You say.........At a time of dwindling resources, we need to move away from cover politics-as-sport and towards more thoughtful conversations on problems and policy solutions. But it would be foolish to think that if mainstream journalists did better, Poilievre would ease up. ...He has some good policies and solutions( I m paraphrasing b…
You say.........At a time of dwindling resources, we need to move away from cover politics-as-sport and towards more thoughtful conversations on problems and policy solutions. But it would be foolish to think that if mainstream journalists did better, Poilievre would ease up. ...He has some good policies and solutions( I m paraphrasing because your format won t let me back to find the exact quote).
And Hitler made the trains run on time.
I hate to think of you as disingenuous but Oh Justin Ling, can you be letting journalism off the hook to report the actual danger? Journalism that was gloriously free if multi sided in my young Boomer days and has become owned, decrepit, dim witted, one sided. Published voices don t even start at the middle these days, they just veer right, off to the horizon.
The one thing that is our front line defense against populism and any other isms taking over the hearts and minds of the country? Mustn t put a dainty toe outside the Boundaries of Objectivity? Do journalists today even know where those boundaries are? They ve moved so far right from my day that the CBC actually seems to think it s still a bastion of liberal thought. It must always be on guard to counter with actual far right justification?
You, the smartest guy in the room, and the voice I hear from Youth, is ignoring false equivalence?
Nothing will stop pp s boundless ambition except an informed and voting public. And for that we urgently need big doses of truth where the public eyes and ears are. Old style media has lost that game already and you professional communicators might be the only ones who can help find them before it s too late and bloodshed leads the way.
I don't think Poilievre is, say, Donald Trump. I think he is what many Republicans want Donald Trump to be: A guy who plays a character, who can win elections, and who can get the agenda done. Some would say "same difference." But I think it's an important distinction — I don't think, for example, that Poilievre is at risk of questioning the integrity of the next election if he loses. But, on the other hand, I think he's become beholden to an increasingly angry and paranoid class of people. How far is he willing to go to keep them happy? Or, perhaps more acutely: Who replaces him, if he fails to keep them happy? (see: John Boehner -> Paul Ryan -> Kevin McCarthy -> Mike Johnson.
And, two, I think we've tried browbeating people with hypothetical fears. It certainly didn't working in convincing people in the U.S. in 2016, or in the Brexit vote, etc. I think journalism works best when we engage consistently and constantly on issues that matter to people, while simultaneously noting the attacks on our institutions. It's a weird balancing act. Sometimes it requires giving credit when it's due, even when the messenger is engaging in bad faith. We've got to hope that either people make up their own minds and reject that kind of cynical politics, or that kind of coverage encourages politicians to drop the shtick and focus on stuff that matters. Journalists shouldn't be campaigning, because I think it risks alienating the very people we're trying to talk to. I'd be happy as a peach, e.g., if Poilievre dropped the media-bashing, the anti-trans bullshit, and the messianic messaging and actually focused on housing and cost-of-living stuff. I think there's a huge opening for constructive conservatism here. (I had a good chat with Erin O'Toole about exactly this a few months ago: https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2023/07/17/why-erin-otoole-wants-politics-to-be-less-polarized/)
At this point, I can't imagine taking anyone seriously who "wants politics to be less polarized" but ran for the leadership of the party solely responsible for said polarization. Some of us still remember the transformation that took place when the evangelical Reformers took over with their "bozo eruptions" that were slightly amusing at first, as was the fact that Preston Manning talked just like the American actor Jimmy Stewart for some reason. But the novelty slowly shifted to quiet horror that has only increased, especially when one unfortunately resides in Alberduh.
And I also agree with Bev that it's false equivalence and/or "bothsidesism" for anyone to take Poilievre seriously AT ALL in the context of any kind of actual governance. He's got nothin.'
Remember how he came off when Joe Biden visited? Like the fucking brat of a kid that he is.
