Notes on the Creation of the Canadian Narrative
The Canadian Media and the 2008 Election: Reporting or Managing?
by Dave Patterson
Sept 2008
The Current Narrative
The 'in progress' narrative of the 2008 Federal Election, entering week 3, as presented by the Canadian media with no significant variations, would be something like this: Dion is a weak and ineffectual leader, with little confidence in his leadership even in Liberal ranks, and his Green Shift is just confusing, so overall he is losing voters and Lib prospects aren't very good. The Greens are growing ever more popular with their new leader Elizabeth May. The NDP, well, they can talk all they want, as they always do, but they are perennial third-placers who have no hope of forming a government as socialism is not a popular political option in modern Canada (Ms Petty even snickered on The House last week, concerning a poll of leaders, that 'even Jack Layton beat Dion, haha!' - every listener understood her feigned surprise, that the NDP and their leader are never more than a sideshow of some sort to serious voters, and if Dion is lower than him, he's REALLY pathetic, haha). The Conservatives are moving towards the center, and attracting more Canadian votes as many people seem willing to give the more moderate Harper a chance, even in Quebec as the Bloc has lost most of its raison d'etre these days, for various reasons, but the voters there still dislike the Libs and have never thought much of the NDP. And really, as we heard from day one, the Canadian election is not all that important, with not many real issues to talk about - Canadians have some concern about who can manage the economy better in these troubled times, and some further concern about things like climate change and the health care system, but really, the American election is much more interesting. Afghanistan is a bit of a festering wound, but Harper has said that will end in 2011, and the Liberals agree with this position, and Canadians are tired of talking about it anyway, so it's not really an issue here. There are little interesting things that happen in every election we can gossip about, like candidates saying foolish things that they should resign for (according to outraged media consensus, at any rate), or commenting at length on the latest polls, or what do we all think of the latest stupid attack ad, or getting excited about trying to deny May a place in the leaders' debate, or the age of the Liberal leader's aircraft, or the accusation that some MP used his parliamentary privilege for a mailout after the election was called, or look! two NDPers have dropped out because there are vids of them smoking pot!! and did Jack Layton smoke pot in the past or not, eh? answer that now!! and what does he have to say for himself about it, eh?, and did Ms May call Canadians stupid or not, (but look at that interesting train tour she's doing!), and a regular parade of 'campaign news' like that from your on-the-ball Election Correspondents That's Me!! everyday, but that's all we have, because really, as we (the media) all said from Day 1, it's not really a very important election in the end, so have a chuckle about it all, but don't take it all too seriously, folks.
On the surface, to the Canadian mind well trained to trust what it reads in the 'free' Canadian media, it's a pretty good story that most Canadians seem to accept ok - I mean, if everyone in the free Canadian media is basically on the same page, then it must be true, right?
Out of the Box ....
But then there are some untrusting minds out here in realityland as well, minds which read a bit wider than the mainstream Canadian media and thus get some considerably different information, minds which ask questions the mainstream media seems uninterested in but seem important, which would suggest that perhaps the Canadian media is actually up to something considerably less benign than it pretends to be. When standing back from the full-spectrum, sound-bite vid-clip attention-catching, something-for-almost-everyone coverage of the Canadian media, thinking about things for a bit through a broader, more inclusive perspective, it can be stated with considerable certainty that rather than simply reporting on the election, the media is actually, through some heavy spin of what it does report to magnify some things and marginalize others, and not reporting on certain important things at all, through telling Canadians that certain voices are to be listened to and others are so far out they do not even exist, creating the story of the 2008 Canadian election day by day - a story that is accepted by most voters whose lives are too busy to dig deeper than the daily newscast or paper, a story that will in time become the history of this time - but a very false 
and dangerous story, for all of its seeming benign-ness, which is not based on truth as most people would define the term, but on an Orwellian 'created history', a sanitized and even fictional version of the events we are experiencing, a version that is designed to create a false sense of what is happening to serve the demands of the rulers of the country (which would be keeping them in power and pursuing a certain agenda, an agenda most Canadians do not approve of).
Admittedly this will be seen by most as a rather shocking accusation levied against the Canadian media, which is widely viewed as a highly competent and responsible media (they say so often enough themselves, to be sure - which, one of the outside-the-box perspective might note, is part of the less-than-fully-true narrative they are attempting to create of these times) - so to make the case that the Canadian media is actually in the business of creating history, a la Orwell's Ministry of Truth, rather than simply reporting on it, let's start with a quick assessment of the main stories as noted above they are telling everyone about the Canadian election of 2008:
Creative writing example 1: Dion the ineffectual loser: The Canadian media has actually been creating this story for the last twenty-odd months, since Dion was elected leader of the Liberal party. Not a day has gone by since Dion became leader in which he has not been ridiculed in some way by the media, both headlining attacks by the Conservatives or 'anonymous backroom sources' with no or at best minimal response and adding their own voices to the mockery with few dissenting opinions allowed, from the original 'backroom dissatisfaction' of his selection to the current attacks on his Green Shift policy, which, since he introduced it, the media have been telling everyone daily how hard it is to understand. It is not really that hard to understand, but even if it was a bit complicated, the impartial observer, used to thinking for him or herself rather than selecting from various options mandated by their media, reacts with some surprise, wondering is this a normal position for a media en masse? If the media people really cannot understand a major policy of a leading political party during an election or the runup thereto, wouldn't it be their job to talk to people who did understand it, and give that information to Canadians, rather than interviewing a few people who also say they cannot understand it and offering that as 'proof' of their own lack of understanding? If the reporters hired to cover election issues are too unintelligent or inexperienced to understand a major policy of a major Canadian political party, shouldn't the management consider hiring some more useful and intelligent reporters who can grasp and explain things above a grade-school sound-bite level, as is their job in covering important events like elections? Is it really the job of the media to be interpreting things like this through their own limited prism and telling Canadians day after day that this limited interpretation is to be accepted as fact, or is it the job of a competent, responsible media to simply report things, and offer diverse and fair commentary and interpretation from those qualified to comment, so the people of the country can decide themselves through an appropriate democratic process what to think and do?
