Dispatches From The Amethyst Trail Issue 2
Media Control
Introduction
The health of a democracy depends on the integrity of its information ecosystem. When the media serves as a free and independent check on power, it fosters accountability, transparency, and the informed consent of the governed. But when media becomes an instrument of control, curating narratives, suppressing dissent, and shaping public opinion to suit the interests of those in power, democracy is undermined from within.
In Canada, this shift from journalism to propaganda has become glaringly evident. The 2025 federal election exposed how deeply media control has permeated the public sphere. Topics of critical importance were buried, alternative voices silenced, and uncomfortable truths reframed as conspiracies. The result is a political landscape where voters are not informed but managed. Freedom of choice exists in theory but not in practice. If media control is not checked, the promise of democratic self-governance becomes little more than an illusion.
Feature Article
The Death of Canadian Democracy?
The 2025 Canadian federal election stands as proof positive that the mainstream media has failed the Canadian public on a scale so vast and consequential that it warrants nothing less than total accountability. The events leading up to and surrounding this election reveal not just bias or incompetence, but a systemic collapse of journalistic integrity and public trust. In what was once supposed to be a free and democratic society, the very institutions meant to hold power accountable have instead become its shield and sword. Moreover, in so doing, they have betrayed their fundamental purpose: to inform, investigate, and safeguard the people’s right to know.
A free press is the bedrock of any functioning democracy. It is the one institution not tied to electoral cycles, corporate mandates, or ideological dogma. Its role is not to serve as a mouthpiece for government, nor as a tool of social engineering. A true journalist should not parrot but probe, not curate the truth but uncover it. That is the moral contract between the press and the public. But in Canada, that contract has been broken.
During the 2025 election cycle, this failure was not just apparent. It was glaring. The issues that matter most to Canadians, those affecting daily life and the long-term trajectory of the nation, were either minimized or ignored altogether. Immigration, inflation, the economy, governmental overreach, erosion of civil liberties — none of these subjects received the critical scrutiny they deserved. Instead, coverage was dominated by superficialities and contrived polarities, all reinforcing the illusion that voters had only two viable choices: Liberal or Conservative. Everything outside of that narrow corridor was treated as fringe, radical, or dangerous.
Polls were repeatedly cited as objective measures of public sentiment, yet failed even the most basic tests of statistical rigour. Small sample sizes, lack of transparency, and clear sampling biases turned these instruments into little more than propaganda tools. Rather than questioning their validity, reporters treated them as gospel, further entrenching the illusion of binary choice. This was not journalism; it was narrative reinforcement.
Any attempt to bring forward alternative viewpoints or question sanctioned narratives was swiftly condemned. The media framed dissent not as healthy skepticism, but as conspiracy or extremism. Entire classes of thought were placed outside the Overton Window, a phrase used to describe the range of ideas that are deemed socially or politically acceptable at any given moment, recast here more appropriately as Overton Doors, mechanisms not of transparency but of exclusion. These doors were slammed shut on topics deemed inconvenient or dangerous to those in power, topics that might unify a fractured public around shared concerns.
Consider some of the issues now forcibly ejected from the public square. Open discussions about Islam and its inconsistencies with Western liberal values, particularly feminism and LGBTQ+ rights, are treated as taboo. Despite the apparent contradictions between Islamic orthodoxy and the moral norms underpinning Christian and Jewish Western societies, any critical engagement is immediately branded Islamophobic. The irony is both rich and disturbing: three major monotheistic religions, all tracing their lineage back to Abraham, remain locked in a spiritual sibling rivalry. Nevertheless, while Christianity and Judaism are dissected, criticized, and often lampooned in public without restraint, Islam enjoys an almost untouchable status.
This is not about denigrating religion but about acknowledging realities. If feminism insists on equality for women and full participation in public life, how do we reconcile that with a belief system where, in many interpretations, women are explicitly subordinate? If Western societies embrace same-sex marriage and individual sexual autonomy, how do we square that with teachings in Islam that treat such lifestyles as sinful or even criminal? These are questions that deserve to be asked. Instead, the Overton Door was, and continues to be, sealed tight, shutting down discourse before it begins.
This exact mechanism of suppression applies to discussions around immigration, multicultural policy failures, and the rise of race-based preferential treatment. Even to question the merits of these policies is to invite accusations of bigotry, racism, or extremism. The range of acceptable discourse has narrowed to such a degree that many have stopped speaking altogether, preferring silence to social or professional ruin.
