Bibliographic record
Abstract
Far-right media networks regularly engage in media criticism to undermine the legitimacy of mainstream news. These media critiques work to challenge the authority and power of mainstream news while establishing far-right media as journalistically superior. While constructive media criticism is necessary within any society, far-right news tends to frame mainstream media as an elitist and exclusionary institution that purposefully spreads misinformation to its users. In Canada, numerous far-right media sites have emerged over the past decade but have been relatively under-examined within the literature. In this context, my paper analyzes the types of critiques Canadian far-right media use to question the legitimacy of mainstream Canadian news. The study uses qualitative analysis to examine 65 articles published by two Canadian far-right media outlets, Rebel News and True North. Guided by previous literature surrounding far-right media critiques, I identify four commonly used critiques that the Canadian far-right media employ; the Media Party position, the Disinformation position, the Citizen/Taxpayer position, and the Expert position. Through my analysis, I argue that Canadian far-right media employs these specific strategies of criticism to present their discourse as authoritative over legacy media in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".