The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum / Bias on the Airwaves?

**Posted by Stefanie** June 26, 2025 8:16 am

I listen to 680 News periodically throughout the day, mainly for traffic and weather. What should be a neutral, fact-based news station has increasingly started to sound more like an extension of a political campaign as there seems to be a continuous pattern of criticism directed at the Ontario government.

The station’s Managing Editor, Paul Cook, is married to Stephanie Smyth, a Liberal MPP. While relationships in politics and media aren't inherently unethical, the lack of transparency and objectivity in coverage should concern anyone who expects fairness from their news sources.

It’s impossible to ignore the slant in the reporting coming out of their Queen’s Park reporter, Richard Southern. He rarely misses an opportunity to paint the current provincial government in a negative light. Whether it's health care, education, or infrastructure, every segment from him seems to find a way to assign Government blame, even in cases where they are clearly acting in the public interest.

Critique is part of the media’s role. But when that critique consistently veers into what sounds like thinly veiled partisan attacks, credibility is lost. Is 680 News reporting the news, or trying to shape public opinion? Toronto deserves better than a news station that seems to have forgotten where journalism ends and political advocacy begins.

I know some of you will believe that I'm exposing my own political agenda, but that is far from the truth.

**Posted by BowmanvilleBob** June 26, 2025 8:18 am

Can you point to a specific incident where you feel Richard Southern's coverage was either mistaken or drifted from straight reporting into editorializing?

**Posted by Chrisphen** June 26, 2025 8:31 am

680 is to news what high-fructose corn syrup is to beer. I have difficulty believing they have any agenda beyond cramming as much advertising into their flaccid content as possible.

**Posted by RadioActive** June 26, 2025 8:39 am

In my experience, many political reporters at Queen's Park seems to delight in looking for a "gotcha" story on whoever is currently in charge. I remember the same thing happening when Kathleen Wynne was Premier. So yes, I hear the same tone with both Richard Southern and especially Global's Colin D'Mello, while CTV's Siobhan Morris tends to be a bit more evenhanded.

Confronting a politician over something they did or didn't do, a promise not kept, a scandal they're involved in or a contradiction in something they said, often seems to be the bread and butter of these guys. I don't think it's entirely partisan, it's just a better story if you can nail someone to the wall.

I remember City TV's Colin Vaughan, who knew his politics inside and out, was especially notorious for this. Reporting what was said in Question Period gets old quick. Stirring up controversy gets attention and leads to follow-up stories. So guess which one they go for?

My two cents but that's the way it's always been in most of the newsrooms I've worked at.

**Posted by 67GreenRambler** June 26, 2025 9:28 am

But RA, it's every day with Southern. He's entirely predictable. If you have a memory and are paying attention you know exactly where he's going with the details. I'm on the channel selector as soon as I hear "for more on the story here's Richard Southern".

**Posted by paterson1** June 26, 2025 9:36 am

The job of a Queen's Park reporter should not to be "stirring up" controversy. I can't name any examples but I also agree that Richard Southam and Colin D'Mello do tend to have an overly critical tone or highlight very minor proceedings or incidents when covering Queen's Park. On my end I tune stories and the reporting like this out. It seems to be just filler and of little interest.

Some in the Toronto news media seem to feel that they are the real opposition to the government and their purpose is to insure that the party in power doesn't get another term in office. No on both counts.

**Posted by Chrisphen** June 26, 2025 9:54 am

paterson1 wrote:
The job of a Queen's Park reporter should not to be "stirring up" controversy.

And yet there's often that one last (likely pre-planned) question asked during press conferences that prompts DoFo to go off, changing the narrative in his favour and providing news media with good quote.

I recall CFRB's Hayley Cooper being particularly adept at this. No surprise that she became a PR flack for a Conservative MPP after being excised from the station.

**Posted by Johnny B** June 26, 2025 10:24 am

OMG this take is so fucken rich it's laughable...betting you cram content into you from 640, 1010 and CTVNews....all clearly right wing outlets based on their ownership and talent they put on the air...FFS 640's Greg Brady just ran as a conservative candidate, Ben Mulroney is conspiratorial propagandist and a more powerful right winger than Gordie Howe was, Alex Pierson and Jerry Agar would be at home on Fox News...what a joke.