These mechanisms of control and exclusion are not merely social phenomena. They are rooted in a deeper philosophical divide that defines human governance itself. The traditional political spectrum is not truly "left" and "right," but rather Hobbesian versus Lockean. On one end lies the Hobbesian model: collectivist, authoritarian, where individuals submit to a powerful central authority in exchange for order and security. On the other is the Lockean tradition: individualist, skeptical of power, rooted in natural rights and minimal government. Western democracies were founded mainly on the Lockean ideal, and it is that ideal which is now being eroded.
Ironically, those who claim to champion freedom and equality, the so-called progressives, often fall squarely within the Hobbesian mould. They support expansive government control, centralized regulation, and moral conformity. In practice, it is this group that is most susceptible to manipulation by those best described as morally corrupt, or simply evil. History bears this out: every dictator who has promised utopia has done so under the banner of collective good, while consolidating power for personal or ideological gain. Trudeau embodies this trend in Canada, cloaking state expansion and censorship in the language of compassion. And now Carney, having stepped out from behind the curtain and taken office as Prime Minister, is poised to continue or deepen this trend. Though his full intentions remain concealed beneath a polished veneer of technocratic confidence, the uncertainty surrounding who he truly is — and whom he serves — casts a long and uneasy shadow.
Moreover, fracture is precisely what has been achieved. Division is the tool of the Leviathan. A population divided along lines of race, gender, religion, and ideology is easier to manipulate, easier to pacify. People arguing with one another are less likely to question why housing is unaffordable, why debt is out of control, and why national identity is treated as a relic rather than a foundation. Furthermore, it is the media that has enabled this division, not merely by omission, but by active collaboration in narrative shaping. When the press picks sides, it ceases to be a check on power. It becomes power’s accomplice.
Specific subjects are now entirely off-limits in public discourse, removed by the very people whose traditional task was to pull back the curtain. The media. It is the media that has shut the Overton Door on Islam, for instance. That is why it cannot be critically discussed without reflexive cries of bigotry, even when the critique is factual or rooted in defence of liberal values. This stands in stark contrast to Christianity, which can be derided, mocked, and undermined without consequence by all, including the media, who use it to distract from the door they purposely closed. Racial dynamics are treated with a double standard so glaring it would be laughable were it not so damaging. Discrimination against whites is excused, even celebrated, while any criticism directed toward other groups is instantly branded racist. It is not equality; it is ideological favouritism dressed up as progress.
Similarly, historical narratives have become sacred texts, immune to investigation or challenge. The matter of unmarked graves at former residential schools, an issue of immense emotional and political weight, has not been subjected to thorough, independent validation. Any call for forensic evidence or methodological transparency is treated not as a desire for truth, but as denialism. This is how a society drifts from evidence-based reasoning to faith-based compliance, not in religion, but in state-sanctioned mythologies. All examples of Overton Doors being closed on purpose by the media to protect their Hobbesian masters.
By far the most insidious effect of all this is that the Canadian electorate was actively misled. A government with a deeply flawed record on ethics, economics, and civil rights was allowed to walk into another term, almost with a majority, without ever facing real journalistic scrutiny. The media did not ask the hard questions. It did not dig. It did not expose. It smoothed over. It sanitized. It told people what to think instead of giving them the tools to think for themselves. And for this, it must be held accountable. It closed as best it could the Overton Door, hiding what should have been fully exposed.
We no longer have a free press in Canada. What we have is a media class that has sold its soul for access, for funding, for ideological alignment. It has become, in every functional sense, a propaganda apparatus, one that tells people what is acceptable to believe and punishes deviation. It no longer questions authority. It enforces it.
Thus, Canada, in 2025, is no longer a free and democratic society. It wears the trappings of democracy — the elections, the debates, the televised commentary — but the substance has been hollowed out. When the people are denied honest information, when dissenting voices are silenced, when the media serves power instead of questioning it, democracy is no longer real. It is performance.
There may be no easy way back. The institutions are corrupted, the narratives are entrenched, and those who benefit from this arrangement have every incentive to preserve it. However, the first step in any recovery is recognition. The truth must be stated plainly: the media has failed us, and in doing so, it has failed democracy itself.
If Canada is to reclaim even a semblance of its former ideals, then we, the people, must demand more than access to information. We must demand the right to question, to debate, to investigate, and to dissent. Furthermore, we must demand a press that values truth over narrative, investigation over repetition, and courage over conformity. We need to smash the Overton Doors wide open! Until then, elections will continue, but freedom will not.
By: Alan Aubut