Bad-Faith Actors Are Systematically Silencing Critical Voices. We must fight back.
My week started with an unexpected trip to the ER—and believe it or not, that was the highlight. This week was one of those weeks that made me stop and question everything. The week quickly unraveled into something downright painful, a series of reminders of all the things that are wrong with the world, how bad-faith actors are constantly trying to silence critical voices, particularly in journalism, and how they succeed.
Rachel Gilmore, a respected political journalist, was pulled from a segment on CTV News after online trolls bombarded the network with complaints. I’m no Rachel, but I also was targeted earlier this week in an online character assassination attempt after posting our “Meet the Candidates” segment on the Cornwall Ontario facebook page. Despite claiming that “no personal attacks are tolerated”, as of press time, the absolutely vile and libelous comments, from a person hiding behind a pseudonym, are still standing. And then, our very own Louise Mignault, one of the bravest and most committed writers I know, handed out her resignation from The Seeker today after years of serving on a board that increasingly viewed her political opinion pieces as a liability rather than an asset. That’s a lot in one week.
These things aren’t random. They are part of a broader playbook being executed with precision, designed to intimidate, wear out, silence, and push outspoken individuals, oftentimes women, like Rachel, Louise, and myself out of public discourse.
The very first move in that playbook is always gaslighting. These bad-faith actors want to make us — and everyone watching — question our own reality. “You’re not being silenced — you’re just not a real journalist.” “This isn’t targeting — it’s just free speech.” “You’re not being attacked — you’re just too sensitive.”
When Rachel’s segment was pulled from CTV, the network tried to justify it by stating they wanted to avoid the “distraction” created by her online “troll base.” The truth is, they simply caved under the pressure of far-right keyboard warriors who had one goal: get Rachel off the air. It’s important to note that this was a “fact-checking” segment, and that Rachel was let go not for anything she did wrong, or because of the lack of quality in her work, but because they didn’t want to deal with the relentless harassment that came from the alt-right. The bullies didn’t win; their victory was HANDED OUT. And what does that tell them? That their tactics work.
At The Seeker, Louise’s articles have been a constant topic of debate at the board level — a topic that was discussed and settled repeatedly, but wouldn’t die and kept resurfacing, like Michael Myers in Halloween H20, creating an environment that led to Louise’s resignation. Yes, like every other organization, we sometimes face disagreements.
Sidebar: there’s a troubling trend in the media where “neutrality” is often used to avoid uncomfortable topics. Some of us here want that. “Can you stick to ‘good news’ instead of focusing on politics?” “Maybe we should avoid these controversial topics for a while; it’s hurting the brand” are things I hear regularly, in a myriad of variations, and while I was all-in on that concept when we first started this paper 15 years ago, I no longer believe being neutral or avoiding taking sides is the right approach. I refuse to remain silent when the truth needs to be told. I refuse to make life easier for those in power and those who profit off division. “Neutrality” has increasingly been used as an excuse to silence voices that challenge the status quo. I won’t stand for it. You know what the bible says about being lukewarm, right?
Louise’s writing was strong, it was challenging. It made us think. It confronted difficult truths, and that made some people uncomfortable. But in my eyes, that discomfort is necessary. Especially here. Especially now. It’s how we grow as a society, as a community, as a democracy. The Seeker is weaker without that voice. And when a progressive media outlet is weakened, those bad-faith actors, the same ones who pushed Rachel out, they rejoice.
Let’s call a spade a spade. All of this is about one thing, and one thing only: Money. Either about losing it, not getting it, or having to dish it.
When Rachel’s segment was pulled, it wasn’t just about appeasing online trolls—it was about ensuring that advertisers didn’t leave. Similarly, I suspect that for The Seeker, the fear of losing advertisers, or not landing them, drove the narrative. And the same thing happens on platforms like Facebook every day. Outrage, anger, and controversy drive engagement, which means profit. Harassment gets ignored because it’s good for business. Hence why the personal attacks in that facebook group were not removed.
But then, who really has the voice? Journalists? Or the corporations who buy their salaries?
The Human Cost
Here’s the harsh truth we rarely talk about: this is not just a battle for content or clicks. It’s a war on our very well-being. The goal is to make life so unbearable for outspoken people, again, especially women, that we either self-censor, burn out and quit, or are pushed out.
For Louise, this week, option B became a reality. After years of fighting, she stepped away from The Seeker because the emotional cost was too high. For Rachel, it was C—forced out after her segment was pulled. And for me, I’ve been tested in ways I never imagined, facing the very real possibility that if I don’t choose silence, I might be next in line to burn out. Or pushed out.
