Election Perception – Stephen Harper

I suppose, I like things neat and tidy. You’d never know it from how I keep house, but I like things in order. I love my routine, sort of, but in Politics, I like to KNOW who I am voting for.  I want to KNOW what I am voting for, what I can expect.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives showed me that you CAN get elected, by sidestepping every single issue, by holding back from explaining what you plan to accomplish.

And YET the perception, that he generated, was one of a Commander, of a Cool Leader who had the answers, but wasn’t about to let us in on it. We had to trust him, or perhaps, trust the other leaders less.

With help from the Media, he created this impression that he knew what to do. He had the answers, and we just had to trust him. When questioned, and not answering, he gave us the impression that it didn’t matter, because we weren’t, well, smart enough to understand the subtle nuances of the problem.   And so many of us, bought into that bullshit, that we gave him our vote.

Maybe I am to cynical, but honestly, out of all the politicians, he gave the least about his plans, than the others. He talked in generalities, yet made it sound like a sermon from the mount.  Yet nearly 40% of voters, took the perception of him as a leader, as a good leader, to heart & voted for him.

Maybe it was the persona of the Attack Ads, that had a bigger impact on our decisions, or maybe it was that he didn’t appear in those ads?  Somehow we seemed to actively disassociate him from the mean spirited ads, that he ran.  We condemned them, yet gave him our votes, because we bought into those ads.

Or perhaps the real perception was, that he wasn’t going to raise taxes,  wasn’t going to spend us into the poor house, and wasn’t going to break apart the Country. In other words, he created negative impressions, perceptions, of the others, so we just naturally eliminated them. It gave us the perception that he wasn’t as bad as the others, hence he got our votes.

Maybe it wasn’t that we had any real perception about him, just that he created a worse impression of the others, so we would accept him.   Guess it worked, given how he is the Prime Miniter, and that others are also rans.

Election Perception – The Media 3

Teach me for getting busy, but anyhow, wanted to finish this piece, about election perceptions.  And yeah, I know I have a hate on for the Media, but honestly, I think everyone should.  After all, don’t we all like to think for ourselves?

The media likes to pretend, it is telling us the news, but let’s be honest, they are now in the business of selling advertising. That is their one and only goal.  The higher rated their newscast is, the more they can charge for ads during the news.  Newspapers today, well, it is based on circulation, and the juicier the headlines, the more people will subscribe.

Least that’s the theory.

In this last election, the Media clearly had a bias for the Conservatives. They would report on ‘local all candidate debates’ and yet highlight the Conservative candidate more than the others, and in the case of CHEK 6, ( my local station ) they actually didn’t even bother to show the Green Party Candidate.

Like, uh, I didn’t know who our candidate was, and if I had relied on their report, I’d assume there wasn’t one. After all, out of sight, out of mind.  Right?

Why would they support one party over another?

Simple, the Conservatives under Harper have this Industry Police Thy Self mantra, which suits them just fine. By policing their own standards, they can do whatever they want, say what they want, pretend it is news when its bullshit, and not get into trouble.  Just like Maple Leaf Foods did with its tainted food.

The CRTC is gutted, thanks to Harper, and now we have four years where we can expect more of the same. So naturally the Media wanted him in power, it means they get to set the standards, not us, the owners of the airwaves.

Think just how much the Media has changed today. Back in the day, Politicians had access, to the Media, as a requirement for the Media using our airwaves. Today, they managed to swap that requirement by setting up CSPAN.  Their own little politicial network, that is just another means for them to slant the news. Sure, they may have to show Parliament, the Committee Hearings, but uh, they get to decide what we see, and for how long.

That isn’t free, in my books.

It is a rehash with the same biased pundits, to favor one party over another.  Frankly, if it wasn’t for one or two shows that Mom watches, I’d cancel cable. It simply isn’t worth it, nor is the news anywhere close to being accurate.  And after watching their 20 second sound bites this election, it just isn’t even close to being worth viewing.