**Posted by paterson1** June 26, 2025 10:30 am

CTV News right wing?? Hardly..

**Posted by RadioActive** June 26, 2025 10:30 am

I'm sure based on that post that you won't agree, but the names you mentioned are all hosts - not news people. There is a difference (or is supposed to be) from people hired to give their opinions and those tasked with delivering the news.

The former get a lot more leeway. The latter shouldn't.

**Posted by Saul** June 26, 2025 10:39 am

Chrisphen wrote:
paterson1 wrote:
The job of a Queen's Park reporter should not to be "stirring up" controversy.
And yet there's often that one last (likely pre-planned) question asked during press conferences that prompts DoFo to go off, changing the narrative in his favour and providing news media with good quote.

I recall CFRB's Hayley Cooper being particularly adept at this. No surprise that she became a PR flack for a Conservative MPP after being excised from the station.

It cuts both ways. Journalists are routinely gamed by politicians of all stripes. The political system is combative and oppositional by nature. I can't tell you how many times, when I worked in print, that I was told my questions were speculative, or where the politician interviewee otherwise tried to derail my line of questioning. So you either learn to hold your own or you content yourself knowing you're adequate at lobbing softballs.

Journalists mustn't be confused with stenographers. They're not there to take notes. They're there to probe, ask questions, assess the veracity of what's said and presented. Good journalists will apply this to anyone who holds power (be that in politics, in business, whatever). And that of course does include opposition politicians and unelected candidates, who hold some degree of authority because they also represent or strive to represent the populace. And it goes without saying that if I ask a tough question of an elected rep, it might appear to side with the opposition because their job (in their own way) is also to hold elected officials to account. Ultimately, one must assess a journalist's consistency across party lines and over time.

Last edited by Saul (June 26, 2025 10:39 am)

**Posted by Capricasix** June 26, 2025 10:57 am

“He rarely misses an opportunity to paint the current provincial government in a negative light”

To be fair, they make it easy, as very little they do is actually in the public interest.

**Posted by paterson1** June 26, 2025 11:07 am

Capricasix wrote:
“He rarely misses an opportunity to paint the current provincial government in a negative light”

To be fair, they make it easy, as very little they do is actually in the public interest.

That is debatable. The voters just put them back in with a strong majority. Usually this means that the public is generally satisfied with how they are performing.

**Posted by Jody Thornton** June 26, 2025 11:20 am

My question would be, how did Richard Southern handle Kathleen Wynne? Was he in the same capacity at 680 back then?

**Posted by RadioActive** June 26, 2025 12:02 pm

Jody Thornton wrote:
My question would be, how did Richard Southern handle Kathleen Wynne? Was he in the same capacity at 680 back then?

I believe he was doing 680's business reports at the time, if he was even at the station. But he definitely wasn't covering Queen's Park back then.

**Posted by Holliday** June 26, 2025 1:03 pm

paterson1 wrote:
Capricasix wrote:
“He rarely misses an opportunity to paint the current provincial government in a negative light”

To be fair, they make it easy, as very little they do is actually in the public interest.
That is debatable. The voters just put them back in with a strong majority. Usually this means that the public is generally satisfied with how they are performing.

The Ford government is the most corrupt in Ontario history. He rode in on his faux “anti-Trump” sentiment, his $200 citizen bribes, and offering his suburban voters red-meat disinformation about how bad the city is. (ie. bike lanes, 401 tunnel) Journalists are supposed to hold politicians- especially shady ones (Therme, Greenbelt, Science Centre, etc) - to account.

**Posted by paterson1** June 26, 2025 1:54 pm

Holliday wrote:
paterson1 wrote:
Capricasix wrote:
“He rarely misses an opportunity to paint the current provincial government in a negative light”

To be fair, they make it easy, as very little they do is actually in the public interest.
That is debatable. The voters just put them back in with a strong majority. Usually this means that the public is generally satisfied with how they are performing.
The Ford government is the most corrupt in Ontario history. He rode in on his faux “anti-Trump” sentiment, his $200 citizen bribes, and offering his suburban voters red-meat disinformation about how bad the city is. (ie. bike lanes, 401 tunnel) Journalists are supposed to hold politicians- especially shady ones (Therme, Greenbelt, Science Centre, etc) - to account.

