The media discussion involving First Nations peoples, written by York University professors Frances Henry and Carol Tator, raises a very serious topic regarding discrimination against Native people in the Canadian press. The main point of their article is the fact that most “white newspapers” are biased against Native Canadians. Obviously it is not as discriminating as in the past, but the Canadian media in all its manifestations continues to use certain stereotypes on a daily basis. The media, according to Tator and Henry, as a very powerful manipulative tool, provides misconceptions about Natives to the rest of the Canadian population. And they seem to have a lot of pretty strong evidence for this argument. More specifically, the examples were taken from two major newspapers: The Globe and Mail and The National Post. The first focuses on the case of sexual assault on a young woman by Jack Ramsay, another contains a series of articles and editorials on fishing rights in Canada. “While admitting that Ramsay behaved inappropriately, the writer of these articles went to great lengths to marginalize the Native victim as unreliable, unreliable, forgetful, and alcoholic” (Tator, Henry 210). This was the authors' reaction to one of the passages in a newspaper. And indeed, if a reader looks closely, The Globe and Mail's quote appears as if the purpose of the published materials was to disappoint the natives. The other correct use of information emerged in the second case study, analyzed by the National Post in 2000. “It was strongly implied – but not, of course, clearly stated – that the native peoples and their negotiations were only there for “more concessions , and that they weren't... middle of paper... any kind of criticism that wasn't based solely on stereotypes. So, once again the premise presented does not lead readers directly to the conclusion. There is a high probability that the premises and subsequent sub-premises should have been chosen more carefully for such a serious topic. Another interesting fact about this article is that there are no references whatsoever. The authors don't use footnotes or anything like that at all. This creates a lot of confusion when reading. Furthermore, the authors use some definitions throughout the text, but do not even include them in the references. Technically they are only referring to the use of some articles and editorials from five newspapers, but again, for some reason, they seem to have gotten the title of the article wrong. Most of them exist in the archives under completely different titles than Tator and Henry led us to believe.