How Narrative Manipulation Affects Democracy
Consider the following scenario: A group of government officials gathers for a prestigious assembly. The speaker of the assembly strikes his gavel and announces the start of the meeting. It’s a celebratory event with global leaders in attendance, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The speaker announces the recognition of a soldier in the audience, stating: “This soldier fought for Ukrainian independence during World War II.” As the audience—including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Zelenskyy—erupts in thunderous applause, the soldier receives two standing ovations.
At first glance, this acknowledgment appears virtuous and deserving of the ovations. However, with a bit of critical thinking and a cursory review of historical facts, this narrative unravels. During World War II, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, not an independent nation. Ukrainian independence came only after the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991. Thus, the claim that this soldier fought for Ukrainian independence during World War II is not only historically inaccurate but misleading.
So, who was this soldier? The answer sparked international outrage and embarrassment for Canada. The individual, Yaroslav Hunka, was revealed to be a former Nazi soldier. The only force that fought against the Soviet Union during World War II was Nazi Germany, making Hunka’s inclusion and recognition deeply controversial. This event, later dubbed the Yaroslav Hunka scandal, unfolded in the Canadian House of Commons shortly after Zelenskyy addressed the assembly. Former Speaker Anthony Rota, who had introduced Hunka as both a “Ukrainian hero” and a “Canadian hero,” faced swift backlash.
The scandal’s fallout was significant. Prime Minister Trudeau distanced himself from the incident, shifting blame entirely to Rota, who ultimately resigned as Speaker. The Canadian government’s failure to properly vet Hunka’s background before his recognition was glaring. More alarming was the visual of Zelenskyy—a Jewish leader—on camera applauding a former Nazi soldier, a juxtaposition that underscored the depth of the blunder.
In the aftermath, the Trudeau administration and segments of Canadian media attempted to deflect criticism, attributing the incident to “Russian disinformation.” This narrative sought to obscure the incident’s root cause: an egregious lapse in judgment and accountability. For weeks, media outlets propagated the “Russian disinformation” claim, diverting attention from the undeniable incompetence displayed by Canadian lawmakers. Adding to the dismay, footage from the event showed unanimous participation in the standing ovations—no objections, no protests, no dissent. This collective conformity was as unsettling as the incident itself.
Beyond the immediate embarrassment, the scandal highlights a broader and more troubling issue: the role of mainstream media in shaping narratives. Consider the initial statement: “This soldier fought for Ukrainian independence during World War II.” Without context, it evokes admiration and reverence. The implied attributes of the soldier—courage, dedication, and a willingness to sacrifice for a noble cause—seem self-evident. However, when more information surfaces, revealing the soldier’s affiliation with the Waffen-SS Galicia Division (a Nazi-aligned unit), the narrative collapses. The stark contrast between these two perspectives underscores the importance of context in understanding the truth.
This manipulation of perception is emblematic of how narratives are crafted and disseminated. Legacy media outlets often prioritize framing over factual completeness, influencing public opinion in subtle but significant ways. Since most of the people in the press, for various reasons, tend to be left-leaning, they tend to slant the news to the left. By slanting the news to the left, they ignore the full context in order to appeal to their own biases. This creates a fissure in democracy, and this matters. We do not want a fissure in democracy; we want a cohesive democracy where there is a diversity of viewpoints. The problem with the mainstream media is that there are no different viewpoints—there is only the viewpoint of what they consider, by consensus, worth talking about. This creates a sort of tunnel vision, ignoring other problems and the full context, and giving readers a slanted view of reality.
The mainstream media is not doing its job. It’s not listening to the reporters; it is telling the reporters what to report. The reason the mainstream media has become evil, in my opinion, is because it is holding on to these narratives tighter and tighter, unable to entertain different points of view. It cannot conceive that there are justifiable reasons to be against what the newspaper stands for, to be against what the leaders of a country say, and to be against any political ideology, including their left-wing ideology. They believe that their political ideology and agenda are a morality and that anyone who disagrees with them, even with good reasons, is evil. This Manichean view of reality serves no other purpose but to divide democracy. The enemies of democracy, the different powers in the world, are looking at these divisions as an opportunity to conquer. The mainstream media is helping to divide the country by silencing those with opposing points of view—those with views that go against the mainstream narrative. That is why the mainstream media is evil. That is why we have to fight it.