(cont'd at http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/media-narrative.html )
Stumble It!
I have always said that Canadians are not going to be ready to move on from the status quo and capitalism until they at least experience the disappointment of the NDP. Now, I doubt like hell the NDP are actually going to form the government, but I wouldn't totally exclude it here either, in the chaos of what is about to happen. (Even Jack Layton and Dion especially, are starting to sound like they have an expectation of a sea change shift here. Save where Jack is starting to sound more
confident about what just MAY happen here, Dion and the Liberals are more worried, and sounding less confident.)
And in the case of the Liberals, I think it is for good reason on a number of fronts.
First , Canadians are being much enlightened here, having the scales removed from their eyes, by simply having the benefit of observing the dramatic final result of extreme right wing governance in the US Empire Heartland. And it is scaring the hell out of them. With good reason for them as well. And they by now know that the Conservatives in this country have been pursuing the same essential bootlick
economic and political/foreign policies as their dumbass Neoconbrethern there-, and they are suddenly scared it may/is already happening to us. Which it is, of course.
At the same time, they know that the Liberal Party, though they may be vague on the details, has been associated with much of this lining up of the country with US economic and political policy as well, for sure as enablers, certainly in the foreign and economic policy cases of NAFTA and Afghanistan-, and no less are they becoming aware of the economic and political consequences of these initiatives by now. ( And, frankly, it's not that I'm convinced Canadians are averse to kissing ass,
especially US ass. We have a long history of the taste of Empire ass in our mouths, starting with the British Empire. It's just that they have this unreasonable
expectation that it should secure them some actual benefit, and a little respect.
Which, as I suggested up top, looks like it MAY just be about to benefit the NDP in a big way all of a sudden.
Not, as I've already said, that it changes where and how I line up in the least, because I've been around a long time and experienced the NDP on a whole number of
different fronts and levels.They are still just this country's 2nd Liberal Party in waiting, and will, in my view, prove the same disappointment as New Labour in Great Britain under Tony Blair, and now Brown. They are all cut from the same "compromised", cut a deal with corporate capitalism view of the world cloth, in my view.
That said. we may still be about to witness something historically very interesting
here. And Canadians still do, in all likelihood, have to live through the disappointment of the NDP in order to advance to anything more truly and radically "transformative" of society.
Meanwhile, allowing for a total disappointment along the way, of the order of the emergence of an outright fascist state in the collapsing US Empire Heartland, that could change everything, (Anybody read Naomi Wolf, or seen her interview on CBC news?) those of us who do NOT see the NDP as the begin and end all of progressive social development, need to be looking to and planning for the next stage in the development of all this. (And , when the ground of history begins to move, shit can suddenly happen very fast.)
Which does NOT mean that I see persons caught up in the excitement of this and still wanting that NDP Experience, just to convince themselves of its worth or non-worth if nothing else, as anything harmful to the "progressive" political experience and
movement at all. I'm old enough to know and understand that history and social development moves to its own internal dyanmic and timetable, not mine.
Even my old lady has this "soft spot", this need "to believe" in the NDP. And she knows better. I know she does. And yet... When one has an itch, ya just need to scratch it. And it's beginning to look like the NDP may just be about to be that kind of an itch.
Coyote
Perhaps the "stupid" voter (did she or didn't she call voters stupid?) is seeing just how little difference there is between the archaic governing parties. With an all-time low at the polls last election, it is to me an indicator of the voters perceived uselessness in voting for either the Libs or Cons. But they weren't yet ready to vote NDP or Green, for any number of reasons. So they stayed home.
Can always hope that this time around they will show up. I think Harper is counting on a low turnout to catapult him into his majority................
Good post, Remind me again, is it "he who votes that counts or he who counts the votes that counts". Now, how do we know that are votes are being tallied correctly?
We don't, of course.
It much all depends on how much "faith" you have in The System.
Moi?
Precious little.
Coyote
With less Orwell, than Huxley who thought the problem was that
people would amuse themselves to death with trivial stuff.
And behold, an election filled with madness and idiocy.
Leaders cavorting like prancing, leering goats, each
with an answer to a question no one asked. And daily
it gets colder. Yes, things are shaping up for a very
tough winter. We?re damn near out of oil.
