Not following the logic. Or do I have it wrong? You seem to be saying that he is behaving differently that other politicians, behaving differently from his own predecessors. And yet, still, treating him differently would be "partisan"? Do Liberals also have to disrespect the press to the same degree before you'd act on it?
Not following the logic. Or do I have it wrong? You seem to be saying that he is behaving differently that other politicians, behaving differently from his own predecessors. And yet, still, treating him differently would be "partisan"? Do Liberals also have to disrespect the press to the same degree before you'd act on it?
The article didn't mention the other aspect to this "presserjacking" (My new word, based on "carjacking"; like it?). The politician is casting every journalist as an Enemy of the People, to be deliberately disrespected; PP gained accolades for spitting in a journalist's face, basically, that apple video was kind of gross to watch, for a neat-freak - accolades because those followers cheer when journalists are put-down and sneered at.
You seem to have gone down to that cold, windy presser to hand him free material to be sliced and diced to his own usage, yourself used as a prop-villain. Would you really do that twice? Why would anybody?
I guess what I'm really scratching at is: What does 'differently' mean?
I think there are those who want journalists to go and, essentially, campaign against the guy. That's both not our job, and it's only going to play into exactly what he's accusing us of doing now. There are others (and I think you may be in this camp) who think we should basically boycott the pressers: But, we tried that! We did it with Harper, and it backfired spectacularly.
I think we've got to have some faith in the public. Journalists should keep going and asking about serious policy questions. If Poilievre wants to continue going apoplectic at us, ranting about how we're spreading disinfo, he can do that. It will, as I break down here, energize a certain minority and perhaps win over some converts. But I think that shtick gets old very quickly. I think most people will start to see this circus for what it is — and that will either prompt Poilievre to drop the act, or it'll lead to him being punished by voters.
Oh, and "differently" means "treating you as the opposition, not as a ref". Enough of a change in degree, becomes a change-in-kind.
Newt Gingrich called the opposition "sick", "twisted" and "traitorous" but not the media, directly.
Sarah Palin escalated it to "lamestream media" insults, but those were minor compared to Trump's "Enemy of the People". Poilievre is past Palin's level, and going Trump-adjacent with spitting on people. I just think it's a line, crossed.
Well answered; you're taking the Anthony Fauci/Bonnie Henry approach of just staying on your own game, same message, same demeanor.
I just think that backfired with Trump: elected. The same seems likely with PP. I think Wells has used the approach of listing the questions he'd like to ask, and discussing what answers are even possible, given known positions. It gives one a column.
I think AI gives one approach, at least a one-time stunt, and, who knows, it might catch on as a regular punishment. Take your questions, Wells', etc; and have somebody like Boosenkool write up answers that PP might reasonably give, from what we know. Then post an interview to YouTube with a panel of journalists firing questions, all answered by "Pierre Poil-AI-evre", voice and face faked up with AI. Needless to say, preceded by explanation of the "one question, and we'll chop it up" problem, that it's the only way to get an answer at all.
Make a few answers at least irritating to the principal; a few "I have no response to that" where we really don't know, perhaps - and see if it goads him to reaction. The stunt itself may get on TV and have you tut-tutted by a TV panel that, We Do Not Do That. It would raise the question of what the hell you DO do, then - stand on a windy street being insulted?
Interesting ideas. We've got to do something to protect ourselves from these right-wingers who use psychology against not just us but their own supporters.
Not following the logic. Or do I have it wrong? You seem to be saying that he is behaving differently that other politicians, behaving differently from his own predecessors. And yet, still, treating him differently would be "partisan"? Do Liberals also have to disrespect the press to the same degree before you'd act on it?
The article didn't mention the other aspect to this "presserjacking" (My new word, based on "carjacking"; like it?). The politician is casting every journalist as an Enemy of the People, to be deliberately disrespected; PP gained accolades for spitting in a journalist's face, basically, that apple video was kind of gross to watch, for a neat-freak - accolades because those followers cheer when journalists are put-down and sneered at.
You seem to have gone down to that cold, windy presser to hand him free material to be sliced and diced to his own usage, yourself used as a prop-villain. Would you really do that twice? Why would anybody?
I guess what I'm really scratching at is: What does 'differently' mean?
I think there are those who want journalists to go and, essentially, campaign against the guy. That's both not our job, and it's only going to play into exactly what he's accusing us of doing now. There are others (and I think you may be in this camp) who think we should basically boycott the pressers: But, we tried that! We did it with Harper, and it backfired spectacularly.
I think we've got to have some faith in the public. Journalists should keep going and asking about serious policy questions. If Poilievre wants to continue going apoplectic at us, ranting about how we're spreading disinfo, he can do that. It will, as I break down here, energize a certain minority and perhaps win over some converts. But I think that shtick gets old very quickly. I think most people will start to see this circus for what it is — and that will either prompt Poilievre to drop the act, or it'll lead to him being punished by voters.
Oh, and "differently" means "treating you as the opposition, not as a ref". Enough of a change in degree, becomes a change-in-kind.
Newt Gingrich called the opposition "sick", "twisted" and "traitorous" but not the media, directly.
Sarah Palin escalated it to "lamestream media" insults, but those were minor compared to Trump's "Enemy of the People". Poilievre is past Palin's level, and going Trump-adjacent with spitting on people. I just think it's a line, crossed.
Well answered; you're taking the Anthony Fauci/Bonnie Henry approach of just staying on your own game, same message, same demeanor.
I just think that backfired with Trump: elected. The same seems likely with PP. I think Wells has used the approach of listing the questions he'd like to ask, and discussing what answers are even possible, given known positions. It gives one a column.
I think AI gives one approach, at least a one-time stunt, and, who knows, it might catch on as a regular punishment. Take your questions, Wells', etc; and have somebody like Boosenkool write up answers that PP might reasonably give, from what we know. Then post an interview to YouTube with a panel of journalists firing questions, all answered by "Pierre Poil-AI-evre", voice and face faked up with AI. Needless to say, preceded by explanation of the "one question, and we'll chop it up" problem, that it's the only way to get an answer at all.
Make a few answers at least irritating to the principal; a few "I have no response to that" where we really don't know, perhaps - and see if it goads him to reaction. The stunt itself may get on TV and have you tut-tutted by a TV panel that, We Do Not Do That. It would raise the question of what the hell you DO do, then - stand on a windy street being insulted?
Interesting ideas. We've got to do something to protect ourselves from these right-wingers who use psychology against not just us but their own supporters.