Thursday, April 18, 2013

Media Party Retaliates with Attack Columns

I dispute the whole concept of Attack Ads.  The establishment punditocracy have fabricated the idea that any political ad that is critical of a rival is an attack.  It is no more an attack than any political column ever written by Andrew Coyne.

Coyne writes his opinions, and those opinions are always negative towards the Conservative Party.  In fact I don't remember him ever writing a kind word.  If he has he can't be much good at it, since nobody else remembers either.

"Attack Ads Are Political Deathstars But Their Target is Democracy" reads the title of Coyne's latest attack.  I know Attack Editors write Attack Headlines but they coordinate their attacks with Attack Hacks so that the Attack Columns shut down all thought and Democracy.

It has been widely shown that media in fact has a huge negative impact on the functioning of democracy.  They can tell a bald faced lie and then quietly correct it when no one is watching.  They do it all the time.  Think of Robocalls.  Think of Communion Wafers.  Think of Benghazi.  Think of Global Warming.  Even the Vietnam War was lost on television, not the battlefield.  

I'm not saying this should change.  I'm saying that a great amount of power resides in an un-elected and unaccountable media.  They don't just act irresponsibly with this power but with outright open malice towards one side of the political spectrum in particular.

Why didn't any of these media experts notice the positive things in the ads?   Can you not say anything about your opponents in politics?  They invented the idea of Attack Ads so you think they would have a formula worked out for how negative they can be.  What is the acceptable percentage of opinions related to the opposing party should be allowed? Is it 25%?  Is 51% an official attack ad?  How would you measure this? -by the second or by the word?  Do printed words carry more weight than spoken words?  What do images count for?  What does music count for?  I found the music for the latest ads light and comical.  The music was decidedly positive beyond any doubt.  Whats so aggressive about comedy anyway? 

The CPC ads weren't all that negative or even attacking really.  Mocking is the word.  But Coyne is downright nasty and purposefully so on a regular basis.

"-they are corrosive. Their intent is not merely to criticize, but to inflame. They’re not trying to provoke thought, but to shut it down."

Corrosive?  Does he read his own work? Caustic!  And where exactly did he divine the intent of the ads?  If Coyne actually does read minds he still lies about it.  He can't even imagine that the ads might have been made as amusement.  Why do people tell jokes Sour Puss?  Do you even know?

Anyway, even more grounded writers also seemed to miss the mark.  

Chris Selley thinks the ads contain a lie.  Trudeau is out of context when talking about Quebec we are told.  The fact is Trudeau put words into his father's mouth as if he approved of it.  Another fact is that it doesn't matter who said it, its still a stupid thing to say.  So where then is the lie?  Trudeau Junior is constantly invoking the Senior.  Constantly!  Even his letter to the Chinese asking for temporary workers mentions it.  He is Liberal Leader because of it.  Trudeau was telling that story because he was proud of it. Or is he just stupidly trampling his father's name?

Jonathan Kay, who is sometimes friendly to the CPC, wrote about the ads too.  The gist of the article is: "Is that all you got?"  Come again?  Were you expecting the Battle of Endor?  Yub nub!  The election is 2 bloody years away.  There is plenty of material and Trudeau is a gaffe machine too. You really think Truedeau's welcome card should have been an orgasmic explosion?  

Kay also says the adds are "lame."  Yes, there were no exploding spaceships and I don't think there are going to be any.  One Coalition Crisis is enough for a lifetime.  This is Canadian Politics after all and lame is actually good.  Nice and harmless.  We can all share the joke that is the Shiny Pony.

Just today we learned that Trudeau wants to get empathetic and cozy with poor murderous Boston Marathon Bomber.  At best its an unforced error.  Its what these ads are trying to tell people.  That is the intent of the ads: Jr. hasn't got a clue!

You almost get the sense he was pushed into it.  He was obliged to lead the Liberals seeing how low they are now.  Didn't his wife say it was his duty or something?  There are plenty of stories where the prince runs away to be something else.

Trudeau Jr. should have gone into entertainment.  Ben Mulroney has more sense than hapless Trudeau.  Ben knows full well that in politics he would have been in his father's large inky shadow for decades.  Shiny Pony invokes that shadow at every opportunity   Shamefully so.  There's no "did you know Ben Mulroney is former Prime Minister Mulroney's son?"  That never ever happens with the Dauphin.

1 comment:

dmorris said...

I agree completely, Justin Trudeau should have gone into show biz,maybe as a talk show host on CBC.It would makea natural segue,from "Stephen and Chris" to "Here's Justin" on CBC afternoons.

As a politician, he brings absolutely nothing to the game, he can't skate, hit,shoot,check,or score, but he's on the team because his Dad was a superstar.

In the real world, the children of superstars have to prove themselves or are quickly eliminated from the game, but Trudeau has gotten a free pass mainly due to the child like adulation of the media Party. I find many of his views on complicated issues curiously immature,almost like he lived in a state of suspended pre pubescence, permanently 12 years old.

We can only hope he continues to make his verbal blunders,to the extent that the voting public will see him for what he is, a "nobody" with a famous name.

Post a Comment