The emotional toll this takes is unimaginable. The constant weight of defending your worth, your voice, your right to exist in this space—it wears you down. It exhausts you. And the more it happens, the more you begin to wonder: Is it worth it?
Newsrooms must stop kowtowing to trolls. If we want to maintain integrity, we must protect the journalists who speak truth to power, not silence them. Boards must back their writers and embrace the uncomfortable truths they bring, instead of playing it safe to protect profits. Platforms like Facebook must take responsibility for allowing harassment to run rampant. If we want online spaces to be safe, we have to demand it. And readers must step up. Support independent media. Call out harassment. Demand better.
To Louise: Thank you for your courage. Your resignation letter should be required reading for every journalist.
To Rachel: Your fight is our fight. I’m glad you found another home.
To the bullies: I see you. I’m documenting you. And your playbook can kiss my ass.
About the Author
Gaslighting! We live in a culture where lies are so easily accepted as truth. As I read your article, I had to read it twice to confirm the target was journalists. The intimidation, bullying, and fear of speaking out against these “bad actors” is real. This has been happening across Canada with the strong, courageous mothers of children/adults with lifelong care needs and the very social system providing support and services. When the parent of the child/adult relentlessly address care needs, these “bad actors” make every effort to silence the parent, usually the mom. The strong, courageous family members, usually women, of senior loved ones, in care facilities, face retribution for speaking up about the care of their loved one. The physical, emotional and financial cost with doing the right thing is truly unimaginable. Yet, I will continue, to the best of my ability, live with integrity, stand by my standards and not let silence be golden. “Don’t mistake bullying for strength” (Obama 2024) We, especially women, must give ourselves permission to reenergize, refocus and return stronger! Expect to see you soon Louise! Thanks for helping me see things differently, making me reflect and pause at times, with your articles.
Thanks Joy. And thanks also for your contributions.
Keep leaning into the truth.
I keep thinking of this quote too: “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”
By Antonio Gramsci
We are seeing desperate attempts to silence people because they are losing. The people who snap their fingers like kings and expect the peasants to get in line, their time is over. Louise, yourself, Rachel, you all are doing the courageously, righteous thing and they hate themselves because they can dish it out but cannot take it.
I also felt inspired by this quote because we need to dismantle these evil systems:
“There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river.
We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.”
By Desmond Tutu
Thanks Kelly. Anybody with a voice has to lean into the truth nowadays. I am watching the horror show of the US and listening to people talk about how the Americans must live with the results of their votes or inaction.
I don’t want that for Canada. I don’t like the idea of “living with the results” of leaders like Trump because voters were ignorant. I prefer to talk about the potential results of voting in these types of leaders and prevent them from gaining power in the first place.
Preventing these types of people from getting enough support to run for office is impossible, because the moneyed corporations support them. Conservative governments believe in giving every break they can to corporations. Look what happened to the US. Corporations were given so much power, they now have more control than government. They are making decisions and changing laws they should not be allowed anywhere near.
I spent a lot of time watching what has been happening during the first Trump administration, and have been horrified. Who ever thought fascism would rear its ugly head right across our border? I smelled it back in Trump 1 days, but never thought Americans would stand for it. Turns out they either don’t realise they’re fascists, or they like it.
The days of looking what a party accomplished and what damage it did in order to make a rational decision at the voting booth are gone.
I thought almost all Canadians were smarter, better educated than those fascist Americans, until the truck convoy. Turns out they were just waiting to copy their American peers. They didn’t need a reason, because there was no reason. Just a couple of crackpot fools wanting attention was all it took.
Rant over, except to say sometimes people don’t know when they have it made.
Wow! Did not know this was happening and thank you for speaking out.
Lately, I see a world also where the educated are being silenced and the bullies are getting louder.
Thank you, again ladies
How utterly elitist of you Diane ! If I agree with you I am educated but if I have a different view, I’m a bully
This type of outlook will “surely” help to unite us all to make Canada a better place.
There is a vast difference between having a different opinion and acting like a bully. Calling someone an elitist right out of the gate is an excellent example.
I don’t agree with you Neal.
Thanks Diane.
Elie Wiesel, Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, said, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented”.
We rely on journalists to provide us with the truth. We also appreciate journalists’ opinions on pressing issues. The days of unbiased journalism appear to be fading. When most of Canadian media is owned by right-wing, Republican, Americans, the news fed to us is tainted by their agenda.
The pushback we see today from those on the right towards independent media, towards the CBC, is part of the autocratic playbook. While it is important for the public to verify all reports found in news sources, it is even more important for us to support sources that aren’t beholden to any agenda other than that of telling the truth.
