These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate the Dorchester Review as right-biased based on editorial positions that align with a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency, one-sided reporting, and poor sourcing techniques.
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
MBFC Country Freedom Rating: EXCELLENT
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
The Dorchester Review, a semi-annual History Magazine, was founded in Canada in 2011 by the Foundation for Civic Literacy. The Magazine honors Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester, who served as Governor of the Province of Quebec and Governor General of British North America in the late 18th century. The Dorchester Review is based in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Funded by / Ownership
The Foundation for Civic Literacy publishes the Dorchester Review. Editor C. P. (Chris) Champion is the founder, but this is not disclosed on the website. The Hon, Lord Tweedsmuir of Elsfield is the Patron. The Hon. John Alasdair Gawain Buchan, next in line to the title, is listed as an actor in London, but confirmation is lacking. The Chairman is Benjamin A. Mackenzie. Stuart Iversen and Kenneth Bradley are listed as directors, but comprehensive biographical information on any of them is unavailable. The Magazine’s funding comes from subscriptions and donations.
Analysis / Bias
The current editor of The Dorchester Review is C. P. (Chris) Champion; he has previously worked for Premier Jason Kenney and was also associated with the Right-wing Canadian Alliance party. Champion has been involved in controversies, such as criticizing the inclusion of First Nations perspectives in Alberta classrooms.
Of the dozens reviewed, we focus on two articles. The first article is “Update on the Ryerson Fiasco.” This piece concerns the recent controversy surrounding the renaming of Ryerson University in Toronto. The article presents a one-sided view of the Ryerson controversy. It strongly defends Egerton Ryerson without adequately addressing the concerns of Indigenous communities and the broader context of reconciliation in Canada. The lack of direct citations further weakens the article’s arguments.
For background, Egerton Ryerson is a notable figure who played a role in creating the Canadian Indian residential school system. From 1883 to 1996, this system aimed to separate Indigenous children from their culture and religion to assimilate them into Canadian society. The discovery of unidentified graves at former residential school locations has sparked new conversations about Ryerson’s legacy and his involvement in establishing this system. In response, Ryerson University has changed its name to Toronto Metropolitan University.
In summary, while the article raises points in defense of Egerton Ryerson, it does so with a notably emotional tone, using emotionally loaded phrases such as “imbecile attack” and “unserious Ryerson discussion” without providing comprehensive evidence or addressing the broader issues at play.
The second article, “Keep the ‘British’ in British Columbia,” presents a perspective that defends the retention of the term “British” in “British Columbia.” The tone of the article is assertive and, at times, aggressive. The article also makes claims about the motivations and actions of Indigenous activists without providing direct evidence or quotes. For instance, the claim that “Haida Gwaii” was “invented by indigenous activists in the 1980s” is presented without a source. Finally, the piece leans towards a conservative perspective, emphasizing the importance of British heritage in British Columbia and critiquing movements to rename or recontextualize historical names and symbols. The Toronto Sun and The Walrus are cited as references.
In general, The Dorchester Review presents a conservative perspective on historical and cultural issues, often without providing comprehensive evidence or adequately addressing opposing viewpoints.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate the Dorchester Review as right-biased based on editorial positions that align with a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency, one-sided reporting, and poor sourcing techniques. (M. Huitsing 09/21/2023)
Last Updated on September 21, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.