You saying they are corrupt does not make it so. And the voters obviously didn't agree with your assessment.

**Posted by Hansa** June 26, 2025 2:36 pm

If your news diet consists mostly of CFRB, 640, the National Post and the Toronto Sun either praising Ford or criticizing him for being left-wing, then I guess any reporters who just report on government with the critical eye we expect of journalists is going to come off as some sort of Communist by comparison.

**Posted by Dial Twister** June 26, 2025 2:36 pm

I am definitely NOT comparing Premier Ford to the Nazis. He may be devious and possibly even corrupt, but I sure don't think he's evil.

But when I read suggestions that if a politician gets voted into (or back into) power, he or she cannot be a corrupt politician, I'm surprised.

In 1933, the Nazis were elected to power with 43.9% of the vote, far more than any other of the opposing parties. Did that confer righteousness on Hitler and His Crazies?

In 2024, Fat Nixon won more Electoral votes and indeed more popular votes than candidate Harris. Did that confer the blessings of correctness on tRump? The Republican-led Supreme Court conferred 'immunity' on him, but we all know who and what he really is.

**Posted by Capricasix** June 26, 2025 2:52 pm

The majority of voters *who voted*. Turnout in the provincial election was less than 50% of eligible voters, if I recall correctly.

**Posted by TomTV** June 26, 2025 3:05 pm

I'm going to offer my own suspicion that Richard Southern rightly has a grudge against the Ford government and this could be why he does highlight Ford's many failings as a political leader and I use the word "leader" loosely.

He did a handful of anti-Ford government news stories during his time on CityNews, they exposed some of Ford's lies about the Greenbelt and then he did a story showing how a longtime Conservative-voting owner for one of the Service Ontario businesses regretted supporting the PCs after Ford handed the license to run Service Ontario to Staples. That seemed to be the final straw for someone high up because Richard then vanished off the air for I think 2 months before CityNews aired him one last time and then gone for good.

It's always been obvious to me that the Conservatives (both at the federal and provincial level) are very thin-skinned. They love dishing it out, but the moment they are called out for their own failures, and certainly Ford has more than any other premier I've ever seen in my long lifetime, they get their revenge which is usually getting that reporter fired (or likely in Richard's case, transferred off CityNews). Lest we forget the two CTV staffers who weasel-faced Poillievre got CTV to fire after claiming they edited a video that made the PCs look bad. It's a right-wing trait, one that I've noted again and again. They are vengeful pricks that hate the media unless its far-right media of course.

Case in point, just today from the US:

When I see the media attack Trudeau or Mayor Chow, they handle themselves with class. I don't see that with the right-wing politicians. Colin Dimello also probably didn't appreciate Ford warning him "hey I know where you live, Colin" gangster style a couple years back. Ford only apologized later after a big backlash. He's an imbecile of a politician and the reason he got re-elected IMO, is that once again the public got tricked by his dumb "Captain Canada" campaign and don't seem to care he's privatizing our healthcare slowly, year-by-year.

**Posted by 67GreenRambler** June 26, 2025 3:29 pm

The Chief of Staff for Liberal Premier McGuinty was sent to jail. The Judge remarked "His conduct was an affront to, and an attack upon, democratic institutions and values."

The Chiefs deputy, Laura Miller was no girl scout either.

**Posted by TomTV** June 26, 2025 3:36 pm

I remember this well and now if the same thing happens to Ford and his staffers over the way they hid their involvement with the Therme deal and Greenbelt scandal, then the law is working.

RCMP are STILL investigating this supposedly. At a snail's pace and long after Ford won the election anyway.

Last edited by TomTV (June 26, 2025 4:42 pm)

**Posted by RadioActive** June 26, 2025 3:39 pm

Can't we all agree that there are bad apples in every bunch and stop the partisan divide? They're politicians. They'll say anything to get elected and they're all pretty sketchy if you ask me. Greenbelt scandal? Sponsorship scandal? Gas plants scandal? Party affiliation doesn't seem to dictate morality. Just assume they're all crooks and let it go at that.

It's up to reporters to scope all this out and it's a big "get" for them when they do.

**Posted by Binson Echorec** June 26, 2025 4:01 pm

Dial Twister wrote:
I am definitely NOT comparing Premier Ford to the Nazis. He may be devious and possibly even corrupt, but I sure don't think he's evil.

