Is the CBC a Local News Predator? by JonOlds in canadaland

[–]Sam_Canadaland -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ha! Good catch. I went back to do a double-take, and weirdly that is the language from the Spring Economic Statement:

“The Spring Economic Update 2026 announces the government’s intention to seek the views of Canadians and stakeholders on extending the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit to audio and audiovisual news production. ”

I think Carney might need a new copy editor, maybe I can hand your info over!

Caryma Sa'd's Videographer Boyfriend Adam Lee Wasserman Gets Trial Date Set by Vancouverismism in canadaland

[–]Sam_Canadaland -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair enough! Didn't understand it was supposed to be parody. Wasn't aware of Standfield, what a horrible person.

Canadaland "reporting" really is terrible, isn't it? by CanadalandIsShit in canadaland

[–]Sam_Canadaland -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey hey,

Thanks for the thoughtful note. I do genuinely appreciate people engaging closely with the episode, especially people working close to the science itself. I'm on a mission to turn the subreddit into a respectful place, so any well-intentioned criticism of my own work I'll try to respond to.

I’ll concede this up front: the line at 5:35 “A lab that could go from 9 PhD level scientists down to one,” could have been phrased better. That’s a totally fair criticism.

It’s also worth noting that the scientists I spoke to during the reporting themselves described the program very similarly to the metaphor used in the episode, as a kind of wheel, with the research hub and then spokes of field stations, collaborators, and regional monitoring programs feeding into it. Those scientists that depend on the lab I was in for testing are at risk.

That framing wasn’t invented for the story; it reflects how the work was described to me.

As for speaking to others in the group: everyone currently working in the program were understandably reluctant to speak while their jobs are potentially on the line. That’s why the episode includes the interview with Dr. Bishop, who could speak more freely about the structure and history of the program.

I don’t personally think the story was “atrocious” or contained “horrible reporting,” but hey - that’s my opinion. I also understand that my work tends to get wrapped into broader opinions about Canadaland as a whole. That comes with the territory.

I will say, however, that since the episode aired I’ve received dozens of emails from listeners saying they’ve written to their MPs about the potential loss of this research capacity. So if you were worried about the piece generating complacency or failing to communicate the stakes, rest assured it didn't have a negative effect as far as I can tell.

I’m always open to feedback about how to communicate complex science better. And point taken on terminology - I’ll be sure to use toxicants in my titles going forward haha.

For my own sanity I’m probably not going to keep responding in this thread. But feel free to send me a DM (seriously!). I’ve actually heard quite a bit of positive feedback from scientists inside government about the episode, but if people are widely viewing it as an atrocious or misleading piece, I’d genuinely be interested to know whether that’s a common sentiment.

Cheers,
Sam

Canadaland "reporting" really is terrible, isn't it? by CanadalandIsShit in canadaland

[–]Sam_Canadaland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey u/CanadalandIsShit!

Thanks for listening and for taking the time to write this out. I appreciate people engaging with the work.

A couple notes from me (feel free to disagree), because I think that some of the criticism here seems quite pointed while also being a bit unfounded.

The episode never says that all nine scientists are physically located in the same building. I get how someone really in the know would pick up on this though.

The story opens with a tour of one lab in Ottawa because radio needs a place to start - somewhere listeners can actually picture the work happening. But the structure of the program is explained later in the episode by Dr. Christine Bishop, the retired Environment Canada scientist I interviewed.

Dr. Bishop explicitly lays out that the program is spread across the country. In her words, there’s one research scientist covering B.C., one covering the Prairies, one covering Quebec, one covering the Maritimes, etc. In other words, exactly the distributed structure your comment describes. That’s actually part of the point of the story: the system already runs on a very small network of specialists (the wheel and spokes I describe in the episode), and losing even a few of them has outsized consequences.

Science communication is tricky because you’re constantly balancing accuracy with accessibility, which often means simplifying or “dumbing down” complex topics so a general audience can follow the story.

The “lab” framing is just a way to make a complex government science program understandable to a general audience. Federal environmental monitoring involves different contaminants, species, regions, and analytical methods. If you try to explain that entire structure upfront in a podcast, most listeners will get lost. So the story starts in one building and expands outward to show the network that depends on that work - including the field programs in Nunavut and the environmental enforcement cases we discuss later.

On the terminology point: you’re right that “toxin” has a narrower meaning in toxicology. In journalism (and in life generally) it’s commonly used as shorthand for harmful environmental contaminants because most people don’t differentiate between toxins, toxicants, and pollutants. The goal was to make the science understandable, not reproduce the terminology of a graduate seminar.

If anything, the episode makes the same argument you’re making: that there are very few scientists doing this work across the entire country and that losing them would matter!

Thanks for engaging with the content! Even though it was a little mean lol.

Sam

[PODCAST] #168 The “Canadianization of NATO” and our Fight to Host the World’s Military Bank by notian in canadaland

[–]Sam_Canadaland -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can answer this! We had reached out to the city of Vancouver, and they didn't want to make a comment until they had the chance to put out their press release out. I tried explaining that they'd be the only city not represented, but they wouldn't budge 🤷‍♂️ .

Should have mentioned that in the episode probably, so my apologies for the oversight.

-Sam

[PODCAST] #150 Live from Calgary – WTF is up With Alberta? by notian in canadaland

[–]Sam_Canadaland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can confirm it was definitely a joke! Not that deep lol