What we need, is to neuter the Media Big Wigs. Each channel, should provide a set amount of airtime, to each political party to use as they wish. In addition, the local stations should allow campaign advertising to local candidates, for free.  Not a ton either, but say one per hour in prime time.  That would be four ads, given we have four national parties.

In other words, let us not limit the ability of other voices, to be heard. Let them use the free airtime, as they choose, and then it would be about the issues, not about who has the most cash to spend on bullshit attack ads.  It levels the playing field, which is the fair and Canadian thing to do.

It used to be that way, it should never have been changed.

Election Perception – The Media 2

In my own mind, I honestly believe that the Media is slanted towards the Conservatives, than to any other party. God Forbid that a dissenting voice is given equal air time, or print space.  Yet, by law, they are supposed to do just that. 

Somehow I don’t think they do that, but instead use ‘editorial constraints’ to excuse why they leave out so much, when they report on a story, that well, doesn’t sit right with their own perspective.  Like how they show the Leaders Images, when discussing all of the parties position on something.

Even the CBC uses that tactic, and you know, we are a visual animal. We tend to associate bigger with better.  So when you see the pictures of the four national party leaders, and the first one is of Stephen Harper, that fills the screen, while off to the side you see Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, and at times Gilles Duceppe, you automatically associate the bigger image of Harper, as being the more relevant ( or credible ) leader.

What is disconcerting is that when most reports, dealing with an issue all parties had a poistion on, the pecking order was also a method, the media has perfected, to show who is relevant, who isn’t.  Ignoring for example any reference to the Green Party position, was one way to discredit them, to remove them from our thought process.

You know the old adage…  Out of Sight, Out of Mind.

And it worked too, given how the Green Party lost a fair chunk of votes this time out. Granted, some of that loss was due to their concentration on electing Elizabeth May, but a great deal was also on how their presence, in major news casts, were either muted, or simply just ignored.

Another way that the media has formed a perception of our political leaders, is the space dedicated to them.  For example, a piece about an issue, will have a larger space dedicated to the Conservatives, while the NDP & Liberals get smaller space. Generally a line or two is given to the Green party ( if at all ) or to the Bloc.

That helps further our impression of who is relevant, who isn’t. We see less about the others, so obviously, their opinion isn’t very good. Or so the thought process implies.

Again, the Media uses ‘editorial’ reasoning for why that happens.  Other ways, like adding a picture of Harper, while no images for the others, helps to further re-inforce how much better the Conservatives were, versus the others.

Sounds harmless, doesn’t it?  Yet if you factor in the voice overs, the commentary, it can be very effective. After all, here we are, with a Conservative Majority, despite the simple truth, 60% of us didn’t want them.

It also impacts the desire to vote. The more these so called Pundits, speak about the Polling numbers,  use deceptive headlines, to make their point extra memorable, well, why bother to go vote?   It is an excuse, for sure, but one that many seem to use.

Combine all those subtle tricks, and it is apparent to anyone, that our Media lets its own agenda determine, to our loss, the results. Sure, they don’t put a gun to our head, and we are supposed to know better, but do we? 

IF you are constantly bombarded with the same images, across the board, your mind will adjust to that perception. It is no different in writing. You expect to see a word, so when the author crosses you up to use a different one, your mind blinks. It gets lost, and that is what happens with all the double talk from our Media Sages.

There was a time, when the Media was required to present all political parties, equally. That meant they had to give equal air time, they had to give equal space, to all of the parties, the candidates, so as to avoid this type of manipulation.

Guess that has changed, don’t you think?

Election Perception – The Media 1

We are a trusting bunch of folks, don’t you think?  I mean we read something in the newspaper, or see a sound bite on the local news, and our opinions are formed, on what we have just read, or saw.

Question is, should we be so trusting of these so called News Media Gurus?

Think about it for a minute or two. I mean we read labels of stuff we buy, to see what the blasted stuff contains, whether it is food or some knick knack.  We check to see if the plumber we hire is licensed, or if the mechanic shop we take our car to, is licensed.

