Media Watch: Taber's Tripe

At this early stage in the campaign, the character sketches for the three main party leaders have been laid out and are being dutifully followed by most of the journalists writing and reporting for mainstream media outlets. How do these characterizations take root? What solidifies the stereotypes for each one? It's hard to say exactly but it surely makes the jobs easier for the generally unoriginal fool journalists who are frightened to stray from the accepted script of their sheep-like peers.

It must be incredibly frustrating for a leader to see their image crafted, manipulated and then ossified in the public's mind because of a few well-used phrases that resonate for whatever reason and then remain as the standard against which they are measured for the duration of the campaign.

Any specific reporter who repeats an accepted cliche that has somehow become appropriate for any candidate has less chance of having their judgement questioned than if they offered up something more nuanced based exclusively on their own observations. Stereotypes of individuals have a way of perpetuating themselves. Imagine a group of insipid fools working at a meaningless office job and whose only way of relieving the monotony of their dreary lives is to engage in the usual gossip in which one or more individuals are demonized and stereotyped.

The sheer volume of chatter from even the most brainless of clods has the effect of introducing an idea into people's minds regarding a certain person, no matter how far off base they may be. Subsequent behaviour of the target may serve to reinforce that characterization even though it is nothing exaggerated as compared to anyone else, is not a dominant aspect of their character and would be completely unnoticed if it hadn't been pointed to ad nauseum by the previously mentioned fools.

On the other hand, some observations may be accurate. Also, the fact is that all campaigns are likely engaged in their own brand of trying to manipulate the collective public conscience with a depiction of their leader as an unusually upstanding individual.

Still, some reporters are seemingly so desperate to lead with the characterizations of various leaders they hope will then take root, that they come up with some incredibly inane comments. I refer specifically to this column by the Globe and Mail's Jane Taber. As she seems to lack the ability to formulate some trite remarks based solely on Paul Martin's words or actions as a politician she comes up with this:

"Paul Martin does not look good. He is puffy, baggy-faced and appears tired. His own candidates have remarked on this. At a rally just north of Toronto on Tuesday night, Mr. Martin, 65, was "drenched" in sweat after making his speech."

He is "puffy"? As she follows with "baggy-faced", presumably the "puffy" doesn't refer to his face. What then? Even after establishing these incredibly puerile parameters for a commentary, by the third sentence she has lost her own pathetic plot. He was "drenched" in sweat...who would think that speaking under the hot lights that are evident at most such set-ups and exerting the energy necessary for an emotional campaign speech that someone would be sweating? Even though the patently unflattering "sweating" is usually left unsaid, it would normally be insinuated as proof of vigor.

Taber felt it necessary to add to the stunning insight that Martin was sweating with this:

"'He had to take out a handkerchief to wipe the sweat away,' noted a Liberal who attended the rally."

Imagine that? And then this:

"Other Ottawa observers have said that the Liberal Leader appeared tired and grumpy before the campaign began.

‘They've [his strategists] run [him] into the ground. He's like a rock star, doing shows in every city. I think they have really tired him out . . . .’ the Liberal said."

The good old, anonymous quote...an accepted and necessary part of journalism, impossible to question the veracity of and normally part of spin in which someone would obviously want to remain faceless...still, quotes from composite individuals have long been the dirty secret of print journalism. If the opening comments had even been slightly less inane this wouldn't even be something to consider but the ham-fisted and awkward way she attempts to get at something negative makes a person wonder.

She adds some "balance" with a response from a Martin campaign spokesperson and then carries on with a sycophantic tribute to what she sees as the shrewdness of Harper's campaign team in greasing up hacks like her with Aeroplan points. Thank you Ms. Taber, for letting us know that objectivity is not part of your journalistic approach to this campaign.

On Monday Stephen Harper announced the Conservative plan to inject more funds into the Canadian military if elected. I believe most Canadians, except for committed pacifists, would be hard pressed to deny that our military has fallen below any acceptable standard. However, this will also be an opportunity to highlight the Conservative's rhetoric in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq. Jack Layton has already done this in what is becoming his standard, blunt, headline-grabbing way in this campaign.

While Layton has in some ways directed the coverage in the first week of the campaign, I believe that the next round of poll numbers will see some of the increases the NDP had made, leaching back to the Liberals. The NDP has for the last number of years had to fight the label of "fringe party" or "radical" and his bombastic approach in the early going will give pause to some who were considering parking their vote with the NDP as a protest.
- posted by Piston @ 9:21 am

 
Unctuous, Histrionic Fool

Jack Layton's decision to brand Paul Martin directly responsible for the deaths of homeless people seemed to spontaneously pop into the fool's head and the subsequent reaction thrilled him so immensely that he has decided to keep repeating it like a mantra. Layton's credibility is hemorrhaging as I write this and for him this is likely to become the defining moment of the campaign. There have even been cracks within his own caucus as other NDP MPs point out the absurdity of the comments he has chosen. While Layton is luxuriating in the glow of heightened media coverage, he seems oblivious that it is of the ultimately damaging sort.

