A writer for The New York Times has invented yet another "fact" about Canada this week, adding to the publication's pile of flubs that's beginning to look a lot like trolling in order to get more page views north of the border.
You may remember in 2018 when the Times' Catherine Porter erroneously told the world that "Canadians are calling it [cannabis legalization day] ."
Or, in 2021, when the CBC took the New York Times' Cooking section to task for publishing "Canadians, this one's for you," while unloading a horrifically "non-traditional" ?
Those are just a couple of examples of the way that the U.S. news organization has got Canada terribly wrong, and David Wallace-Wells' latest piece for The New York Times Magazine about B.C. wildfires provides yet another example to point to.
To emphasize how bad our recent wildfire seasons have been, Wallace-Wells states that "up there [in Canada], some call it 'British California'," which is a thing that literally nobody here calls this province.
Not a single person.
I've spent more than 40 years living here, 15 of which I've been employed as the publisher of this community news media outlet. I've interviewed thousands of British Columbians for this publication and our yet I have never - not a single time - heard one of them refer to B.C. as "British California."
I've never seen it referred to as that online, in print, on TV, or in any private conversation either.
If you Google the term "British California" you'll find it was used exactly once, over 50 years ago, in an article in...The New York Times.
Saying that people here in 2023 call it that is such a bizarre lie that, compounded with all of the other "mistakes" they've made over the years, has me convinced that they're trolling us on purpose.
The first couple of times could be seen as embellishments on the part of writers and editors or, worse yet, fact-checking errors. But we've gone past that.
I believe that the New York Times has concocted a cynical plot in order to get more Canadians to share their stories and get "hate reads" on them. They don't truly value us as potentially loyal readers but will gladly accept our fleeting page views as we share our collective outrage (and links to their stories) when they fundamentally misrepresent us every few months.
Certainly one of the world's most esteemed publications couldn't be this challenged when it comes to their neighbours to the north. It has to be intentional.