Please keep on telling the truth!
Christine – I love that you quote Elie Wiesel – it’s one of my favourites. Neutrality means not taking a side. Neutrality might be useful in a court of law as a starting point to listening to a case but ultimately the judge or jury must rule and decided if a wrong has been committed. In life – we are judges – we must learn what right and wrong in a given situation and choose.
omg, I know you were never the most clever person on the room Julia, but you watched that happen to me because of CFN and said crickets.
You are just another lobster in the pot.
Irony of ironies… the Seeker — suckled on and hand fed PR from city hall and fluff from Cornwall Clique sycophants — published nothing that might upset their sweet deal and bring wrath down on them, and spook weak kneed advertisers.
The Seeker never gave a toss when CFN rose against the opiate that Cornwall’s establishment would rather see foisted on readers.
l’m 78 years old . growing up in the fifties, we got a great educayion on the nazis. nowit seems they’re back led by trump and musk an orban of hungary and putin. we have our own canadian version with the truckers convoy and certain politicians who publicly supported them. now canada is fighting for its very survivaland we must understandthat these tactics that julia is describing is are the weapons of the nazis. as she said, now is the time to call a spade a spade. dont give in to bullies, bacause that’s what nazism is: bullying.
Totally agree with that statement. Neutrality is not the way.
100% Ronald. My own comments soon support yours.
Hi Ronald (and Bernard & Austin) – I agree 100%. History (even a basic knowledge of it) tells us what has happened and where this is going in the US and in Canada. It’s not the time to sit back and watch it happen. We must speak out.
I for one am kind of sad to see Louise gone. Her articles were just like an accident that you could not stop staring at.
Truth?? I guess it was her version of truth, but if you constantly spew out misinformation you have to be ready to accept
the criticism. We still have a tiny right to free speech in Canada (for how much longer I don’t know), and I defend her right
to her views but the right to free speech is a 2 way street, and people can challenge those views without being called nazis,
fascists or bullies. Well Julia, I obviously also disagree with your article and for your information, I don’t kiss anybody’s ass.
Louise was the best thing about the Seeker. So very sorry to hear she was bullied into quitting. Totally unacceptable
Thanks Melanie 🙂
Julia, you are a goddamn idiot. Your one and only duty as a media outlet is to report the facts and only facts, in their entirety and with absolutely no bias whatsoever, real or perceived. Bias of any kind is why nobody trusts the media anymore, the Seeker included. When I want facts, I want facts only and complete facts only, with no opinions, bias, sensationalism, distortion, ambiguity, or omissions. No opinions means I also do NOT want any academics (e.g. university professors) quoted, interviewed or referenced under any circumstances. Give your goddamn head a shake, Julia.
If what you’re after is sterile, context-free information, there are outlets like Reuters that strive for minimal interpretation. That’s your choice. I value understanding the world through the eyes of people who have lived experience, research, or professional insight. Experts—yes, even those dreaded university professors—can add essential context that raw facts alone can’t provide. Dismissing them entirely is less about wanting clarity and more about avoiding inconvenient truths.
But let’s get to the real issue. Who the hell do you think you are, speaking to anyone in that tone? Who are you to tell the women who built and maintain this independent community paper how they should do their jobs—or worse, that they deserve a tongue-lashing because they had the nerve to express a point of view?
You responded to a piece about women being trolled in journalism by trolling a woman in journalism. The irony clearly went right over your head, but women get it: men who get personally offended the moment a woman has a voice louder than a whisper.
You don’t have to like what they write. But if you want to be taken seriously, try coming to the table with something other than insults and fragile ego.
You’re a left leaning media outlet. We’re a Conservative town. I understand why some board members want to tone down the bias for business purposes. Just take a look at how you reported on Sarah’s campaign rally vs Eric’s.
Julia, what happened to Louise and Rachel within the media forum happens repeatedly in other forums.
From personal experience and as an advocate for seniors and disabled persons, if you speak up and ask, demand or plead for better care of your loved one, be prepared for retaliation.
Severe retaliation.
In my case, a 4.5 million dollar lawsuit retaliation for providing information in the public interest.
Advocates are vilified, forced into silence, issued unlawful trespass denying their legal access a to their loved one.
Charter breaches in abundance without due process of the law.
To fight back, if anyone dares, you need to tap into your retirement savings and be prepared to sell your home.
Publicly funded Seniors and Disabled Persons care facilities have public funding so the financial cost is zero. Think about that one!
Private care facilities have profit, insurance and tax right off options.
The vilified truth speaker has no such financial protection.
The vilified truth speaker suffers emotional onslaught of unbelievable proportions.
