Comments (2)

This study doesn’t tell you anything you didn’t already know.

Its findings will be endlessly analyzed and re-analyzed, naturally, but to no effect. You’ve heard it all before. The end result is the same: the traditional media continues to slowly die, and traditional media types don’t know how to stop it.

One of their claims irritates or amuses me, depending on the day. It’s their claim that democracy itself is at risk, because they alone are the people who safeguard democracy.

Their solipsism is breathtaking. It is beyond arrogant.

The reason why big media are dying is because of democracy – not despite democracy. As I wrote early this month, here, it is big media themselves who digitized everything they do, mostly so they could maximize profit.

As historians of the era will note, that’s how they screwed themselves on an epic scale. It was a delicious Marxist irony: with digitization, they placed the means of media production in the hands of average folks. Average folks thereupon took the ball and ran with it.

That isn’t AGAINST democracy, corporate media! THAT IS DEMOCRACY.

This web site (not blog!) has been going for over a decade. Since re-design, it’s had well over six million visitors.

That’s not because Yours Truly is particularly insightful or innovative. I don’t think I’m either, in fact.

Web sites like this one are read because citizens like the idea of citizen media. They don’t like hearing from the same old voices all the time, about the same old stuff. They like being able to contribute themselves, if they are moved to do so.

They think democracy is improved, not diminished, by more voices. And, along the way, if that means that corporate media bosses have to find new ways of doing things, or find new lines of work?

Well, tough shit. That’s democracy.

Comments (18)

Modelled by Son Two and me!

Comments (5)

Here.

Comments (7)

In politics, as in comedy, timing is everything.

On Wednesday morning, Liberal MP Marc Garneau announced he was withdrawing from his party’s leadership race and offering his support to Justin Trudeau. Given that the former astronaut was considered Trudeau’s main opponent — and given how relentlessly critical he’d been of Trudeau — Garneau’s move should have been big news.

It wasn’t. A few short hours later, a bit of white smoke heralded a new pope, and Francis stepped out before the crowds in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican. And that was that for Garneau, and the attendant Garneau headlines.

In politics, timing is everything.

Had they come along sooner than they did, Kim Campbell and John Turner might have benefited from a different result. But when your party has been in power for around a decade — and Christy Clark and Kathleen Wynne know this too well — the timing is all wrong. The timing is against you.

The timing was against Garneau in every conceivable way, too. It was almost cosmically ordained against him.

At a time when the Liberal party had determined it needed “generational change,” Garneau was older and Trudeau was younger. At a time when Grits wanted excitement and passion, Garneau arguably had little — and Trudeau inarguably had both in abundance. At a time when Liberals felt they needed a sharp contrast to Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair — both older, grumpy-looking men — Trudeau fit the bill. Garneau, meanwhile, did not appear all that dissimilar from those he pledged to defeat.

Like we say, timing. Trudeau had it, Garneau didn’t.

The papal news notwithstanding, some pundits tried to be upset about Garneau’s departure, ill-timed or not. To them, it exposed the Liberal race as a farce. It was indisputably a coronation, now. It was bad for the Liberal party. It was bad for Trudeau. It was bad, bad, bad.

Well, no, actually. The Liberal leadership race has had as many as eight contestants opposing Trudeau. Few of them have hesitated to take nasty swipes at the front-runner, denigrating everything from his experience to his upbringing.

The race has been many things, but a coronation is not one of them.

Some columnists suggested Trudeau will emerge from the months-long contest untested by adversity. Again, no.

In mid-December, to cite one unforgettable example, a Sun News Network reporter chased Trudeau from an event outside Toronto, repeatedly questioning him about his appearance at an Islamic conference. From the door of the venue to the door of his ride, Trudeau was unflappable, and treated the reporter as if she literally did not exist. (Even Sun News later joked that the reporter had been rendered “invisible.”)

Trudeau’s organizers were upset about the encounter, but they shouldn’t have been. They should have instead made copies of the two-minute video and sent them to every card-carrying Liberal.

It showed Trudeau as all the best leaders usually are — calm, cool and completely contemptuous of the news media.

All of the other criticisms of the Liberal leadership contest are also irrelevant.

Some of those who signed up won’t vote?

The debates haven’t been edifying? The party has been disorganized?

Every party’s leadership race, since the dawn of time, has been similarly criticized. Not one of those complaints is new or noteworthy.

Trudeau will win the Liberal leadership — and the keys to Stornoway after that, and the keys to 24 Sussex after that — because his timing is right. Garneau understood that, and Harper and Mulcair will eventually, too.

And, when your political timing is right, not even a papal intervention can stop you.

That may not be fair, that may not be right, but that’s the way it is.

Comments (46)

This, plus a lot of shuttered businesses still.

Comments (8)

“Droll thing life is — that mysterious arrangement of merciless logic for a futile purpose. The most you can hope from it is some knowledge of yourself — that comes too late — a crop of inextinguishable regrets.”

From The Heart of Darkness.

Comments (11)

Sorry.

Comments (10)

They live in interesting times, Ontario’s political leaders do.

The Liberals need to accommodate the NDP if they want to stay alive. But if they give away too much, they risk being seen as weak, and having traded fiscal probity for self-interest.

The PCs have relegated themselves to the sidelines, once again – but, as Jean Chrétien used to remind us, the job of the Opposition is to oppose. And too much cooperation – as Dion and Ignatieff can testify – can be toxic to your brand. (Too much “being nice,” as well.)

The NDP, meanwhile, can’t lose. If they continue to extract concessions from the Wynne Liberals, they’ll get to claim credit. And, when the relationship has outlived its usefulness, they can summarily execute the Grits and say “it’s time for a change.”

As I write in Fight The Right, even progressive voters think an abundance of cooperation and consensus is synonymous with weakness. It’s a mistake to always equate conciliation with strength. It isn’t. Ask Stephen Harper.

If I’m right, the Ontario NDP has the upper hand. One of their opponents appears inert, the other seemingly lies prostrate.

The only risk to the Horwath New Democrats, at this point, is being seen as propping up the government for too long. My hunch? They’ll continue to take what they can, then stick in the knife after April’s budget.

What’s yours?

Comments (17)

I was taught by Jesuits. So was my Dad.

Jesuits taught me about social justice, trade unionism, liberation theology, the power of words, fighting intolerance, and real liberalism.

The new pope being a Jesuit?

That’s a big, big deal.

Comments (29)