The American economy is in the tank, and the tank
is heading this way. Meanwhile, instead of sharing
and reflecting on these real and dangerous things,
we?re going to vote for meanness and revenge, for
giving realtime life imprisonment terms to fourteen
year olds. Artists and intellectuals are to be seen as
villainous creatures and the enemy of ordinary people.
We now care more how people talk than what they
say. And how they look over what they mean.
Instead of sticking together, we?re going to do our
best to pull ourselves apart. And this election will be
remembered as the beginning of the endarkenment
and the emergence of a new nation of thinkless people.
Like the swindlers in the children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes" they are telling Canadians what to think and what to believe and trying to scare them out of thinking for themselves and deciding for themselves with ridiculous scare tactics, while not providing any evidence proving any of what they say, wanting and expecting Canadians to blindly believe what they are told to believe, while the evidence proves the exact opposite to be the truth...I see right through it and don't understand how anyone who considers the facts and evidence for themselves could not.
The left doesn't own Canada, and it doesn't have a monopoly on the Canadian identity.
Canadian != social democrat
Americans, left and right, are very protective of their country and their independence and culture and identity yet we as Canadians have been manipulated out of and discouraged not to be...that's a very big clue about who is behind this and that they are not Canadian or loyal to Canada and Canadians.
ALL Canadians need to wake up and see the truth, before it's too late.
What the hell you talking about, "what passes for an individualist"? You know goddamn well you believe in the "big nanny state government". You just believe in a Nanny State for the ruling class is all. It's only the working class that should have to live with dog eat dog Laissez Faire Capitalism-, if you dipshits have your way. And the evidence of this pudding is in the actual eating of it. That's what all these extremist right-wing corporate tax-cuts (Harper) and bail-outs are all about: Socialist Handups and Handouts for the Wealthy and lean and mean "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps Laissez Faire Capitalism" for the rest of us poor saps.
Screw you! Take your head out of your ass and take a deep breath of the real world.
And while we're talking about handouts to business, how can we ignore the Canadian example of Liberal governments having made it their mission to make sure certain companies stay not just afloat but successful, despite what the market would have had to say. Say, are you opposed to government handouts designed to keep a Canadian car plant open, Peyoteman? I know I am.
The irony of the left in Canada is that while it blathers on endlessly about "workers" and "working families", its political organs seem much more preoccupied with transferring wealth from people who work to people who don't. That's the real "class struggle" - between the contributors and the looters and moochers.
Complete nonsense. And as for the politicians serving the right in Canada, they are clearly preoccupied with transferring Canada and what belongs to Canadians to the U.S., THAT'S the real issue and the far more important one affecting ALL Canadians and our country and those responsible are the true moochers and looters.
As for "What Passes for A Right Wing Individualist" here, where capitalism demonstrates that it can no longer do the job of meeting the needs of society and the working class who creates its wealth, and seeks through plant closures and attempts to move off-shore, whatever, I am in favour of bidding them adieu and facilitating their departure. And as part of this "failure of capitalism", I am in favour of workers and communities taking over and assuming ownership and control of these former and failed "capitalist" enterprises and plants, especially at the level of large scale corporate operations that serve an ongoing need to the interests of society and the economy, with the co-operation/assistance of such instruments of the state as are yet needed, to rewrite the laws and restructure publicly funded financial instruments as will get this restructuring transformation and democratization of the economy through its early "start-up" pains, and up and running. That's what I am in favour of, and have never shrunk from the implications of, or the wingnut name calling ad nauseum.
It will become clear as this "crisis of capitalism" rolls out here, I think, though there may be more up and down gyrations that draw it out over time yet, if it is not already clear to some in the working class and broader stratas of society, that there is more than a band-aid solution needed here, providing yet more Rightist Nanny State "socialism for the corporate ruling class". And what will also become clearer, where it has not already, is that the fundamental, underlying need to not only the problems of the economy but also the clean-up and protection of the environment, is for the radical democratization of the economy and especially its large scale, major enterprises. And I'm not talking the old State nationalization solutions that have already proven in the former communist and socialist governance models to lead over time back to capitalism-, and even now in the US is the favoured instrument currently proposed in the Rightist State US bailout of financial institutions, but worker and community takeovers with the assistance of federal and provincial governance, and the democratization of ownership, board rooms and management. It is long past time that these corporate ownership, board room and management environs were populated by worker, community, NGO, and consumer interests, in ways that not even the old "nationalized" models allowed for. And where their governance functioning still remained overwhelmingly authoritarian, excluding worker and community participation and interests.
Just so we are clear, "wishes he was a true Individualist", on what I think the solution to these financial institution collapses and plant closings are.
We need the elaboration and creation of a new "power model" in society, based on worker and broader community interests and participation. (Which is not to say that where we can cut deals that allow for the "grandfathering" of the current ruling class out of the "power" picture that this new "power model" should not. What is important is that it gets done. The sooner the better. The current ruling class did this itself with the old aristocratic feudal ruling class of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially England, during the time of their revolutionary upheavals. On the other hand, we have the French Revolution model where that could not be done.