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 – Elizabeth May

It seems that elections are won, or lost, on the perceived perceptions by the Voters, on the Leaders.  Not sure it should be that way, but hey, that is how it is. I mean you can have a really good leader, and whole slew of duds as candidates, but you win or lose, on how the public perceives the Leader.

The 2011 Election is over, and the result is Stephen Harper won himself a majority. Did he win because the people perceived him to be a better leader than the others, or was it something more?

Did the other leaders manage to portray their own qualities fully enough?

The Green Party ran, what I perceived as a One Seat At All Costs election. They didn’t truly run a national campaign, despite running candidates in all 308 ridings.

They succeeded, but at a high cost. Their share of the national vote was considerably less than in 2008, and that means a lot less money for the next election. So where is their fund raising gonna come from?

Will having Elizabeth May in Parliament actually give them a voice on the National Stage?  After all, she is only one single member, and for now, an oddity.  But how long can she trade on that for publicity?

Myself, I listened to her speak, and I have to admit, in person she is quite personable, funny, and sharp. While I would most likely have voted for her, if I was in her riding, it wasn’t enough to make me vote for the Green Candidate in my own riding.  And he was quite impressive, as well.

The Liberals used Twitter & Facebook very effectively, for me, but not the others. The Greens used my email to seek donations, but not really impress me enough to give them any cash, or vote for them.  Nor did their twitter tweets do that, and I have no idea where their Facebook page was.

That perception of failure to utilize the tools available to them, made me not willing to vote for the Green Candidate in my riding.  Honestly, I’d have liked to, but there wasn’t enough publicity, from Facebook, Twitter, to convince me. Certainly not enough in the newspapers, or television either.  Course, they didn’t have much control over that, but did they do enough to get the media to pay them attention?

For example, did they phone the local television stations to complain when their candidate was not shown in newscasts, for all candidate debates?

Did they call the local newspapers to ask why their events weren’t mentioned, but the other three parties were?

And it is that perception, that kept me from voting Green. I think it also kept many others from voting for them. There platform might have been the best there was, but who knew anything about it? Who knew the details, other than the brief rhetoric in all candidate debates?

Ignatieff used Facebook well, linking to his speeches, to his photos, so where was the Green party in this?  Not where I could see it, find it.

So while Elizabeth May was a good speaker, I simply didn’t perceive her as being a serious enough Party Leader.  It was too focused on getting her elected, than it was about pushing the Green Party platform.  Too much about legally challenging the Media Consortium, instead of using it to her own advantage.  Like calling on the other leaders, to get her in, to force her way in. It worked in 2008, but she didn’t even try this time.

So that didn’t help my perception of her, or her party.

Maybe that is also what turned people away from voting Green.  And the question has to be asked, if they were potential Green Voters, where did they go? Did they go to the Conservatives, in which case, one may wonder, did Elizabeth May’s lack of Natonal Politicking help give Stephen Harper his majority government?

Why Does the Media Hate the Green Party

Just what is it about the Green Party, that has the Media so determined to try and discount them, as being a political party?  Is there something in their platform, that has all those pin stripe suited big wigs worried?

Never mind that debate bullshit, ever get a call from one of those polling outfits?

Ya see, the Media like Global, CTV, all commission polls, from various companies, so their So Called Experts can tell us morons what it all means, and how we are going to vote on May 2.

Only problem is, other than Ekos, when they ask you what party are you supporting, or leaning towards, they list the following:

1. Conservatives
2. Liberals
3. NDP
4. Bloc ( if in Quebec)
5. Others ( or Undecided )

Notice how the Green Party, that has candidates running in over 300 Ridings, is somehow, just not on that list?

Like when did it become their objective to determine what is, what isn’t, a viable political choice in this country? What has all their panties all twisted in a knot, that they DELIBERATELY IGNORE a potential political choice?

Perception is an important part of politics, so when you get phoned by some fancy sounding polling outfit, and they ignore the Green Party as a choice, it puts that doubt in one’s own mind.  THEN, when you see virtually nothing about them on the actual news, when Green Party candidates are left off the news coverage for All Party Candidate Debates, you have that doubt re-inforced.

SO WHY IS THE MEDIA DELIBERATELY IGNORING THE GREEN’S?

