This article is from January 2025. We need to be vigilant but reposting articles from when the context was VERY different and letting people assume they’re recent isn’t helping.
Replies
Also I can't see where they got their data from? Did someone do a poll?
aug 22, 2025, 12:23 am • 0 0 • view
It’s not our “data” — it’s literally the election result (as the quote says).
aug 22, 2025, 12:25 am • 0 0 • view
I think she’s asking about where you got the data on how many Canadians are currently prepared to vote Conservative, not how many voted for Andrew Scheer. It feels like you’re being deliberately obtuse. The issue is not your quote about Andrew Scheer. It’s literally everything else.
aug 22, 2025, 1:35 am • 1 0 • view
The quote in the post was a response to the latest ARI survey on Poilievre’s likability. As noted by the commenter, one-third of Canadians tend to support the Conservatives no matter who the party leader is. We were simply pointing out that based on past election results, that appears to the case.
aug 22, 2025, 1:45 am • 0 0 • view
The issue is that you didn’t provide ANY of that context in your post. No one’s looking at your entire feed every time you post something. They may also not bother to read your actual article—just the caption, or the headline…. —>
aug 22, 2025, 1:49 am • 1 0 • view
Always appreciate constructive criticism. Thanks very much.
aug 22, 2025, 1:58 am • 1 0 • view
—> Understanding that your posts have to be clear enough to stand alone if shared alone is basic social media best practice. The fact that you’re a media outlet makes that even more important. This is stuff that’s taught in journalism school.
aug 22, 2025, 1:50 am • 1 0 • view
Honestly. I don’t have an issue with Cult MTL, but I suggest you take a second away from being on the defensive and think this one through.
aug 22, 2025, 1:36 am • 1 0 • view
The date of the article is irrelevant considering the point being made.
aug 21, 2025, 11:16 pm • 2 0 • view
No. The date of the article is most definitely relevant.
aug 21, 2025, 11:18 pm • 4 0 • view
I'm willing to bet this stat has not changed.
aug 22, 2025, 3:53 pm • 0 0 • view
It hasn’t. Their point is that we should have clearly indicated that the editorial we’re quoting from is from Jan. 2025 (even if the quote we used still applies today).
aug 22, 2025, 3:58 pm • 1 0 • view