Features
Interview with Cecil Rosner, author of “Manipulating the Message: How Powerful Forces Shape the News”
By MARTIN ZEILIG “In a career that has spanned more than forty-five years, I have worked as a reporter, a researcher, an editor, a television producer, a senior producer, an executive producer, a bureau chief, a managing editor, and a news director,” writes award-winning investigative journalist Cecil Rosner in the Preface of his important and most readable new book, “Manipulating the Message: How Powerful Forces Shape the News.”
“Throughout this time, I have spoken to thousands of people and helped to create thousands of stories. The aim has always been to search out facts and report the truth.”
Mr. Rosner, who lives in Winnipeg, agreed to an email interview with The Jewish Post & News to discuss the book.
JP&N: Why did you feel it necessary to write this book?
CR: I wanted to share my experience with people about how the profession is practiced and how it has evolved. The main point I try to make is that there are powerful, well-funded forces, who are constantly pressuring the media to cover certain stories and cover them in ways that benefit them. Whether it is politicians, corporations, the police, the military, intelligence agencies or others, there is continuous pressure placed on the media to repeat particular narratives. This has always been the case, but it has been getting worse over the years, because the ranks of journalists are shrinking.
One pertinent statistic I note in my book is that Canada, in 1991, had about 13,000 reporters and about 23,000 PR and communication specialists. That’s a ratio of about two to 1. Thirty years later, in 2021, there are 11,000 journalists and nearly 160,000 people working in PR and communications. So for every journalist, there are 14 people trying to massage the message for that person. Because conventional newspapers and broadcast outlets are shrinking, due to the loss of advertising revenue to the likes of Facebook and Google, mainstream journalism is in crisis.
JP&N: Has the internet been a positive force overall in the field of journalism?
CR: Like most things, there are positives and negatives for every new technology or innovation. Overall, the Internet has made it easier for more voices to be heard and for more people to publish their views and opinions for a worldwide audience. For investigative journalists, the Internet presents an opportunity to research deeply into people and institutions. Of course the ease of communication has its downside when bad actors get involved. Similarly, social media has been both good and bad.
It’s now very easy to disseminate fake news and disinformation to a huge audience, but at the same time the Internet affords the tools to debunk fake claims if you are knowledgeable enough to use them. In the era before the Internet, powerful companies and entities served as gatekeepers of news flow, and today this is no longer as strong a force. But it is still the case that people and companies with lots of money can exercise a dominant influence online and manipulate messages in a more powerful way than ever before. The advent of AI will also produce both positive and potentially negative consequences for the same reasons.
JP&N: In your long and distinguished career as a journalist, what are the most significant changes you have seen?
CR: I have mentioned the Internet. The rise of advanced research methods, such as data and computational journalism, is another significant factor. Huge amounts of data can now be analyzed to discern trends and stories in ways that journalists could never do before the advent of computers. The same is true of visual techniques, and geo-locational tools that allow journalists to find stories in places they never could before.
Consider, for instance, satellite imagery and tools like Google Earth. By examining the world from the sky, journalists can now observe topographical changes over time, and draw conclusions about climate change, deforestation and other things. These techniques can also be used to verify competing claims about what happened during conflicts.
On the negative side, I have seen journalists stretched thinner and thinner, having to feed more and more platforms, and therefore not having sufficient time to verify claims and seek the truth. Another disturbing trend, which I discuss in my book, is the rise of so-called Influencer Marketing. This involves paying people with social media followings to propagate a particular message, or sell a product, or boost a policy. It’s one of the ways rich and powerful forces can manipulate ordinary people.
JP&N: What sort of improvements would you like to see in journalism?
CR: In my book I point to many things, but just to mention a couple: I think journalists need to wean themselves off press releases, which manipulate them into covering things others want them to. A press release will always be a necessary tool, but far more attention needs to be paid to investigative journalism, which aims to determine the truth of what happened.
I also think people should pay attention to the new start-up companies that have entered the news digital space over the last few years. These are small but nimble operations that have been doing some good work and breaking important stories. As mainstream outlets shrink, they have the potential to grow and do good stories.
Journalists also need to do a more thorough job of eliminating racist, sexist and colonial attitudes that have infected the industry, and all of society really, and damaged the way they have treated particular communities. I am thinking about racist attitudes that were reflected in the media and directed towards minority communities, Black, Indigenous communities and different peoples of colour. Journalism organizations need to better reflect the communities they serve, both in who they employ and the content they produce.
JP&N: What else would you like to share with our readers?
CR: If journalists are being misled, then the general public is being misled as well. It doesn’t have to be this way.
“Manipulating the Message: How Powerful Forces Shape the News”
by Cecil Rosner
(Dundurn Press 263 pg. $26.99)
Features
Hair straightening at Sets on Corydon
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