Seniors and Disabled Persons care facilities operators have a playbook that is identical in all the cases I have dealt with, including my case.
It’s script includes allegations of violent behavior by the advocate with evidence that is either flimsy or fabricated.
When put on the spot to provide fabricated evidence in a format that can validate its authenticity, excuses are made by the “bad actor” regarding the unavailability of the requested format of evidence.
Since when is speaking the truth, advocating for our marginalized and devalued vulnerable persons , become a crime?
Media is the only way to get attention and expose issues that affect society, particularly vulnerable persons with no voice.
It’s truly demoralizing, frightening and disheartening when media outlets behave like the bullies that society tries to expose… via the media.
Thank you for sharing your thoughtful and passionately written piece. I’ve reviewed it for grammar, clarity, and structure, and made some refinements while preserving your voice and tone. Below is the revised version:
________________________________________
Some 40 years ago, a co-worker said to me, “We live in a time where politicians, lawmakers, and rule-makers are forced to stoop and cater to the lowest common denominator.” With “forced” meaning by the court of public opinion carried almost entirely by news media, journalists and social media platforms. Today, we see that philosophy playing out on an exponentially increasing scale.
As an example; a political candidate entering the arena is now immediately met with cries of, “I’m offended,” or “That victimizes me (& the entire world)” for issues that are obviously self-serving to those who raise them. Any candidate foolish enough to oppose the endless, often absurd or illogical demands is quickly vilified by outspoken individuals from all mentioned sources, both legitimate as well as possibly just to gain followers.
Candidates are left with few viable options. To deny any perceived injustice is to invite public ire and retaliatory criticism. So, who is really being bullied?
This chronic, castrating media narrative— “executed with precision—is designed to intimidate, wear down, silence, and push outspoken community leaders (often men, too) into evasive neutrality. Ironically, they are then criticized for that as well.
This is the very definition of gaslighting, and in many cases, it begins directly from our media and journalists. In this case, it appears to come from you, Julia.
This lament, if one reads between the lines, could just as easily be a thinly veiled attempt to vilify an employer by flipping the narrative, a very typical and popular tactic.
With so little detail in the article about the days, weeks, or possibly months leading up to Rachel being “let go,” I, as a reader, am left wondering: What’s the full story? So “Meh, whatever” and Rachel’s ‘cause’ just became irrelevant as her consequences didn’t occur overnight or without other reasons.
With Louise, and her credits as “one of the bravest and most committed writers” followed by “Louise’s articles have been a constant topic of debate at the board level—a topic that was discussed and settled repeatedly but wouldn’t die and kept resurfacing.”
Any reader would surely question the dichotomy of the given ‘facts’, at very least this raises a yellow flag, calling the rest of the ‘facts’ into question.
I would have to ask: If it was settled repeatedly, why wouldn’t it die?
a. Was Louise (stubbornly?) unable or unwilling to take “no” for an answer?
b. Was she overestimating her importance or value to the bottom line?
c. Why did she repeatedly refuse to accept the board’s decisions?
Nearly every word and sentiment in this article reflects the same tactics of bullying that it claims to condemn. The harsh truth is that Julia may well be using or at least supporting the very bullying strategies she claims to oppose.
A distinct possibility emerges that Louise may have been making life so unbearable for the board—especially male members? —that they were backed into a corner. With no other option, they made the only remaining decision to move forward with their daily business.
Another possibility, was this a power struggle between genders with egos on both sides being left without an escape to “save face” or were there so many vindictive and petty personal attacks that virtually ensured no compromise could be achieved?
This article implies both situations were very one-sided with only “the board” and of course “men” are the only bullies in the workplace. Without a balance of ‘facts’ this article is rendered as nothing more than propaganda.
________________________
Forget this “agree to disagree”—it’s a dead end. It only creates resistance and shuts down communication. Instead, try: “Disagree without being disagreeable.”
Bring back respect for others. Accept that your thoughts, actions, and opinions are not the only ones of value, nor are they necessarily right in every situation.
And could someone please, anyone, somewhere take responsibility for the choices they made that led to the consequences they now face?
________________________________________
You may have heard the words, but do you understand what was said?
When you are formulating your responses while ‘listening’ you haven’t understood.
If you have no clarifying questions after ‘listening’ you haven’t understood.
To be unbiased, to have an open mind, one must Listen as-if they are Wrong.
Robert, thank you for proving the point of Julia’s article so thoroughly. Nastiness and superiority dressed up in an “aren’t I clever” voice.
