In an era when our newsfeeds are crowded with slick videos, bold headlines, and desperate attempts to grab a few seconds of attention, it is tempting to scroll past yet another political ad without giving it a second thought. But a recent CTV News story reminds us why we cannot afford to be so casual. The report follows a simple, unsettling moment: a public figure picks up their phone and sees a polished, professionally produced advertisement telling thousands of voters that they have endorsed a candidate. The music swells, their face fills the screen, and the words are exactly the kind of warm approval every campaign dreams of hearing. There is only one problem: it never happened. No interview was granted, no call was made, no conversation was held, and no agreement was signed. When the person at the centre of the ad was asked about it, they did not use diplomatic language. “That is flat-out misinformation,” they said. The phrase lands like a slap, and it should. An endorsement is supposed to be a gift of trust from one human being to another, a signal that says, “I know this person, I believe in this person, and you should too.” To fake that is not just a marketing trick; it is a small act of violence against the very idea of public trust. The CTV News story is not just about one ad. It is about the quiet, creeping way that false information can wrap itself in the familiar shapes of our neighbours, our leaders, our local heroes, and use their credibility to sell something they never agreed to sell.
The ad in question, as described in the CTV News coverage, had all the hallmarks of a legitimate campaign spot. It was short, visually appealing, professionally edited, and it featured a real person whose face carries real weight in the community. That person may be a former coach, a local business owner, a retired teacher, or someone who has spent years fighting for a cause. The ad made it seem as though they had stood in front of a camera, looked into the lens, and offered their unqualified support for a candidate. The words attributed to them were flattering to the candidate and reasonable in tone. They fit together so neatly that a viewer could be forgiven for believing them at first glance. But belief is exactly what the ad was trying to manipulate. The person watching at home, tired after a long day, sees a familiar face and thinks, “Oh, they’re on board.” That moment of recognition is powerful. It bypasses critical thinking and speaks directly to our sense of community. We trust people we have seen before, people whose names we know from the local news, people who have genuine skin in the game. And when that trust is borrowed without permission, it becomes a kind of counterfeiting. The CTV News report makes clear that the criticism goes far beyond wounded feelings. In a democracy, endorsements are one of the few remaining shortcuts we use to make sense of a complicated political landscape. If we cannot trust that a person actually endorsed a candidate, then the whole ecosystem of public communication begins to crumble.
What makes this story so human is the way it feels to be the person whose identity was stolen for a political commercial. Imagine waking up to a flood of calls and messages from friends, former colleagues, and neighbours who seem genuinely confused. Some are congratulating you for making a decision you never made. Others are angry, feeling betrayed by what they think you have become. A few are simply asking, with concern in their voices, whether you are okay, because the candidate you supposedly endorsed is someone you had always opposed. The person at the centre of the ad has to answer for words they never spoke and beliefs they never held. They have to issue a public denial, which, awkwardly, only makes the story bigger. They have to repeat, over and over, that it was not them. It is exhausting, humiliating, and fundamentally unjust. The report quotes them as saying that the ad represented everything wrong with modern politics, that it used their reputation as a shield to protect a message they found dangerous, and that it treated them as a prop rather than a person. “My name. My face. My voice. They took all of it without asking,” they said. The sting in that statement is that they cannot simply wave a magic wand and repair the damage. A denial in one news story can never fully erase the image that thousands of people have already seen and absorbed. Some will never see the correction. Some will not care. Some will shrug and say that all politics is dirty anyway. But for the individual involved, it is a violation that leaves scars.
The response from those behind the ad only deepens the concern. Rather than apologizing, they defended their work, arguing that they were engaging in creative expression, or that viewers understood the ad was not meant to be taken literally. They suggested that the person was overreacting, that the ad was an obvious joke, or that the subject should be flattered by the attention. This kind of gaslighting is all too familiar to anyone who has been misrepresented in public. Instead of admitting wrongdoing, the ad makers shifted the burden onto the audience, essentially saying, “If you believed it, that’s your problem.” But as the CTV News story points out, that argument does not hold up under scrutiny. An endorsement is not like a cartoon or a satirical skit. It is a real person giving real support to a real candidate, and when that is fabricated, the deception is not funny. It is harmful. It can affect how people vote. It can tip a local election by a few hundred votes. It can persuade a parent that a candidate is safe when the candidate has a record of hurting people like them. It can undermine the carefully earned trust of a long community career in a matter of hours. The people who made the ad may see themselves as clever, but what they did is the digital equivalent of forging a signature on a legal document.
The broader context is perhaps even more worrying. Political advertisements have always been exercises in persuasion, but there used to be a basic understanding that the facts inside them were at least loosely connected to reality. That foundation is now shaking. We have entered an era where artificial intelligence can create realistic images, clone faces, and even copy a person’s voice with frightening accuracy. A candidate can stand in front of an audience and deny that they ever said a certain thing, and the public has no easy way to know the truth. The CTV News report uses the phrase “flat-out misinformation” not as an exaggeration, but as an accurate description of what exactly happened. The ad was not a matter of spin or a difference of opinion. It was a lie, told on a massive scale, using a real person’s identity as the vehicle. This matters because each lie erodes the shared reality that makes civic life possible. When endorsements are fake, then genuine endorsements become suspect. When every image and quote can be manipulated, then every public figure becomes a potential victim. Over time, voters grow cynical. They stop listening. They begin to believe that everyone is dishonest, so why should they bother learning the facts? The people who suffer most are not politicians and celebrities; they are ordinary citizens who want to make informed choices and need reliable information to do so.
What can be done? The CTV News story does not pretend there is an easy solution, but it points toward a few important truths. First, we need to be slower on the scroll. Before a questionable ad changes our mind, we should ask, “Did this person actually say that?” We can search for their official accounts, check for statements, and look for news reports. Second, platforms and social media companies need to do a better job of labeling paid political content, verifying the identities of people featured in ads, and responding quickly when someone says their image has been used without permission. Third, candidates who benefit from dishonest ads need to held accountable. They cannot simply claim that their supporters acted independently; the money is spent on their behalf, and they have a responsibility to reject misinformation that helps them. Finally, we should all remember that an endorsement is a human act. It is built on relationships, shared values, and mutual respect. To fake that connection is to degrade the meaning of trust itself. The CTV News report ends on a hopeful but sober note: the person at the center of the ad did not stay silent. They fought back, spoke their truth, and insisted that their reputation was not for sale. That refusal to accept the lie is a small but important act of courage. It reminds us that misinformation only wins when honest people stay quiet. The story of the criticism is not just about one bad ad; it is about the ongoing struggle to preserve a world where we can look at another person and believe what they say. That world is worth protecting, and it starts with every one of us paying attention, asking questions, and refusing to let the loudest, most dishonest voices define our politics.