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.

Another Minority? But Whose

Frankly, I don’t buy into all the polls anymore. I mean they are as crooked and cooked, as the Harper Conservative Policies are. There are so many hidden secrets, that one has to really wonder, about how accurate they are.

What galls me is how they keep shoving their crooked polling data in our faces. It is a con, to make us believe our votes don’t count, that somehow it is all decided. Like one outfit, that is calling a Conservative Majority, when the truth is, they get their data by how many people click on a button, saying they’ll vote Conservative.  Real scientific that, and not open to being rigged, right?   NOT!

Frankly, if the Conservatives had someone who was less of a control freak, less of a dictator, a minority government could be very effective. I mean look at the Pearson years, and all that was accomplished.

We got National Health, our Flag.  All with a Minority Government.

Harper could have had that too, but instead he used bullying tactics, lies, deceit, and just plain nastiness, to try and get his way. That isn’t going to build trust, nor is it going to get compromises happening.

Then too, there is the simple reality, that he ( Harper ) doesn’t listen to what others have to say. He just goes his own way, unwilling to get a concensus happening. That isn’t how Pearson did it, and is why it succeeded. He listened, Harper doesn’t.

I only hope that in the aftermath of tomorrow, we have a Majority Government, from either the Liberals or NDP.   IF NOT, then a Minority Government in where the Conservatives are NOT a factor.  Let the other opposition parties hold the keys, just not the Conservatives.

GET OUT AND VOTE ANYONE BUT CONSERVATIVES

Controversial Editorials Warrant Exclusion

Its a question being asked by many, as Ignatieff is scheduled to meet with a rather, controversial Sikh reporter. One who has met with Conservative Kenny & NDP Leader Jack Layton.   ( Funny isn’t it, how those meetings, didn’t get as much attention? )

Still the question remains.  Should someone who supposedly not only condoned an attack on a person ( now a Liberal MP btw ) but supposedly also praised an Assassination, be interviewing any Political Leaders or Members?

Personally I don’t think anyone should be promoting violence, hatred based on some perceived ethnic purity. Yet, there are laws regarding that, & if you pass those tests, then why should any Political Leader be afraid to have a dialogue with you?

Don’t we do that all the time with world leaders?

After all, didn’t Iran’s President address the United Nations, and throughout history, hasn’t some pretty nasty folks been in discussions with our leaders?  How do we expect to bridge our differences, if we won’t talk to them, won’t let them ask us questions?

Seems to me, we have way too many people picking at random, who is worthy of talking to, than we should.  Without discussion, without dialogue, we wind up with wars.  You know, places like Iraq, Libya.

Does the Media reflect the issues that matter to me

I have to wonder, about the Media and how much power we seem to have given them.

I always believed that the job of the media was to report on news events. Their role was to answer key questions, like How, Where, When, Why, What.   Frankly, I don’t believe the media today, in general, does any of that. I think instead they are looking more at how to increase subscriptions, ratings, rather than present the truth, or anything close to the truth.

Good example is how the press calls it when they meet with a Politician to ask questions.  They refer to it as a Scrum.

To me a SCRUM is where a bunch get together, in Rugby, to try and grab the ball.

Isn’t there job not to grab the headlines, but to report the facts? Seems to me that what these ‘scrums’ really are, is the media vying for an angle so they can get the ratings, the scoops, to make themselves more popular, not to help define or get out the messages being given.

To me that is just plain wrong, yet that is what we seem to buy into.  There used to be a time, when reporting the news wasn’t about profits. In fact, most organization bitched that News Departments were always UnProfitable.

Man how that has changed now, hasn’t it?

Good example is the whole Leaders Debate bullshit. I mean since when do we let some Corporate Entity decide who we can hear, who we can’t? Shouldn’t the Parties themselves make that decision?  Excluding Elizabeth May aside, the format is determined by these Corporate Consortiums, but you know, We Own The Airwaves, NOT THEM. ( unless Harper gave it away without telling us )

I was at the Jack Layton rally in Esquimalt. Didn’t see this scrum, yet he said more than just about letting BC keep the HST bribe money if we opted to cancel the agreement. He talked a bit about health care too, about jobs.  Yet one of the reports was about the Scrum, about how he goofed in saying he couldn’t compete with Chretien’s Ghost.

So what?  Saying Ghost doesn’t automatically mean the guy is dead, though that is how Reporters saw it. To me, maybe it was in reference to his time as Prime Minister, or as External Affairs Minister. He did serve this country for some time.  So what if he meant something else, like how does that matter in whether or not his message is worth my vote?

Perhaps instead of worrying about a mix up in words, the report should have dealt with his answers about why their is a difference in his stand for the HST Bribe Money for NS and BC.

That is the news, not whether he meant Ghost or Shadow.

Diverting Attention or Boosting the Ratings?

Don’t you feel sorry for the poor Broadcast Consortium & Political Leaders?  I mean they are being diverted from their job, because of this whole Elizabeth May nonsense.  After all, she is just the leader of the Green Party, running cadidates in all ridings, but has no seats in the last Parliament. So what nerve she has, to expect to be a part of the Leaders Debate.

And pity our poor Political Leaders who have seats in Parliament. Now they have to take an extra minute or two, to answer a question of whether they oppose her inclusion, or not. I mean, gee, I bet they are sitting down right now, in some back room, plotting their strategy on how to deal with this mega issue.     NOT !

In many ways, this is actually an important issue. 

Such as: Who should decide who can attend a Leaders Debate? Should that decision not be made by those who are running?

Then how about asking why is Gilles Duceppe in the debate? After all, his party will NEVER  form the next government, so just because he has seats, he’s entitled to appear? What about say the Wester Canada Concept Party or Social Credit Party? What if they get seats in this election, while only running in one or two provinces.  Will their leader automatically be included in the next Leaders Debate?

My own opinion is simple. YES I think the Bloc should be included, as they do represent a large segment of our Nation. They do have seats in Parliament as well.  I also believe that the Green Party should be represented, simply by the fact that they have candidates running in ALL RIDINGS.  They Nationally took about 6% of the popular vote in the last election.

So YES, Elizabeth May should be in that debate, not needing a lawyer to contest the decision by a bunch of stodgy Corporate Big Wigs.

The Political Parties don’t need to spend a lot of time discussing this, or ducking the question. IF they are about DEMOCRACY and FAIR PLAY, then they should simply tell the Broadcast Consortium that either she is in, or they are out.

Course, being cynical, one could argue that this ploy by the Broadcast Consortium, is to generate interest in the Leaders Debate, to help boost possible ratings for it, when they relent and let her into the debate.  I think its called Marketing?  Where you create an interest in something, that people perhaps aren’t interested in it.

Yes, I do believe that is a real reason of why the Consortium has made its announcement. That and to perhaps protect their darling, Stephen Harper, from having another critic at the table.

The response so far, from all the Political Parties leaves me cold. I mean I expected the response by Stephen Harper, that he ‘accepts‘ the decision to not have May. I am disappointed in the lack lustre response from both Layton & Ignatieff.  They don’t ‘object’ to having her in the debate.

Like get some damn balls, and tell this Broadcast Consortium to let her in, or they can simply have a debate with only Stephen Harper attending.   Bet that would end the issue fast,  and let us get on with discussing the other issues in this election.