Like all the cons now, who didn't used to be called that btw, he's flat-out dangerous, period, along with the entire Convoy Party of Canada.
You say.........At a time of dwindling resources, we need to move away from cover politics-as-sport and towards more thoughtful conversations on problems and policy solutions. But it would be foolish to think that if mainstream journalists did better, Poilievre would ease up. ...He has some good policies and solutions( I m paraphrasing because your format won t let me back to find the exact quote).
And Hitler made the trains run on time.
I hate to think of you as disingenuous but Oh Justin Ling, can you be letting journalism off the hook to report the actual danger? Journalism that was gloriously free if multi sided in my young Boomer days and has become owned, decrepit, dim witted, one sided. Published voices don t even start at the middle these days, they just veer right, off to the horizon.
The one thing that is our front line defense against populism and any other isms taking over the hearts and minds of the country? Mustn t put a dainty toe outside the Boundaries of Objectivity? Do journalists today even know where those boundaries are? They ve moved so far right from my day that the CBC actually seems to think it s still a bastion of liberal thought. It must always be on guard to counter with actual far right justification?
You, the smartest guy in the room, and the voice I hear from Youth, is ignoring false equivalence?
Nothing will stop pp s boundless ambition except an informed and voting public. And for that we urgently need big doses of truth where the public eyes and ears are. Old style media has lost that game already and you professional communicators might be the only ones who can help find them before it s too late and bloodshed leads the way.
I greatly fear that battle is lost.
Two things:
I don't think Poilievre is, say, Donald Trump. I think he is what many Republicans want Donald Trump to be: A guy who plays a character, who can win elections, and who can get the agenda done. Some would say "same difference." But I think it's an important distinction — I don't think, for example, that Poilievre is at risk of questioning the integrity of the next election if he loses. But, on the other hand, I think he's become beholden to an increasingly angry and paranoid class of people. How far is he willing to go to keep them happy? Or, perhaps more acutely: Who replaces him, if he fails to keep them happy? (see: John Boehner -> Paul Ryan -> Kevin McCarthy -> Mike Johnson.
And, two, I think we've tried browbeating people with hypothetical fears. It certainly didn't working in convincing people in the U.S. in 2016, or in the Brexit vote, etc. I think journalism works best when we engage consistently and constantly on issues that matter to people, while simultaneously noting the attacks on our institutions. It's a weird balancing act. Sometimes it requires giving credit when it's due, even when the messenger is engaging in bad faith. We've got to hope that either people make up their own minds and reject that kind of cynical politics, or that kind of coverage encourages politicians to drop the shtick and focus on stuff that matters. Journalists shouldn't be campaigning, because I think it risks alienating the very people we're trying to talk to. I'd be happy as a peach, e.g., if Poilievre dropped the media-bashing, the anti-trans bullshit, and the messianic messaging and actually focused on housing and cost-of-living stuff. I think there's a huge opening for constructive conservatism here. (I had a good chat with Erin O'Toole about exactly this a few months ago: https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2023/07/17/why-erin-otoole-wants-politics-to-be-less-polarized/)
At this point, I can't imagine taking anyone seriously who "wants politics to be less polarized" but ran for the leadership of the party solely responsible for said polarization. Some of us still remember the transformation that took place when the evangelical Reformers took over with their "bozo eruptions" that were slightly amusing at first, as was the fact that Preston Manning talked just like the American actor Jimmy Stewart for some reason. But the novelty slowly shifted to quiet horror that has only increased, especially when one unfortunately resides in Alberduh.
And I also agree with Bev that it's false equivalence and/or "bothsidesism" for anyone to take Poilievre seriously AT ALL in the context of any kind of actual governance. He's got nothin.'
Remember how he came off when Joe Biden visited? Like the fucking brat of a kid that he is.
Like all the cons now, who didn't used to be called that btw, he's flat-out dangerous, period, along with the entire Convoy Party of Canada.