Yet, we are willing to allow our opinions be formed, by some group of people, we know absolutely nothing about. Are they qualified to tell us what something means, or are they merely voicing their own opinions, yet making it sound like fact?

Personally, I find that it is impossible to accept what the Media says, on anything, simply by the way it is reported to us.  I mean a 20 second sound bite, when the actual answer was ten minutes or more, is going to convey to me the truth?

Then too, do they actually report the facts, or is it slanted to not cause any repercussions to them, or to their advertisers?

Are certain stories, slanted or actually even ignored, because it might cause repercussions to their Advertisers?  Like how much do you believe a so called independent study from a University, if that study was paid for by the Tobacco Industry, and the study showed cigarette smoking wasn’t harmful?

Are the media any different?

IF politics is really about perceptions, not substance, then aren’t the Media in the perfect position to manipulate that perception? Don’t they reach the millions, that no politician can?

Stephen Harper recognizes that, and has used the media very adaptly, to his advantage. One way is from his attack ads, the other is by how he has changed the rules, which only benefits their ability to lie, distort the truth.  He’s made the CRTC toothless, which only means that he can continue with his attack ads, without worry.

There used to be standards, but those standards have fallen so low, they are meaningless now.  Even the Ad Council excludes political ads, from the low threshold of being truthful.

Doesn’t that send up any signals to our brain?

Ever wonder why Politicians watch all the different news sources?  Think it is to be informed, or perhaps it is to see which version of the truth, they can find some talking points on?   Hell, just look at the different ways the news has dealt with the floods in Quebec & Manitoba.

But, I am rambling. I suppose what I am really doing, is setting the groundwork for part 2 on this post.  I just believe, that we rely way too much on what we see from the mainstream media, or read in our newspapers.  I mean, we let some nameless entity decide what we can see, what we can read, and how much we get to see, or read.

How is that objective enough to provide the truth?

Gotta Luv the Media

Let’s see, the election was May 2, and today it is May 10th.   You’d think they’d have figured it out by now, that the Election is Over, and We’ve had our say.   But no, they are still rehashing it, trying to explain to us (supposedly) why Harper got a Majority, and why Jack Layton is now the Leader of the Opposition.

Course they are also trying to explain how they didn’t quite call it like it turned out, but that little part gets buried under all the speculation, hyperbole, and other Media Bullshit.

The NDP won more seats than the Liberals because Jack Layton wasn’t attacked as much as Michael Ignatieff, or as viciously, so he was the logical choice for a change.   Harper’s attack ads pretty well neutered the Liberals, but that is simply due to the Liberals ( mainly Michael Ignatieff ) NOT answering all those 5 second barks.

But hey, it worked for Harper, he made nearly 40% of Canadian Voters ( okay, those who actually voted ) afraid of the other guy so much, that they bought into his crap and gave him a pass.   I mean why not, given there was a rather dirth of confrontation on his policies, or his abilities.

AND you can see, the Media aren’t exactly thrilled with a Jack Layton led opposition. I mean just look at how they are going after every miscue, and the final tally of votes isn’t accredited yet.  I mean geez, you would think that Stalin was reborn and came down to earth.  The Socialist Horde has landed in Ottawa and is about to Consume Us All.

IF the Liberals are smart, they’ll let the Media keep going after them thar Socialists, while they quietly rebuild, so that come the next election, Harper gets blindsided.

TRUTH IS, this is one more example of WHY we must maintain our multiple party system.  Think about it, if all we had were the top two parties, that means come the next election, our choices would be NDP or CONSERVATIVE.     So where would someone who is leery of the NDP Social Agenda go to vote, if they were just as leery of the Far Right Fake Conservatives of Harper?

They’d have no where to go, which means, it becomes an either or situation, leading to more extremism on both sides of the fence.   HOW DOES THAT BENEFIT US?

It also, will turn off far more voters, than turn them on, and we need people to become MORE ENGAGED in our political system, not LESS ENGAGED.