What Do You Want In A Government pt.1

This election has so many sides to it, that it makes one’s head spin a bit. I mean all the different dynamics ( fancy word huh? lol ) make it hard for an average guy like me, to make up my mind on who to support.

Which makes me wonder, just what is it that I want in a Government?

Take the F-35 Fighter Jet debate that is raging.  I mean Layton thinks we should concentrate on ships first, Harper is gung ho for the jets, while Ignatieff thinks we should open up the process, not commit until we see what else is out there. The Green party suggests a review of our entire Military, to determine its exact role, before running off and buying jets, or ships. Ignatieff sort of goes along with that, though he seems to state pretty clearly our role should be Peace Keeping.

Harper of course, attacks Layton & Ignatieff for being UN Patriotic, for questioning the jet deal.  Which really makes me wonder, what is so unPatriotic about questioning a major purchase like the Jets are?

1. Are they what the Military wants?
2. Are they the best available for the Military, & their needs?
3. Will they be long term survivors like the current Jets?

Now, tell me Mr. Harper, how is asking those questions, somehow Un Patriotic, and non supportive of the Military?

So on that score, I would have to say that I want a Government who will not attack me, or others, for having a different opinion on the value of a major taxpayer expense. By wanting to make sure the price is as quoted, that the purchased goods are what is needed, is also something I think MY Government should be encouraging.

I mean hell, if it is the best, on all scores, it should stand up to scrutiny, right?

Strike to the Harper Conservatives.

To not associate anyone who questions this kind of purchase, as being Un Patriotic, is just wrong. IF the price is as stated, show it, prove it, don’t attack me for being against the Military, or wanting something less for them.

As well, IF this is the best out there, then show me that it is what the Military has asked for. Surely if it is, then that should help settle the issue, irrespective of the cost.

Base Hit to the Liberals

Traditionally our Military Role has been one of Peace Keeping. It hasn’t been a force of invasion, and too, when involved in Peace Keeping, it should have the ability to defend itself, as Mr. Ignatieff points out.  So yeah, that’s a hit with me.

Base Hit to the NDP

Just as the current Jets are reaching the end of their usefullness, so are our Naval ships. We do need them as well, and an overall defence refit is a good idea. I also like the need being a job creating one, for Canadians.  The Jets, from all I’ve seen, don’t benefit Canadian Businesses as much.

Two Base Hit to the Green Party.

A double base run for them, simply because they are the only party openly discussing a full & complete review on the role of our Military. Also, they are not supporting the recent excursion into Libya, and becoming not a Peace Keeper, but a Western World police force.   I honestly don’t believe it is our role to play Cop, in countries like Libya, Iraq, etc.

CHEK Television Didn’t Have Enough Time

Let me be clear, I am NOT affiliated with ANY political Party. I hold no membership to any political party, and I have voted for all of the major parties. I have voted NDP, Liberal, Green, & Conservative.

I VOTE FOR THE PARTY WHO IS IN TUNE WITH MY VALUES.

Now, that is out of the way, let me say that this morning I called our local television station, regarding the exclusion of the Green Party Candidate, from their news coverage about last night’s candidate debate.

The response, was that they RAN OUT OF TIME to air any snippet about the Green Party Candidate.  I mean like really, they didn’t have a way to spare 5 or 6 seconds to include him?

My arguement is simple. The RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MEDIA is to INFORM the public of events happening.  Pure & Simple, yet why has the Media consistently ignored the presence of the Green Party? It is not their right to decide who I can hear or not.

The job of REPORTING is to be ACCURATE.

To show only the Big Three, implies there isn’t a fourth choice. By not showing his presence, they FAIL to tell me what choices I do have in my own riding.

I went to that debate, and found out that the Green Party candidate was Jarrod. I had no idea until then, who he was, what his name was. I also was impressed by his answers.   IF I relied on CHEK 6 for that info, I’d still not know his name, nor would I even know there was a Green party candidate.

HOW IS THAT FAIR & UNBIASED NEWS REPORTING?

RESULT: After refusing to accept the ‘ran out of time’ excuse, I was informed that on the noon newscast today, and the 5pm newscast, they would include showing the Green Party candidate.

Now, that is a good result, right?  HOWEVER, what it does underline, is that THEY DID HAVE TIME to air that last night.  IT DOES show that they did knowingly exclude the Green Party.

HOW IS THAT RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM?