A weekly column
How the press covered this week
Canadian parliamentary stories get told in a hundred places. We read all of them, line the coverage up side-by-side, and report on what emerges when one news cycle produces two incompatible stories. Non-partisan media criticism, evidence first.
Recent columns
- 6 min read
Press Review: The Budget Called Both "Austerity" and "Not Really Cutting" by Opposite Sides
Six months after the Carney government tabled Budget 2025, the press coverage has settled into three incompatible framings — and the one most readers saw treats the word "austerity" as neutral descriptor rather than political claim.
- 6 min read
How the Press Covered the Floor-Crossings: One Story Became Two
The first of a new weekly column. Six months of coverage, four MPs, two dozen headlines — and the pattern that emerged tells you as much about Canadian political media as it does about Parliament.
What we are (and are not) doing
We are: lining up evidence from multiple outlets, identifying where coverage converges and where it splits, and flagging the gaps where a story went unreported.
We are not: telling you which outlet is “right.” We do not rate outlets on a scale. We do not call stories “biased” in the abstract. The framing choice each paper made on a specific story is the data. The pattern is what we report.
Cadence: planned weekly, usually Fridays. If a week is quiet we skip — we will not manufacture columns to fill the schedule.
Methodology
Each column reviews at least 8 Canadian outlets with a confirmable piece on the subject story. We quote headlines verbatim, link to the original article, and do not characterize framing we cannot support with a specific quote or lead paragraph. Research notes are saved alongside each column. When an outlet is paywalled, we flag it as such rather than infer framing from the headline alone.
Tip us a story
See a parliamentary story that got covered very differently by two outlets? Email hello@parliamentaudit.ca with both links. We'll take a look.