What is happening now is that a lot of people are wising up to this slanted news—not necessarily fake news, but slanted news. To understand this phenomenon, it’s essential to examine the origins of the term “narrative” in the context of journalism.
We have to stop the mainstream media, and so what we have to do is start telling the mainstream media that it is not that they are fake news, but that they are slanted news. We have to expose them to different points of view so that they do not just look at the surface statements. The first statement gives you a slanted view of reality; the second gives you the context. We need the mainstream media to do that. The mainstream media is currently losing thousands of viewers a day, and their influence is dwindling with it. The governments of all the Western democracies are making every effort, by way of government subsidies, to keep the mainstream media alive because the mainstream media has become their megaphone. Either the mainstream media can reform and detach itself from the governments and corporations and start reporting the actual news, or we let it fall under its own weight. I think it would be good to try to salvage them; others think it’s better to let them fall. Regardless, the thing that has to be done is to halt the mainstream narrative, make sure they are reporting the whole complete news, and make sure they include the whole truth in the top paragraph.
The mainstream media plays an important role in a democracy. It can be a source of unity. In the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, it was a source of unity, and in the 60s and 70s, everyone listened and trusted the mainstream media, giving a common narrative that encompassed everyone, not just the elites. We have to get back to that.
In the 1950s and 1960s, as the New York Times solidified its position as one of America’s most influential newspapers, its editorial board began to consciously shape the stories it prioritized. Historically, journalism operated in a more bottom-up manner: reporters brought stories from the field to editors, who then decided their prominence based on public interest. However, at the New York Times and other consolidating media outlets, editors started dictating what they deemed important, effectively deciding what citizens would read and think about.
The Editor-in-Chief of the New York Times once remarked that the paper dictated what Americans would read tomorrow, underscoring the immense responsibility that came with such influence. While it’s noble to acknowledge this responsibility, it’s equally critical to recognize the duty to present the complete truth. Partial truths or selective framing can mislead audiences as effectively as outright falsehoods.
Returning to the Canadian example, the initial statement about Hunka framed him as a hero, prompting universal applause. Only later did the full context reveal the soldier’s true history, exposing the profound misjudgment of the Canadian officials involved. The media’s role in parroting Trudeau’s “Russian disinformation” defense further illustrated how narratives can be wielded to deflect blame and shape public perception.
This incident serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unquestioning conformity and the unchecked power of narrative crafting. The image of a room full of lawmakers, world leaders, and media representatives rising in unison to honor a man with a Nazi past epitomizes the perils of groupthink. Not one person in that chamber challenged the narrative in real-time, highlighting a culture of blind acceptance rather than critical inquiry.
The media’s complicity in perpetuating this false narrative is equally troubling. By focusing on “Russian disinformation” rather than the factual errors and poor judgment that led to the incident, they obscured accountability and contributed to public confusion. This pattern of deflection and obfuscation is not unique to this case. It reflects a broader trend in which media outlets prioritize preserving certain narratives over presenting unvarnished truths.
To address this systemic issue, media consumers must cultivate critical thinking skills and seek diverse sources of information. Accepting any narrative at face value—whether from politicians, media outlets, or other authority figures—risks perpetuating misinformation and eroding trust in institutions. It’s incumbent upon individuals to question, investigate, and demand accountability from those who shape public discourse.
The Yaroslav Hunka scandal is more than just an embarrassing episode for Canada; it’s a stark reminder of the importance of vigilance in the face of narrative manipulation. By scrutinizing the stories we’re told and seeking the broader context, we can resist the forces of conformity and misinformation. Only through this effort can we ensure that history—and its lessons—is preserved and respected.
AUTHOR
Antonio Ancaya
©2025 Long Run News. All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!