The problematic problems of Rachel Gilmore

Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Time is closing in on the news industry and their desperation is showing.

Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Time is closing in on the news industry and their desperation is showing.

Who is Rachel Gilmore? I know who she appears to be, a journalist working for Global News who began her career on TikTok. But is it that simple? Clearly not. Her work is sub-par compared to the rest of the journalists in the nation, so why is she covering one of the most important inquiries in Canadian history for legacy media? Many reasons I would imagine - assuming she wasn’t hired by a friend - first being legacy media has made such a mess of the convoy coverage, that what previously would have been a prestigious inquiry to cover for media is now no longer that. I would also guess that her “on the ground” coverage of the events last year would lead Global to think she is capable of handling this. She’s not. Her coverage of the convoy was as poor as her coverage of the inquiry. Lastly, it’s possible a desperate executive at Global said “we need to get on TikTok” and hired the first account they found. It doesn’t matter the reason, what matters is her quality of work is that of a campus newsletter, and it’s being passed off as national news. Her reporting is harming discourse in Canada; it is that bad.

Her mistakes are no longer cavalier and enthusiastic, they are blatant and exposing. Yesterday, she posted on Twitter, “Uh oh. Lawyers are calling each other "my friend" at the Emergencies Act inquiry again.” This is meant to display to the rubes who follow her that she has an enlightened level of understanding into the mundane reality of law, as if being a journalist for a year allowed her to skip law school, along with years of practicing, and she’s now an “expert” on court settings. This type of posturing would be adorable if it wasn’t such an important commission. What she failed to understand is that it is quite common for lawyers to refer to each other as “my friend”, it’s probably the most common moniker they use in the court room; lawyers are compelled to refer to each other with respectful terms, and along the way “my friend” became the most prominent. What is Rachel doing covering an issue so important when she lacks the basic skills to decipher what’s going on?

( Uh oh? Lawyers regularly refer to each other as “my friend”.)

When she isn’t making the story about her - by highlighting mean tweets she receives or leading a “she too” style campaign of journalism harassment - Rachel can be found settling into the role of journo-activist, as she hunts down anecdotes to bring her audience from a biased slant. This is when she isn’t taking a break from the busy world of politics by watching Netflix, eating pizza, and drinking at the mall with her mom. These are normal things for a young inexperienced person to be doing. The problem is, she’s not presented as this, she’s presented as “Global News political reporter”. When did opinion news get mixed with real news? When did activists begin masquerading as journalists? Was it when the owners at the top realized it got clicks? Her entire career seems to be based off mishandling news and making herself into a victim of “online hate” when she’s questioned or makes an egregious error. Her victim campaigns always coincide with her making a massive public error. Is all criticism she receives “trolling”? Does she think I am criticizing her work because she’s a woman? Surely, she can’t be immune to criticism because of gender.

(Unsubstantiated claim)

Her work isn’t good. She exaggerated a lot during the convoy, she ran with anecdotes as facts, she regurgitated loose-lipped stories of arson and violence that haven’t been substantiated. So far in the Rouleau inquiry, we have heard a lot of “I was hearing of violence from media reports” and “I heard from others about incidents”, but no direct victims. Her poor reporting of false anecdotes is the source of a lot of the country’s turmoil. The reason no actual victims have come forward is because there are none. I was there for most of the protest. I talked to dozens of people there, including the truckers the media talked to, and I will tell you I have never seen so many careful people in my life. Everyone knew the world was watching, people were constantly saying things like “no matter what happens, don’t loose your cool, it’s what the media wants”, but it fell on deaf ears because everyone already knew that. There would be eye-rolling along the lines of “thanks Captain obvious” from some, and 80s headbanging level of nodding in agreement from others; but the point was clear and understood by all.

There were even jokes like “Where is Ray Epps” and “the only people who are going to break into the parliament will be CSIS plants”. They were jokes, to be clear, people laughed, and we all moved on to find our next place to stand. It was a lot of fun. I’ve been to playoff Leaf games when I was a kid that were much rougher. Leaf fans followed Islanders fans into the parking lot chanting “New York sucks” and it got intense. Keep in mind, there are 20,000 people at a hockey game, many drinking, nobody was hurt that night either. There was no aggressive chicanery in Ottawa this February. At one point some Antifa showed up with their flags, they stood awkwardly for 10 minutes, watched a speech, and then left. I didn’t see much overt problems caused by them, although I did hear about them cutting air lines of trucks and breaking a window, but I can’t say there were many problems caused from opposition protesters, it was a very calm and happy atmosphere. Even the politicians I walked by such as Melanie Joly were smiling, I’m sure the experience was surreal for many. What it wasn’t was the picture Rachel painted.

I saw French-English unity, I saw East-West unity, I saw doctors embracing electricians, I saw happiness, I think that’s what’s most egregious about what Rachel is doing. Her repeated attempts to paint the convoy in a negative light not only harm the truth, but they also ignore a massive unifying event. I took hundreds of pictures, I looked through them, I see no flags of hate, I saw no fights. I was there alone, and I like to walk a lot, this was the perfect event for me; it had politics, people, walking, monuments, and architecture, it was great. It wasn’t anything near what she reported.

(Here she can be seen misrepresenting Jeremy Mackenzie in reference to his lawyer Caryma Sa’d. Mackenzie is not “defending himself”, the Rouleau inquiry is determining whether or not the entire actions of the government were justified. Rachel sees the convoy on trial. She should have said “everyone is entitled to representation”. This is an obvious display of her bias.)

Whether it’s misunderstanding how proceedings work- or her outright lies- what’s clear is she’s in way over her head. I’ve been following news in Ontario religiously since I was a child, when I was 8 I would argue with teachers who told me I would eventually be a politician, when I was 10 I would ride my bike to the convenience store for the news (the owner felt bad for me buying the news after school, as it was old news, so he told me if I came back at 6pm every night I could have them for free), the point is, I’ve never seen such a poor reporter in my life as Rachel, I’ve also never seen a major network like Global allow a reporter to flail so obviously. At the end of the day, it really makes me wonder, why is Global News selling us Rachel Gilmore? What I am not left to wonder after writing this is what she is though, I know what she is, she’s the decline of media. She’s a desperate grab from a gasping institution, much like a person with terminal cancer trying copious quantities of zinc, or “raising their bodies alkaline”, and it’s failing. The inevitable is here. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.