Calling the article “thoughtful and passionate” and then claiming you “refined it” for grammar and clarity is sarcasm disguised as superiority—a setup to dismiss the argument entirely.
You pretend to ask questions—but you use the question mark as a shield, a way to slip in negative assumptions without taking responsibility for them. You wonder if I was “stubborn,” if I “overestimated my value,” or if I “made life unbearable for others.” Why limit your “questioning” assumptions to only negatives about me? Why is there no sliver of possibility that what was said in the article is true? Why is there no trace of niceness or benefit of the doubt? Why are you blaming me for possibly leaving an environment that didn’t value my voice?
It’s obvious to me, Robert, that you don’t like what I write, and this is your attempt at payback.
If your response to women saying, “We’re being silenced,” is, “Well, maybe you should be,” then you’re exactly the kind of bad-faith actor we’re talking about.
You also reach for the weary “What about the men?” line. Yes, men face criticism in media too. But women—especially those with strong social or political opinions—are targeted with a different kind of hostility. It’s more personal, persistent and dangerous.
When we speak about this hostility, we’re not denying anyone else’s struggles—we’re naming our own. That you can’t (or won’t) acknowledge this is telling. And summing up the mention of Rachel Gilmore’s experience as ““Meh, whatever” and Rachel’s ‘cause’ just became irrelevant as her consequences didn’t occur overnight or without other reasons.” shows that you really don’t give a hoot about the issue and instead shows us that your intent here is simply to vilify.
You accuse Julia of using the same bullying tactics she condemned. What do you mean? What bullying tactics did she actually use? She talked about how women are pushed out, worn down, and undermined. It’s an honest comment. That you twist that into an attack says far more about you than her. Is it possible her words made you uncomfortable because they hit too close to home or challenged your perspective?
Julia’s article isn’t about personal grudges. It’s about a pattern playing out again and again, where women who speak up are framed as “too much,” “too loud,” or “too difficult”—while the systems that marginalize them go unquestioned.
Your response is Exhibit A.
The header “thoughtful and passionate,” etc., was automatically generated when I used ChatGPT to edit my comments for grammar and clarity. I inadvertently included it when I pasted the revised version into the article’s comment section. There was no setup, no refinement, and no manipulation of the article itself—yet you dove headfirst into assumptions, responding with no shortage of nastiness and venom of your own.
Had you read the opening paragraphs of my comment—where I clearly addressed Julia by name—you might have realized that my remarks were directed at her article, not at you. Your reaction, interpreting every analytical question as a personal attack, shows you completely missed the neutral points I made about the writing style, not you.
What I oppose are media posts that present a heavily biased perspective, as Julia’s article clearly did—portraying simplified narratives of villains and victims.
There was no “pretending.” The questions I raised were intended to prompt readers to stop accepting biased journalism at face value. They were meant to encourage critical thinking—especially when only one side of a story is being told. When the narrative is heavily skewed, of course, the questions will appear pointed. That’s the point. They are “required reading” for a reader to develop healthy skepticism—especially in an age of half-truths and misinformation.
Again, had you read the premise of my comment, it would have been clear that my questions were not personal. They were objectively framed to invite readers to assess the article from a neutral standpoint—not to attack you. Neutrality is not inherently “nice” or “nasty.” Julia has already given you the benefit of the doubt. I provided the doubt that is necessary for truth-seeking.
As for your accusation of blame: Louise, stop playing the victim. It reeks of bad-faith argumentation and a transparent attempt to flip the narrative. You are attempting to frame me as just another bully in your life. Ironically, that is a textbook example of bullying—and you seem quite skilled at using it to serve your own ends.
After Julia’s praise of your work as “strong” and “challenging,” to now see you using your gender as a shield or an excuse for the consequences you’re facing is not only contradictory, but it also undermines the image of a strong female journalist that she described.
You can either accept this as my perspective—or continue your feeble attempts to discredit me. But if your response to me reflects how you handled the board, then I suspect you lack the objectivity and temperament to de-escalate conflict.
Best of luck in your future endeavors.
Hang on Robert: I have a right to comment even if your comment (open to the public) was addressed to Julia. I read what you wrote and had no way of knowing that the first part of this was a private conversation between you and ChatGPT… I made no assumptions. I simply responded to what I saw. Thanks for clearing it up.
Your questions were assumptive about me and uniformly negative. There was nothing neutral or objective in them, and as such, I can’t see how you think they would encourage “critical thinking”. While critical thinking is important, so is empathy. Julia’s article wasn’t trying to present a courtroom-style ‘both sides’ debate – it was asking readers to put themselves in the shoes of writers & reporters who are women and who are more harshly targeted than their male counterparts.
Louise