I keep coming back to one question: how did reporting something people do not want to hear become proof that we are their enemy?
In Canada, particularly around Alberta’s separatist debate, some people further right seem convinced that established media serve the far left. An uncomfortable story becomes “fake news.” A difficult question becomes an attack.
We should take that distrust seriously. We should also ask where it comes from, who benefits from it, and whether we in the media have helped it along.
I do not think there is one answer. Nor do I think conservatives all share this view. Many want exactly what other Canadians want: accurate information, fair treatment and someone willing to hold powerful people accountable.
But if we are going to discuss trust honestly, we have to start with how people feel represented.
Alberta has longstanding frustrations over federal representation, energy development and whether it receives a fair deal. Those concerns did not begin with Donald Trump.
Separatism draws on grievances that were already here, even though frustration with Ottawa does not necessarily mean wanting to leave Canada.
Imagine depending on an industry that is regularly discussed as an environmental problem. The environmental questions matter. But if coverage rarely explains your work, your contribution or what changing that industry means for your family, you may feel the people reporting on you have already made up their minds.
That is something newsrooms should examine. We cannot expect people to feel understood if we mainly arrive when there is a controversy.
The rural–urban differences in Alberta offer some clues, but they need care. A Probe Research survey this spring found support for separation at 33 per cent among rural respondents, compared with 16 per cent in Calgary and 12 per cent in Edmonton. Yet a majority of rural respondents, 54 per cent, opposed separation.
That last number matters. Rural Alberta is not one separatist bloc, and voting Conservative does not mean wanting out of Canada. These online survey results describe a moment, with greater uncertainty around regional estimates.
One possible explanation for the gap is how policy affects everyday life. Farming and resource communities may experience government decisions through operating costs, contracts and local employment. City residents may see national connections through universities, public services, family mobility and businesses serving customers across Canada.
Neither perspective is automatically wiser. Calgary’s connections to energy also complicate the picture. The polling does not prove why opinions differ, and we should resist filling that gap with stereotypes.
Media distrust is not simply a rural characteristic, either. Statistics Canada’s 2023 national survey found the same proportion of rural and urban residents reporting high trust in news and information from the media: 15 per cent.
So what turns dissatisfaction into the conviction that journalists are enemies?
Part of it, I believe, is political belonging. When criticism of a movement feels like criticism of the people who support it, a report becomes personal. Accepting uncomfortable evidence can feel like letting your side down.
Research describes a “hostile media effect,” where opposing partisans can see the same coverage as biased against them.
That does not excuse poor reporting. It does remind us that feeling attacked and being unfairly attacked are not always the same thing.
There is also a political advantage in encouraging that feeling.
Once supporters believe journalists cannot be trusted, leaders have fewer difficult questions to answer. Evidence can be dismissed by attacking whoever brings it forward.
That should concern conservatives as much as anyone. A politician who escapes scrutiny today can make promises tomorrow that nobody properly checks.
But the media cannot answer all this by insisting we deserve trust.
Some outlets blur reporting and opinion. Some headlines promise more than the story establishes. Sometimes mistakes are corrected where far fewer people will notice. And an outlet that constantly excuses its preferred political camp should expect readers to question its independence.
Opinion is legitimate. This article is mine. Its factual claims still need to hold up, and you should know when I am offering an interpretation.
The same applies to podcasts, videos and social media accounts. Some independent creators do excellent journalism.
Others mainly comment, entertain or campaign. Worldwide, these activities increasingly appear together on the same platforms.
A familiar face and a confident delivery can feel trustworthy.
They cannot replace checking sources, providing context, disclosing relevant interests and correcting mistakes. Those expectations belong to journalism wherever it appears.
A newspaper logo is no guarantee, either. We should judge the work, including whether a source investigates its allies as carefully as its opponents.
American politics adds another layer. Trump’s talk about absorbing Canada creates a troubling backdrop for Alberta’s debate. Reuters reported in February that a State Department official confirmed staff-level meetings with separatists, while American officials said no support or commitments were conveyed. The U.S. ambassador later denied that administration meetings had taken place, leaving conflicting accounts.
Those contacts deserve questions. They do not establish that Washington controls the movement. I would describe American influence as an accelerant, rather than the origin of Alberta’s grievances.
For journalists, the responsibility is to hear those grievances while examining separatist promises about trade, money, constitutional negotiations and Indigenous rights. Reporting the difficulties is part of informing voters. It should not be treated as evidence of hatred for Alberta.
For readers, I think the responsibility is to apply the same standards to every source. Ask where the evidence came from. Read beyond the headline. Notice whether corrections are made. Be especially careful when someone tells you that every other source is lying.
We in the media should welcome specific criticism and answer it honestly. Canadians should expect evidence from politicians and commentators, too. Nobody earns trust simply by declaring themselves independent, patriotic or on your side.
We will not rebuild trust by demanding agreement. We begin by listening properly, showing our evidence and admitting our mistakes. And we have to leave room for a difficult possibility: sometimes the person telling us something we dislike is doing us a service.