Numbers have apparently now been released by the NDP pointing to a rise in the deaths of homeless people in Toronto. I found the numbers in an article here, but on the NDP website there is no mention of the statistic.

In the article, the numbers provided state that 41 homeless people died in 2001 as opposed to 301 in 2003. There is no mention of how or why cuts made by Martin have any bearing on this number. These numbers only point to the fact that more homeless people died not that their homelessness contributed in any way to their dying.

This matter was introduced into the campaign in the most disingenuous and unfair way possible. The issues surrounding this problem are huge. Most Canadians have no idea that the word "homeless" does not, strangely enough, simply mean someone without shelter. In fact the term has numerous meanings depending on who is using it and what their agenda is. The definition of homelessness often includes having shelter that is not deemed up to standard in many ways, such as not being sanitary enough, not having complete protection against weather or inadequate security. Of course some of these conditions could be brought on by the tenant themselves. Hypothetically, someone who has an apartment in a building where the locks on the doors are fairly weak and/or has thrown a bottle through the window and has not been able to repair it and has come home one day and committed suicide would be deemed "a homeless person dying."

Depending on the organization or person speaking, the definition can vary widely and often includes those with a place to live that is over-crowded or simply is not within close proximity to healthcare facilities or work opportunities (it is true that some esteemed organizations such as the UN do have broad definitions). Under some definitions a person in transition for a set period of time, say 60 days, with no fixed address, but still safely and comfortably housed with friends or family is considered homeless.

Many of the concerns that could be part of the definition of homeless are definitely worthy of being addressed in their own right by different levels of government. However, grossly simplifying the matter, failing to qualify statistics and the smear attempted by Layton, cheapens the entire issue.

The onus is still on Layton to demonstrate how the link can be drawn directly to Martin. Also, if this is an issue of utmost urgency that is resulting in widespread death and one that moves Layton to break down so unconvincingly, why in hell has he not raised the alarm earlier?

The recognition may be hitting the NDP that this is in fact is not something they want to pursue, at least framed in the manner that Layton has chosen. Their website has nothing posted on the homepage about this issue that was sparked by their leader and that has garnered more publicity than anything else in this campaign. You have to go to the news/media section and click on the "reality check" heading that appears in a sidebar to locate anything on the matter. There you will find a slew of totally unconvincing bosh fraught with logical fallacies. Here's an example:

"THEY SAY: Brian Mulroney cut support for social housing.
WE SAY: That's true.

THEY SAY: Jack Layton's father voted for this.
WE SAY : Just so we understand this: Holding Paul Martin accountable for the impact of his policies is a tasteless personal attack. Linking Jack Layton's late father to homelessness is fair ball?

If Paul Martin wants a debate about issues, how about a Liberal fact sheet that answers this question: why are Paul Martin's $100 billion tax cuts good government, while Stephen Harper's $130 billion tax cuts are "reckless"?"

Bizarre to say the least that they validate the claims made by the Liberals regarding Mulroney and Layton's father, employ the tu quoque fallacy and then end up by shilling for Harper...

Layton is quickly establishing himself as someone not to be taken seriously. If one rash statement attracts attention, any kind of attention, why not keep spewing similarly bombastic rhetoric? Layton has now made it clear that if Quebec wants to choose sovereignty as an option, that he, as hypothetical PM, would make it as easy as possible for them and...hey...an even better way to demonstrate that he has no grasp of the role the Canadian PM traditionally plays regarding the unity issue, an NDP candidate running in Quebec is a sovereigntist.
- posted by Piston @ 10:11 pm

 
Playing Defence

A handful of campaign-related stories made the rounds on Thursday and almost all focused on the Liberals. Almost without exception Paul Martin and the Liberals played these issues to their advantage despite the fact that most were intended to, or otherwise could have impacted them negatively.

First, the terror warning in the US and the fact that two suspects have possible ties to Canada meant that a response was expected from the Canadian Prime Minister. Martin offered a basic unequivocal statement that Canada has no need to worry. Really impossible to respond in any other fashion and the rehearsed comments by Martin can't be faulted unless of course an attack were to occur in Canada before the election.

This is obviously one of the advantages that the incumbent PM has when campaigning. The day-to-day necessities of governing allow Martin to show how well (or not) he reacts when he is called upon. I call this one a plus for Martin and the Liberals.