Being evil takes brains. I don't think brains are the Premier's forte.

RadioActive wrote:
Can't we all agree that there are bad apples in every bunch and stop the partisan divide? They're politicians. They'll say anything to get elected and they're all pretty sketchy if you ask me. Greenbelt scandal? Sponsorship scandal? Gas plants scandal? Party affiliation doesn't seem to dictate morality. Just assume they're all crooks and let it go at that.

I've been doing this since before being eligible to vote. Not one of them is "in it for me".

Last edited by Binson Echorec (June 26, 2025 4:02 pm)

**Posted by paterson1** June 26, 2025 6:01 pm

Please understand, I am playing a bit of devil's advocate. I don't agree with everything Ford does, but I do find that some of the reporters covering Queen's Park like Colin D'Mello, Richard Southern and CBC's Mike Crowley's always feel the need to be negative on whatever the provincial government does.

I recall during COVID the Queen's Park media acted like Ontario was ground zero and that the Tories were incompetent and mishandling the crisis every step of the way. History and time has shown that this wasn't the case. Could COVID have been dealt with better? Yes, but compared to other jurisdictions Ontario handled the crisis much better than most. Local, Ontario and federal governments all get credit for this.

One thing is apparent is that some in the news media don't take criticizm well, especially from those they think aren't qualified to question them. Sadly this is sometimes the public that is questioning and newsmedia tends to overreact when their positions are examined. When this happens automatically you or those questioning are "hard right wing" or extreme, and usually compared to Trump or one of his amateurish and unqualified guppies.

Conservatives in Ontario and Canada for that matter are usually a lot more pragmatic, dare I say liberal, than what we witness daily from other countries including some in Europe. Our harder right party, People's Party of Canada with mad Max at the helm continues to be fully locked into the fringe category and don't look to be moving out anytime soon.

**Posted by Muffaraw Joe** June 26, 2025 6:04 pm

I say bring on bias. It keeps us real, honest. it is grist for the mill for good debate to happen. Also, what kind of Orwellian future would we have is we only had sameness?

We are all mature here, we have a choice to switch the dial, not read that newspaper, or perhaps believe the differing viewpoint.

Good for Southern, for speaking his truth. it may not be our truth, and that is okay. Questioning, debating freely, being open to new ideas is so vital for free society to mature without "sameness".

Last edited by Muffaraw Joe (June 26, 2025 6:06 pm)

**Posted by Chrisphen** June 26, 2025 6:17 pm

I can't help but raise this missive from Hunter S. Thompson's obit of Richard Nixon (which in itself is a literary and political classic that should be read by all in middle schools):

"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful"

As much of a shithead as Thompson was, he certainly got this right. And the lessons are applicable today.

**Posted by ckg927** June 27, 2025 10:07 pm

paterson1 wrote:
Holliday wrote:
paterson1 wrote:

That is debatable. The voters just put them back in with a strong majority. Usually this means that the public is generally satisfied with how they are performing.
The Ford government is the most corrupt in Ontario history. He rode in on his faux “anti-Trump” sentiment, his $200 citizen bribes, and offering his suburban voters red-meat disinformation about how bad the city is. (ie. bike lanes, 401 tunnel) Journalists are supposed to hold politicians- especially shady ones (Therme, Greenbelt, Science Centre, etc) - to account.
You saying they are corrupt does not make it so. And the voters obviously didn't agree with your assessment.

Most of the voters in Ontario DIDN'T BOTHER TO VOTE in the last election. So, there's THAT.

**Posted by Paul Jeffries** June 27, 2025 11:17 pm

paterson1 wrote:
One thing is apparent is that some in the news media don't take criticizm well, especially from those they think aren't qualified to question them. Sadly this is sometimes the public that is questioning and newsmedia tends to overreact when their positions are examined. When this happens automatically you or those questioning are "hard right wing" or extreme, and usually compared to Trump or one of his amateurish and unqualified guppies.

Very true. Also, people tend to dismiss news that they don't like or choose not to believe as "fake news" or "propaganda", even when there's sufficient evidence to back it up.

In this day and age, I believe we should get our information from multiple sources and seek out the information we need, and not just the information we want, as well as being our own fact-checkers.

PJ