For little more than a year, the so-called “conspiracy” movement has taken its place at the heart of the epidemic.
Under this extremely broad and terribly inaccurate classification, which is being misused, we find contradictory trends. Between true conspiracy theorists who drink elusive theories and those who oppose major health measures because they consider them ineffective, without challenging the reality of the pandemic, there is not much in common.
The fact remains that this protest movement has occupied an important place in our public life.
Radio Canada decided to go to meet him. Journalist Simon Cotto produced a podcast about him.
But on Sunday, Radio Canada appeared uncomfortable with its investigation and yesterday posted an update to justify giving him the floor.
Radio Canada poses the following question: “How can we witness this movement (since we cannot, as a mediator, hide this reality) while ensuring that our coverage does not present a disproportionate view, but rather an unnecessary one, for a minority, especially if the allegations are based on unfounded grounds. Scientific? “
But one thing bothers me: Why the warning this time in particular? I would be very curious to know what the criteria are at the origin of such a warning. Who decides which directions to highlight and which to not talk about?
Perhaps the public broadcaster should issue a similar warning when presenting a forum for supporters of police identification who perceive the Quebec police as a force for colonial persecution of “minorities”.
Perhaps he should do the same with those who argue for the existence of the two sexes in the name of gender theory?
As far as I know, they, too, are competing for science in the name of ideology.
“Alcohol scholar. Twitter lover. Zombieaholic. Hipster-friendly coffee fanatic.”