Secondly are the comments from Jack Layton blaming Paul Martin for the deaths of homeless people in Toronto. Initially this may be seen as having a negative impact on Martin and the Liberals as any time a stark statement played in the headlines that attaches a party or leader to such accusations can't help but have some unfavourable results.

In this case I believe the default reaction of most Canadians is to scoff at such a direct link between Martin's actions as Finance Minister and homeless people dying. When government decisions start to favour corporate interests in an exaggerated way, many people rightfully feel that lives will ultimately be lost. However in this case, as Layton directly blamed Martin there is some obligation to provide evidence. What were the rates of homeless dying in the years before certain cuts were made? Was the trend experienced across Canada? Failure to provide this evidence detracts from Layton's credibility and make the claim sound shrill while Martin suffers little or no ill effect or even benefits somewhat from the wounded response. This accusation may linger and hopefully a journalist will take the initiative to discredit or add credence to the claim.

Next up...only a few hours after I discussed the inevitability of Conservatives being unable to subordinate their true feelings for the duration of the campaign, the Conservative's language critic Scott Reid obliged and stated that if elected his party would like to dismantle official bilingualism.

This has become such a common occurrence for the Conservatives that they have a standard response plan that quickly goes into effect: deny that the candidate is speaking on behalf of the party, publicly rebuke statements made by candidate, fire or pressure candidate to resign his position within the party.

I feel that this once again highlights the contrasting choice available to voters. While many are fed up with the Liberals for whatever reason, simply voting for the next most popular party is not a logical choice in this case unless you truly want to see Canada change direction drastically on a wide variety of issues.

While the theme of my commentary yesterday was the influence of Christian fundamentalism on the Conservative candidates and how this seemingly renders them unable to stop from spewing forth their true feelings on any number of issues, in this instance it simply beggars belief that someone who holds the opposition critic's post is not representing the overall feelings of the party.

The sponsorship scandal received more press as Alfonso Gagliano filed a lawsuit against PM Martin. Stephen Harper criticized the Liberals for failing to keep the military properly funded.

This is the first day of the campaign in which one party, in this instance the Liberals, enjoyed a much better day than their rivals and as a direct result of blunders from those rival parties. A day of reactions from Martin and the Liberals most of which I would say were played as well as could be expected. Further blunders of this type from the Conservatives will highlight what appears to be a denial of their true intentions in an attempt to gain power. Regarding discipline and staying on message they have so far been outclassed by the Liberals.
- posted by Piston @ 2:23 am

 
Bereft of Blunders: Begets Boredom

The standard coverage for the mainstream media outlets on Wednesday was the release of the NDP platform with accompanying shots of Jack Layton waving around the orange book that details various policies. No surprise, the main thrust of their promises revolve around higher taxes for the rich, tax cuts for the poor and increased spending on social programs.

With the better part of the first week gone there have been no unforced errors by any of the party leaders. As a result things have been rather boring...

The last federal election was one of the most entertaining in recent memory because of the number of amateurish, laughable blunders that were offered up by the then Alliance party. In the period since that time and now, there have been occasional examples of MPs from all main parties saying and doing things that shine a negative light on themselves and their colleagues.

When one of these comments is made, it's not shocking that someone has these beliefs, it's only surprising that holding a position that they do, they can be so mind-numbingly daft as to utter the words in the first place. Rail against a PC culture all you want, failure to recognize that as a reality of doing politics should attract the most incredulity.

So how does someone lose it so completely, albeit temporarily, so as to say something that, in some cases, spells the end of their political careers?

In the case of the Conservatives, I can only come to the conclusion that their fundamentalist Christian beliefs must play a role in these blunders.

A 2 thousand year-old fairy tale is the guiding principle in your life, rigid beliefs make up your world-view and those who don't share your beliefs are going to hell. In fact the only way you can measure your superiority is to have any number of evil people in society for you to rail against. Naturally you surround yourself with other like-minded people, you become insular, your beliefs are never questioned, only validated by fawning sycophants who are convinced you will be the one to help change laws so that others can see the light. You spend your time at events with these people and your righteous words are celebrated. Your sense of what most people think on any number of issues becomes skewed as you never hear any viewpoints that differ form your core supporters as...well...it's hard for you to comprehend that anyone could think differently from that as there is no doubt in your mind that your beliefs are the absolute, undeniable final word on...everything.

So when you are then back in the world of non-fundamentalists, you slip and make a comment that is commonly made and heard at any number of party events. The resulting brouhaha is a bit surprising but not altogether unwelcome as a bit of the "lone avenger united against a world of heathens" kind of makes you feel an affinity with one of your...uh...heroes.

Look at what Stockwell Day has said in the past and remember he is the person who was deemed worthy by colleagues and party members to lead the Alliance into the past election and is now the Foreign Affairs critic as chosen by Stephen Harper:

"As a Christian, I acknowledge the lordship of Jesus Christ over the whole universe,"

"I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God and every word in it, cover to cover, is true."

Alright, I've gone off on a bit of a rant and have made some generalizations--not all Conservatives are fundamentalists--but I do believe that these beliefs instruct a significant number of Conservative candidates. This hasn't been discussed so far in the campaign with the exception of the poll conducted by Liberals in which they asked Canadians whether they are concerned about the influence that fundamentalist Christians could have on government.

I believe it is one the most important issues that should be discussed in this campaign. It won't be, however, until such time as a Conservative candidate makes a comment that allows the media to transition the debate into this terrain without being branded Christian-bashers.

I'm confident the Conservatives won't disappoint.

More on this in the coming days including the extreme Christian right in the US, how they have increased their influence over government courtesy of the Bush administration and why a Canadian government whose sense of deference to a rigid, ideological US administration that shares their core beliefs is not good for this country.
- posted by Piston @ 7:21 am

 
Healthcare and Hockey

One issue dominated on Tuesday with all major news outlets focusing almost solely on the Liberal announcement regarding healthcare funding. Most commentary also covered the related aspect regarding how the Liberals would pay for their 9 billion dollar promise and if Paul Martin was willing to make a pledge of "no new taxes".

Martin offered a less than direct answer and viewed through the usual politics-speak prism that gives an out for either eventuality, he did not seem to rule out a possible tax hike if the Liberals were re-elected. I view it as a realistic response owing to the vagaries of the economy and a commitment to keep Canada's social programs alive. Most media seemed to call it the same way, however at least one, the Ottawa Citizen, interprets Martin's comments as a promise to NOT raise taxes.

Harper again seems to be showing a knack for having sound-bite-friendly quips ready in response to announcements from the Liberals. Here is what he said regarding proposed Liberal healthcare spending:

"I say, Paul Martin has no more credibility on health-care funding than he does over control of federal spending."

At least one blunder from both the Liberals and the Conservatives. Stephen Harper speaking in Fredericton stated that Atlantic Canada is "doomed" if a Liberal government continues to, among other things, support social programs that provide relief to seasonal workers in the Maritimes. Harper seems to be indicating that under the Conservatives social programs and equalization payments would change somehow. As his views on the subject have already been played up and his earlier comments about "the defeatist attitude" have not been forgotten, the emotional language used won't gain him any more votes in the Atlantic provinces.

From the Liberals, Ralph Goodale floated the usual attempt at convincing people to vote for the party likely to win the election, the rationale that an MP from the governing party is more able to provide real goodies for their constituents. Nothing new in this line of reasoning except that Liberals don't have much leeway at the moment for making comments filed under the "arrogant, smug" heading.

Look for the leaders of the 3 main parties to make their support known for the Calgary Flames in the coming days. A Flames Cup victory would probably see all 3 leaders converge on Calgary in hopes of co-opting some of the excitement and celebration.
- posted by Piston @ 2:45 am

 
"An Old Whore is the Worst..."

Things finally kicked off yesterday.

One thing that stood out for me in the coverage gleaned from the major national newspapers and CBC radio was the mention that Stephen Harper is consulting Brian Mulroney on a daily basis for advice on how to fight this campaign.

The same Mulroney that awarded the CF18 contract to Montreal over Winnipeg and galvanized Western alienation unlike anything since the national energy program of the early '80s?

The same Mulroney whose government acted as a catalyst for the formation of the Reform Party of which Harper was a founding member?

Old whores indeed...and young naive fools so desperate to gain experience that they are not really concerned where they stick it.

Not much to go on as of yet. However, Harper is deflecting criticism well and his snappy responses to questions posed to him do seem to be resonating with the media.

The media story-lines seem to be following the "voters have nothing to choose from" angle with an emphasis on Liberal corruption on one hand and Conservative inexperience and drastic policy changes on the other. The "Conservatives as dangerous radicals" that played so well for the Liberals in the past few campaigns has not been picked up by the media at this point. However, one anti-(insert minority, downtrodden group or alternative lifestyle of choice) comment by a Conservative candidate excited by the mere whiff of power and these stories will be brought back to the fore.

Jack Layton of the NDP seems determined to play on the image of the free-wheeling, urbane, aging hipster with nothing to lose. He reminds me of a smooth-talking knave who agitates two lumbering oafs to start brawling with each other while he walks off with the girl. Unfortunately his will only be a one-night stand as the enjoyment of a high-spirited campaign and a few additional seats are all he and his party are likely to gain.

The Conservatives will be releasing their platform within the next few days.
- posted by Piston @ 9:25 am