaborated with mainstream and social media to shut down discussion on key public health and civil rights questions.”
Common Ground did not respond to CBC’s requests for comment.
The Canada Periodical Fund was set up to help publications “overcome market disadvantages and continue to provide Canadian readers with the content they choose to read,” says a government website.
At the onset of the pandemic, Canadian Heritage — which has spent millions of dollars on combating misinformation and disinformation online — set up a special sub-program under the Canada Periodical Fund to provide short-term recovery funding to Canadian magazines and community newspapers struggling due to the pandemic.
Other magazines and newspapers that received funding include the Pembroke Observer, the Airdrie Echo, Disability Today and Canadian Pizza Magazine.
As part of the program’s terms, recipients must publicize the government’s support — which is why Canadian Heritage’s logo appears in print copies of Common Ground.
Applicants also had to sign an attestation agreeing not to publish offensive material, including hate propaganda, child pornography or anything else illegal. The program also bans content involving gratuitous violence, material that disparages an identifiable group and “any other similarly offensive material.”
The program’s criteria do not include any language on disinformation — the deliberate creation or sharing of false information in order to mislead — or misinformation, the act of sharing information without realizing it’s false.
The department says it has the right to audit recipient accounts and records to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the funding agreement.
“However, for confidentiality reasons we are unable to provide a response to your question,” said a spokesperson for the department.
Disinformation prof calls funding ‘weird’ and ‘ironic’
Ahmed Al-Rawi is an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University’s school of communication and the head of the university’s Disinformation Project, which describes itself as a research project investigating “fake news discourses on Canadian news media and social media.”
He said that, unlike the other sources of disinformation and misinformation he sees online, Common Ground has been an established publication for decades.
“What is shocking is that the magazine is promoting conspiracies about COVID-19, the pandemic and so on. These conspiracies are actually now even moderated on mainstream social media,” he said.
“It’s a magazine being published here in Vancouver … getting help with funding from the government, which is honestly weird. It’s ironic.”
During the spring of 2020, the Department of Canadian Heritage spent $3.5 million on helping Canadians identify misinformation and disinformation and limit the impact of racist and misleading social media posts related to the pandemic.
“A strong democracy relies on Canadians having access to diverse and reliable sources of news and information so that they can form opinions, hold governments and individuals to account and participate in public debate,” says the department’s website.
Just last week, Canada — as part of a coalition of 34 countries — called out state-sponsored disinformation campaigns orchestrated by the Russian Federation.
Al-Rawi, who studies disinformation disseminated in Canada or targeting Canada and has received funding from Canadian Heritage, said that while the money sent to Common Ground might have been the result of an honest mistake, Ottawa might want to look at updating its criteria and standards.
Calls spike to Alberta poison hotline about ivermectin after anti-parasitic drug touted as COVID-19 treatmentTam takes aim at COVID-19 ‘infodemic,’ urges vigilance over misleading online content
“We don’t want the government to censor speech as well as infringe on civil liberties,” he said.
“The problem here is that there is no explanation of what constitutes offensiveness as well as no elaboration or no details about other types of content that could be problematic, such as misleading content.”
Concerns about interference in editorial content
The case is raising questions about the government’s role in fighting misinformation and concerns about interference in editorial content.
“Politics shouldn’t decide what is news and what isn’t,” said Laura Scaffidi, a spokesperson for Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez.
“That said, misinformation can result in racism, violence and stigmatization and we take it very seriously.”
Dornan — one of the authors of “Shattered Mirror,” a report by the Public Policy Forum on journalism in Canada — said it’s worth looking at the criteria but cautioned against government intervention.
“You don’t want to get into a position where the government is basically auditing the contents of news publications. That’s anathema to principles of liberal democracy,” he said.
He said in some ways it’s reassuring to learn that the government has not been singling out certain editorial viewpoints for its support.
“Much of the worry about government support for the media sector is that government support would in some way compromise the autonomy or the independence of the Fourth Estate,” he said. “That they would be beholden to the government and therefore that would somehow influence their coverage of the government and the wider world.
“And in this case, that’s clearly not the case.”
