They were promoting conspiracies about the Quebec mosque shooter actually being Muslim and the media using a white Canadian scapegoat to cover it up:

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/02/22/opinion/kai-nagata-quebec-city-and-ominous-trajectory-rebel-medias-ezra-levant

Alberta government also banned them briefly:

In early 2016, the Alberta government banned The Rebel Media's correspondents from press briefings on the grounds that, because Ezra Levant had testified in court in 2014 that he was a columnist or commentator rather than a reporter, none of his current correspondents could be considered to be journalists

Thought you were talking about the Toronto Star.

In review, the Toronto Star reports local news through journalists and national/international news via such sources as the Associated Press and the Washington Post. There is minimal use of loaded language in reporting local news: Province submits fresh evidence in ongoing court fight over Toronto council cut. On the other hand, editorials utilize moderately loaded headlines that favor the left, such as this: It’s time for Doug Ford to stop campaigning and start governing. Further, the Toronto Star has always endorsed progressive democratic candidates for most of its history, most recently endorsing Justin Trudeau. In general, story selection tends to favor the left.

In review, The Rebel routinely publishes news with loaded emotional wording that favors the right, such as this: Why Trudeau’s Liberals are pretending THIS gun control study doesn’t exist, and this Cops bundle up angry left-wing student in taped meltdown. Both of these stories are linked to strongly right-leaning sources such as Campus Reform. In general, most stories favor the right and denigrate the left. Further, according to the right-leaning, The National, The Rebel has been accused of stirring up anti-Muslim hate. Some writers for The Rebel have also been profiled by the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center for promoting hate.

CBC:

low biased, factual, and covers both sides of issues. Editorially, the opinion pages tend to be balanced with some stories slightly leaning left such as this: Doug Ford’s ‘efficiencies’ seem to be costing taxpayers an awful lot of money: Robyn Urback and right-leaning: Why low-income earners should actually welcome Ontario’s reversal on rent control. Opinion pieces have also been critical of liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Rebel News:

In review, The Rebel routinely publishes news with loaded emotional wording that favors the right, such as this: Why Trudeau’s Liberals are pretending THIS gun control study doesn’t exist, and this Cops bundle up angry left-wing student in taped meltdown. Both of these stories are linked to strongly right-leaning sources such as Campus Reform. In general, most stories favor the right and denigrate the left. Further, according to the right-leaning, The National, The Rebel has been accused of stirring up anti-Muslim hate. Some writers for The Rebel have also been profiled by the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center for promoting hate.

CBC

So the headline says they have a left-center bias.

But then it goes on to say they're highly factual, highly credible...

low biased, factual, and covers both sides of issues. Editorially, the opinion pages tend to be balanced with some stories slightly leaning left such as this: Doug Ford’s ‘efficiencies’ seem to be costing taxpayers an awful lot of money: Robyn Urback and right-leaning: Why low-income earners should actually welcome Ontario’s reversal on rent control. Opinion pieces have also been critical of liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The entire headline accusing the CBC of being center-left appears to be based on these two sentences alone:

On the whole, slightly more opinion pieces favor the left. Further, the right-leaning National Post has accused the CBC of liberal bias.

The first one has absolutely no sources or evidence or tallying of any kind. The second one is citing National Post's accusation as if it should count at all.

This is about the debates commission kicking out a journalist from the debates, not silencing their freedom of speech.

Surely we have limits - we can't just let anyone into the debates, grab a mic, and start screaming "YOU'RE A PEDOPHILE!" over and over again, right?

The good news is that the candidates themselves can just collectively snub Rebel News for being the trash journalism that it is. They don't have to answer their questions, or even acknowledge their existence.

The old line comes to mind: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'

Nobody's denying them the right to say anything, though.

Holocaust denial? The company owner is jewish.

So is Ben Shapiro

The other major media outlets are mouthpieces for the party

yes famous mouthpieces for the Liberal party like The National Post and The Globe and Mail and Global News the place you are reading this from :/

How can you own an industry you yourself don't work in?

Well for example, I don't work in education. But education in my country isn't privately owned, it's publicly owned. We all own the land that the school is on, the building that the classes are held in, and it's all paid for using our tax dollars. I control it by voting for different politicians based on how they promise to run this industry.

That's me. My name is Joe and I'm a roofer.

Socialists usually use the term Socialism in how we manage the Economy.

No, socialists usually use the term socialism in whether or not the means of production are owned by the worker, or privately owned.

Socialism is a very blanket term, and can be very easily confused with Social Demorcracy, Democratic Socialism,

Those are two forms of socialism. It's not so much "confused" as it is "further specified".

I think I'll just stick with whatever you want to call what Canada, Sweden or Norway are doing. Americans call it socialist, college tankies call it CapitalismPlus, I don't really care, it seems like the best ideology to me.

Socialism is where the workers own the means of production, capitalism is where they are owned privately.

In my country, the workers own the means of production in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, but not fast food, video games, or the film industry. This is called social democracy, IE a form of socialism that blends with capitalism.

Having Unions, State Owned Businesses, and Social Welfare Policies in a Capitalist Economy is NOT Socialism.

That kind of all-or-nothing attitude sounds almost religious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Social_democracy

So by your standards, if you took a 99.99% socialist economy, where the workers owned the means of production for almost every single industry from education and healthcare, to making fluffy little toys for your cats, but ONE guy named Steve owned an acre of land, a factory, and made chocolate bars that he sold for profit... this in your view would just be called a capitalist economy?

https://i.imgur.com/Iu9IomX.png

Yeah that's not workin for me

You know why the Republicans are so much better at getting common every day Joe the Roofer to stay on their side? Because they don't talk down to them, they don't use pointless academic jargon to obscure their ideas and make their ideology an impenetrable fog, and they don't use their ideology as a weapon to bash uneducated people over the head with.

It sounded like you were saying that workers working IN essential industries would have the production means whereas workers in luxury industries would essentially be hung out to dry.

I'm not really understanding your distinction - if the industries essential for human life are owned by the workers, then you can leave the workers in luxury industries to be "hung out to dry" and they can still fend for themselves, because they still own the industries essential for human life.

This split society of socialism and capitalism is commonly called social democracy.

The system is still a capitalist one, even with social programs or industries.

So by that logic, you can have workers seize the means of production for 99% of the country, almost every industry from healthcare to making fluffy little cat toys is owned by the state and thus the people, except for Steve's Chocolate Bars, the one lone holdout. Steve employs 3 people, owns 100sqft of land, and sells his chocolate bars for a modest profit.

By your logic, this country is a capitalist country.

That's just social democracy which still is capitalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Social_democracy

because it remains a market economy with private ownership.

No, it's split - a market economy with private ownership for luxuries you don't need, and publicly owned industries for life essentials that you do need. Thus eliminating the prospect of wage slavery, and allowing workers the freedom to choose to work for the capitalists or not.

Why does it seem counterintuitive? If all you need for life is provided to you, then there is no such thing as wage slavery, is there? You can't be run into the ground if you can simply choose not to work and still live happily and healthily. Providing life essentials to the worker increases the worker's bargaining power.

...that's not an answer, that's just a vague sweeping statement. It's not even suggesting it's necessary to support them, just that they're doing it.

No you're thinking of Canadians.

Communism is when America doesn't like you