-
Website
http://www.stephentaylor.ca/ -
Original page
http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2008/09/who-needs-the-msm-to-debate-new-media-brings-populism-to-political-coverage/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
On the National last night they were discussing this issue and spoke to a representative of the MSM "consortium" who decided if May should be included or not. He said that 3 out of 4 leaders said to keep May out or they would not participate. Dion was not the one who agreed. It was Duceppe. Eventhough Dion has publically said May should be in the debate, when it came down to crunch time, Dion said to keep her out.
“I will say that I would like her to be there,” Dion said.
Do you read anywhere here in this quote where he said to keep her out? Please try & stick with the facts alright?
I just said what the National on CBC reported last night.
Go watch the clip. The report is in the first few minutes http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html and Keith Boag clearly says Dion wouldn't go to the debate because if May was there Harper wouldn't go. So he wouldn't go either.
This is what he actually said & I quote; “I will say that I would like her to be there,” Dion said.
Your interpuation of Dion was & I quote, "Dion said to keep her out" See the difference Reid?
You see Reid, he expects to debate Harper whether Elizabeth May is there or not.
While this is not appropriate protocol it was not considered serious enough for Elections Canada to take any action. Sounds like trying to make a molehill out of a pimple if you ask me.
Yes, there is bias in the MSM, but it doesn't mean it should be replaced or discarded. The journalists who engage in unethical practices should be exposed, and their readership/viewership should then exercise their own judgement in accepting or rejecting their work.
And yes, there should be enough room for a 'democratization' of media, but as many documented 'fauxto'shopping incidents and rumours spread by non-MSM has shown, there is a danger in one form supplanting the other.
How do I know, as a consumer of news, that the anonymous person behind the 'new media' can be trusted to give me the facts and is not merely spreading his/her own agenda?
It doesn't necessarily follow that the 'populist' approach to news gathering or news dissemination is any less biased than the MSM approach. As a matter of fact, populism can just as easily, if not more so, descend into bias or even demagoguery - present company excepted, of course ;-)
But ... not being tech savvy ... what would prevent someone from appropriating someone's logo or site, and impersonating that person? Or diverting traffic intended for someone's site onto his/her site.
For example, Steve Janke has a post about how googling "Stephane Dion" somehow redirects to a Jack Layton site. I don't really understand the process - my head space is limited ;-) - but some are calling that kind of move on Layton's tech team as brilliant. Personally, I call it dishonest and manipulative. So, people need to be even more vigilant than with traditional media.
But I agree that any comparison to the Green Party or even the Bloc Quebecois is faulty.
Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be to the National Party in 1993: same number of candidates, same level of voter support, also never having one a seat.
Of course, the National Party was also excluded from the debates ......
The reason the Reform party was able to be in the debates was that they had an elected member under THEIR banner through a by-election. Imagine the outrage if that didn't happen but instead they had a PC elected member join them and demand that their Reform leader joins the debates. This is subverting democracy in a way.
Cuz now Bob Rae can decide he's gonna join up with the Marxist party or some such so that THEY too may now be in the debates. (hypothetically.) Imagine how many parties we'll start having to include then.
Undemocratically. Imagine how this can potentially bog down the debates themselves. Though I'd be fore extending the length if that were to ever happen.
Just putting this out there.
PS
Future headlines:
Jason Kenny joins the Marijuana party after accepting a deal to become their new leader and spokes person for the 2012 debates!
I kid you, Obviously... but the possibility for similar nuttiness remain endless.
"Other parties recognized by Elections Canada
Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada (founded in 2005) - environmentalist, animal liberationist
Canadian Action Party (founded in 1997) - Populist, Canadian Nationalist
Christian Heritage Party of Canada (founded in 1987) - Social conservative
Communist Party of Canada (founded in 1921) - Communist
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) (founded in 1970) - Communist/Marxist-Leninist influenced by Maoism and the ideas of Enver Hoxha
First Peoples National Party of Canada (founded in 2005) - Aboriginal rights advocacy
Libertarian Party of Canada (founded in 1975) - Libertarian
Marijuana Party of Canada (founded in 2000) - pro-marijuana legalization
Neorhino.ca (founded in 2007) - Joke party.
Newfoundland and Labrador First Party (founded in 2007) - Newfoundland and Labrador advocation
People's Political Power of Canada (founded in 2006)- Social Conservative, Populist
Progressive Canadian Party (founded in 2004) - progressive conservative, Red Tory
Western Block Party (founded 2005) - western separatist and ultraconservative
Work Less Party (founded in 2007) - Labour rights"
So yeah. Bet these guys are now gonna start hammering the MPs for deals to "represent" their party in a debate. Or perhaps next time now that the doors to political extremism has been open. Or Pandora's box I should say? I'm hoping now that voters will set matters straight by voting for the moderates. pah-hegh.
Well will shall see. The Conservatives were ahead last I checked so it seems so.
But anyway...
The Bloc and Reform had ELECTED candidates FIRST. Blair Wilson is not and elected green party member but was elected as a Liberal.
What this means now is that anyone could get elected as a Conservative or some other major party and then leave it to join a fringe party so that they can get an uneven kick start ahead of the others.
Its undemocratic for a reason. Miss May and Dion are subverting Democracy.
I shouldn't have to come and spell this out. But thanks to the CBC and other major networks not even bring this point up even though the other leaders did May is now gonna be in the debate.
Supposedly due to "public pressure". Pathetic... I bet there is more pressure against her being there but that the CBC and other MSM networks wouldn't want to cast to much attention on those details.... They do often like to be selective with such things. They keep cutting up Harpers important speeches up into 30 second spiels. Particularly on this issue of May's supposedly elected Green member.
The same goes for what the other leaders had to say on it.
So I've now been watching cpac online(pffft! cable TV? for what? other that then CPAC).
And getting the REAL news on the political scenes.
MSM is such garbage for the head.... I only watch to draw up comparisons of that exact point.