LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
- Overall, we rate The Field & Shutter Press as Left-Center Biased due to its environmental issue focus, frequent scrutiny of development and conservative-led policies, and occasional loaded headlines. We also rate it as High Factual due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER (-3.4)
Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.5)
Country: Canada
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: EXCELLENT
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
The Field & Shutter Press is a monthly Substack-based publication focused on environmental journalism and local wildlife coverage in Halton Hills and across Ontario. On its About page, it describes its mission as fact-based, ethical reporting on conservation, land use, development, and environmental policy, while also publishing wildlife and nature-education content.
Read our profile on the Canadian media and government.
Funded by / Ownership
The Field & Shutter Press is an independent publication founded by Greg Noakes and edited by Hayley Reid-Ginis, as disclosed on the outlet’s About page. The site states it is currently not externally funded and remains free to read, with potential future reader subscriptions as a possible path, consistent with Substack’s subscription model.
Analysis / Bias
The Field & Shutter Press presents itself as fact-based environmental reporting, but its framing and topic selection tend to align with modern environmental and conservation advocacy priorities, which typically map to a mild left-of-center worldview in Canadian politics. Headline tone varies: some pieces read as straight reporting and public-interest explanation, while others use more charged language. For example, in Why Trees Could Be Halton Hills’ Best Defence Against a Changing Climate, sourcing relies on identified local experts and descriptive explanations of the urban heat island effect, which is consistent with high-factual, community-service journalism.
However, the republished investigative-style piece ‘Death knell for watersheds’: Ford set to shrink conservation authorities, plunge Ontario into chaos uses strongly negative framing toward Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government and emphasizes worst-case outcomes.
The outlet also republishes reporting from other publications and LJI reporters, such as Young people will speak up in court after leaders stayed silent about Ontario development bill, which explicitly notes it was originally published elsewhere and maintains attribution. Overall, the publication demonstrates transparent intent, identifiable authorship, and frequent sourcing, but story selection and occasional headline framing lean left-center.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate The Field & Shutter Press as Left-Center Biased due to its environmental issue focus, frequent scrutiny of development and conservative-led policies, and occasional loaded headlines. We also rate it as High Factual due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record. (D. Van Zandt 12/20/2025)
Source: https://www.fieldandshutterpress.ca/
Last Updated on December 20, 2025 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources