Papineau, Que MP Justin Trudeau is officially running for the leadership position of the Liberal Party of Canada. Although he did not formally announce it himself nor will he do so during the caucus retreat, Warren Kinsella broke the news on his website in August. On September 26, the Liberal Party tactfully leaked the announcement to Radio-Canada where Trudeau would make the bid official a week later in his riding. Remarkably, Trudeau's staff will only comprise of people under the age of 40. Trudeau, who is the Liberal Critic of Youth, Recreation, and Sport, has been rumoured to run for Liberal leader for a while now, ever since Bob Rae broke the news that he wasn't going for the top bid. In many ways, Trudeau is everything the Liberal Party could ask for in a leader: he's young, energetic, and is popular among Canadians. Like his father before him, Trudeau is charismatic and candid.
As many newspapers are wont to point out, Trudeau stands alone in this race and it is his and his alone to win. However, if the Liberals are going to make Trudeau shoulder all of the party's burdens, then they can forget about reclaiming the government on their own. For the sake of the Liberal Party, they simply cannot re-enter another phase of Trudeaumania, especially when it's all style and no substance. They tried to make saviours out of leaders twice already and both times ended up in abysmal failures. If the Liberal Party wants any chance at defeating the Tories come 2015, they need to form a coalition with the NDP (duh). Much to the left's chagrin, it's hard to believe this will happen anytime soon.
Now, for Trudeau as leader, his bid is an interesting one. First, it will be especially hard for the Tories or even the NDP to define Trudeau through their attack ads since Trudeau has done an adequate job of doing that himself. You can look no further to his bout with Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau as proof. Although for charity, the match probably meant more to Liberals than anything they accomplished in Parliament. For the first time in a long time, people were rooting for a Liberal and they were excited for a Liberal and a Liberal delivered even when expectations were low. It drove momentum oddly enough, and guaranteed Trudeau as a star within Canadian politics. Even though he has done fairly little as an MP in his 4-year career, he still had the political courage and mettle to win and hold his riding in Papineau, a riding that was held by the Bloc Quebecois and was easily susceptible to the Orange Crush in 2011. And of course, he probably said what we were all thinking to Conservative MP and Environment Minister Peter Kent during Question Period.
Second, Trudeau does have alternance by his side. Thought of as an antiquated and weak unwritten norm, alternance now is anything but with the Liberals completely wiped out of Quebec. In the Federal Level, the incumbent Liberal MPs were unseated by new and inexperienced NDP MPs. In the Provincial Level, the Liberal Party is embroiled in scandal and draconian measures as well as incompetent leadership. Therefore, when April rolls around and the Liberals head to the polls, they're probably going to feel more inclined to select a Francophone -- especially a popular Francophone like Trudeau -- to reestablish the party once again in Quebec.
But, what do we know about Trudeau, really? We know that he thinks calling honour killing 'barbaric' is wrong. And, we know that he thinks Environment Minister is a piece of shit. And, we know that he was once an actor and had facial hair once that was met with the displeasure of many Canadians, oddly enough. What his campaign can do is flesh and unpack his positions on issues that affect the country.
While I'll admit that the press has covered Trudeau abundantly, his entry is still something that Canadians need to reconsider. Will a fresh face mean a fresh, bold attitude for the Liberal Party? Will his youth propel the party to take more leftist ideologies? Where does Trudeau even stand on national security, the economy, and foreign policy? Canadians are already willing to give the Liberals a victory if it means Trudeau is at the helm even though we don't know how he feels about any of those things. Granted, there is still lots of time for us to find out.
Showing posts with label Media Sensationalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Sensationalism. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
A Debate Abate
I have things to say about the first Presidential Debate held on October 3, 2012.
It was boring, for one, filled with an inordinate amount of political wonkiness that the average American viewer could not comprehend because 1) neither candidates opted to define the fancy terms they were using and 2) the moderator, Jim Lehrer, couldn't get a word in between President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney to discuss with viewers what something like the Bowles-Simpson Commission was.
And two, the media has done a really ridiculous job on the debate's coverage. It has always been evident that American media treats the politics as if it's some sort of circus, a fact that's even more stark compared to the passive treatment by journalists of our government on this side of the border. But, this time it just was completely absurd. CNN was running "debate-eve" pre-game shows replete with political pundits and commentators churning out their partisan-based predictions. There was non-stop discussion about the importance and impact of debates on presidential races, a discussion that seems to replicate the illusion of placing two mirrors in front of each other to get endless reflections. It was -- without exaggeration -- a debate about a debate about a debate.
Remember, this is before the debate even started.
When it finally did, we were greeted with a lucklustre affair on both sides, not just one as much as the media likes to point out. Was Obama not as charismatic as he could've been? Yes. Was Obama faced with an abundant amount of opportunities to press Romney about his claims and mistruths? Yes. Totally. But, was Romney presenting the facts? Hardly.
I hate to say that Obama lost the debate so I won't. And, I hate to say that Romney won the debate so I won't either. What I will say is this: in the grander scheme of things, that is, a sprawling election campaign that is over a year old, the debates really don't matter anymore.
I'm not arguing that debates have never mattered since they undoubtedly have. There is the infamous case with Richard Nixon and his sweating upper lip during his debate with John F. Kennedy as an example. Not to mention, George H.W. Bush's response to a citizen about how the recession has been affecting him, personally. These were game-changers -- if I were to use that seemingly innocuous word now.
But now, with the over-saturated media climate we inhabit, debates don't matter anymore. It is mostly the fault of the over-saturated, 24 hour news cycle that constantly presents the viewer with a deluge of information -- some important, some not important -- within each broadcast. It also has to do with the emergence of social-media as a way to get news instantly and to talk about its ramifications on a platform that can reach audiences around the world. And of course, it has to do with the new class of punditocracy telling people what to think when to think.
The debates are also very late in the election cycle, when early voting is already underway and when most voters already know who they want to vote for. Now, are debates a great way in showing the contrast between the two candidates? Of course they are. But, debates aren't the only platform that do this. We've seen these two candidates on the stump, on the trail, and on the screen for over a year. We know them. We know where they agree and we know where they disagree on. All we're waiting for is something momentous to happen that may catapult one candidate to victory.
I have to object to the media's constant speculation as to what dampened Obama's performance. As I've stated before, Obama could've been better. He could've challenged Romney more and he could brought up things like Bain Capital or his "47% remarks." He could've brought up his record as Massachusetts Governor, he could've brought up the record of his running mate Paul Ryan. Yes, he could've done these things. What Obama chose to do instead was present the facts, unreservedly and unabashedly, something that Romney did not do at all.
To wit, here are some of the blatant mistruths in Romney's debate answers:
-First off, he is proposing a $5 trillion dollar tax cut which would include the wealthiest Americans which would then shift the burden onto the middle class. However, he denied this even though you can find it everywhere.
-He decried ObamaCare even though his model in Massachusetts is exactly identical. As Former President Bill Clinton said, "it takes a lot of brass to call someone out on something you did."
-He mentioned that ObamaCare made over $716 billion dollar in cuts when the plan proposed by his running mate would make the exact same cuts. Not to mention, it's always very odd when a Republican is criticizing a Democrat for making cuts to an entitlement program.
-And lastly, and this is important, Obama has done things that have started to put the American economy back on track. America is better off now than they were four years ago. The jobs report released on Friday only bolsters this claim as unemployment is now at its lowest level.
However, everyone still presses on saying the Romney won the debate decisively and that we've entered into a whole different ball game or horse race or another poorly attributed sports metaphor.
Debates only prove a sad reality: that you don't have to be right to win.
It was boring, for one, filled with an inordinate amount of political wonkiness that the average American viewer could not comprehend because 1) neither candidates opted to define the fancy terms they were using and 2) the moderator, Jim Lehrer, couldn't get a word in between President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney to discuss with viewers what something like the Bowles-Simpson Commission was.
And two, the media has done a really ridiculous job on the debate's coverage. It has always been evident that American media treats the politics as if it's some sort of circus, a fact that's even more stark compared to the passive treatment by journalists of our government on this side of the border. But, this time it just was completely absurd. CNN was running "debate-eve" pre-game shows replete with political pundits and commentators churning out their partisan-based predictions. There was non-stop discussion about the importance and impact of debates on presidential races, a discussion that seems to replicate the illusion of placing two mirrors in front of each other to get endless reflections. It was -- without exaggeration -- a debate about a debate about a debate.
Remember, this is before the debate even started.
When it finally did, we were greeted with a lucklustre affair on both sides, not just one as much as the media likes to point out. Was Obama not as charismatic as he could've been? Yes. Was Obama faced with an abundant amount of opportunities to press Romney about his claims and mistruths? Yes. Totally. But, was Romney presenting the facts? Hardly.
I hate to say that Obama lost the debate so I won't. And, I hate to say that Romney won the debate so I won't either. What I will say is this: in the grander scheme of things, that is, a sprawling election campaign that is over a year old, the debates really don't matter anymore.
I'm not arguing that debates have never mattered since they undoubtedly have. There is the infamous case with Richard Nixon and his sweating upper lip during his debate with John F. Kennedy as an example. Not to mention, George H.W. Bush's response to a citizen about how the recession has been affecting him, personally. These were game-changers -- if I were to use that seemingly innocuous word now.
But now, with the over-saturated media climate we inhabit, debates don't matter anymore. It is mostly the fault of the over-saturated, 24 hour news cycle that constantly presents the viewer with a deluge of information -- some important, some not important -- within each broadcast. It also has to do with the emergence of social-media as a way to get news instantly and to talk about its ramifications on a platform that can reach audiences around the world. And of course, it has to do with the new class of punditocracy telling people what to think when to think.
The debates are also very late in the election cycle, when early voting is already underway and when most voters already know who they want to vote for. Now, are debates a great way in showing the contrast between the two candidates? Of course they are. But, debates aren't the only platform that do this. We've seen these two candidates on the stump, on the trail, and on the screen for over a year. We know them. We know where they agree and we know where they disagree on. All we're waiting for is something momentous to happen that may catapult one candidate to victory.
I have to object to the media's constant speculation as to what dampened Obama's performance. As I've stated before, Obama could've been better. He could've challenged Romney more and he could brought up things like Bain Capital or his "47% remarks." He could've brought up his record as Massachusetts Governor, he could've brought up the record of his running mate Paul Ryan. Yes, he could've done these things. What Obama chose to do instead was present the facts, unreservedly and unabashedly, something that Romney did not do at all.
To wit, here are some of the blatant mistruths in Romney's debate answers:
-First off, he is proposing a $5 trillion dollar tax cut which would include the wealthiest Americans which would then shift the burden onto the middle class. However, he denied this even though you can find it everywhere.
-He decried ObamaCare even though his model in Massachusetts is exactly identical. As Former President Bill Clinton said, "it takes a lot of brass to call someone out on something you did."
-He mentioned that ObamaCare made over $716 billion dollar in cuts when the plan proposed by his running mate would make the exact same cuts. Not to mention, it's always very odd when a Republican is criticizing a Democrat for making cuts to an entitlement program.
-And lastly, and this is important, Obama has done things that have started to put the American economy back on track. America is better off now than they were four years ago. The jobs report released on Friday only bolsters this claim as unemployment is now at its lowest level.
However, everyone still presses on saying the Romney won the debate decisively and that we've entered into a whole different ball game or horse race or another poorly attributed sports metaphor.
Debates only prove a sad reality: that you don't have to be right to win.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Destroying Things Is Much Easier Than Making Them
Current affairs magazines are probably the most widely-sought after publications for lengthy political commentary and interesting viewpoints from engaging and familiar columnists. One of the most interesting -- and probably the most palatable -- features of the magazine happens to be the magazine cover. Throughout this election season, there have been great magazine covers depicting the race as a physical aggression between foes. Popular magazines such as The Atlantic and Newsweek have given their own interpretation of the blood-thirsty competition that is the Presidential Election.
Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival. Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.
This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant.
However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"
It didn't just come about. It was always there.
Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?
Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.
This year, both Newsweek and The Atlantic took the political race, either the Republican primaries or the general election, and turned it into a vicious battle between enemies and translated it onto their covers. In a way, this is perfect.
Instead of a civil discourse on the political process, we now have The Hunger Games in which opponents foist schemes to take out each other for the ultimate glory -- survival. Speaking of The Atlantic, this week's cover invokes that same idea. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are depicted as boxers, engaged in a heavy bout in the ring. The headline reads, "Obama Vs. Romney: Who Will Be The Greatest?" Like I said, this magazine cover and the article itself propagates this idea of physicality, of hook punches and low-blows exchanged between opponents all for the sake of victory.This boxing idea isn't really new. But, it does a fine job of emphasizing the one-on-one, man-to-man, domineering and masculine aggression that is fuming at the seams. Beneath all the ads and speeches as to why the other candidate is not the right choice for America, there is a genuine mutual dislike for the opponent behind the words. A mutual dislike that might erupt in a bar fight if it were between two average men.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the candidates, though. The "audience" has a stake in this, as well. A very telling example of this would be when Republicans cheered for the death of an otherwise healthy man who simply did not have health care insurance.
This new turn in the political process and how the media covers is only emphasizes the essence of the concept of 'politics.' Politics is messy. Politics is a struggle. And, politics is seldom pleasant.
However, it's crucial to discuss the media's role in all of this. The Atlantic and Newsweek didn't have to depict the two candidates that way. The media doesn't have to sensationalize the race this way. Coupled with the other factors I mentioned such as the candidates and the audience, we face the fundamental problem in media: does the media influence the culture or does the culture influence the media? Another related question would be "how did this turn in politics come about?"
It didn't just come about. It was always there.
Besmirching the name of the opponent is nothing and new. And, the coverage by the media on the bitter rivalry has always been there. For your amusement and for contextualization, I offer a brief history of nasty campaigns throughout the ages! To wit:
-The 1797 election was probably one of the first examples of a bitter campaign between competitors. John Adams was accused of being a hermaphrodite who was going to "marry the American presidency to the British Crown." Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was labelled an atheist and a supporter of incest.
-During the 1892 election, Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer by John Quincy Adams.
-The New York Times, who thew their support behind William McKinley, ran an article entitled "Is Bryan Crazy?" using the information of an anonymous source to derail the success of William Jennings Bryan.
-The 1964 election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was infamous for its use of negative ads on television. The most memorable attack ad was from the Johnson campaigned that shows a little girl picking at a daisy, counting, then faced with the ominous countdown of an atomic bomb.
-Both the 1992 and the 2008 elections were riddled with accusations of candidates -- Bill Clinton and John McCain -- with fathering out-of-wedlock children.
-And, speaking of the 2008 election, who can forget about the disgraceful indictments made about Obama?
Anyone of these campaigns could've been depicted as a physical match, either in the stage, arena, or debate hall in the media. Odds are they were. And that's because that's what politics is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)