Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Touche

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:26pm - 26 Comments

Glen Pearson questions the reliability of the narrator.

Following Jim Prentice’s retirement, I recall reading some articles about how certain MPs stay on too long and it’s best for them to step aside because they are too set in their partisan opinions. I found myself wondering today if that might not also be true of some pundits.

Tags: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • WDM

    While I do agree that some pundits and journalists wind up past their best before date, it's not as if we can point to 2 or 3 problems and say if only they were gone things will be different. The problem is the Inside Ottawa culture and the topics discussed, not who's discussing it. Everything is about the next poll. I went on a rant earlier about discussion about national implications of by-elections when there were none, but again on Monday and Tuesday that was one of the prime focuses of the nightly talk shows. A lot of people make an assumption, and an incorrect one IMO, that it's ratings that drives this stuff. I could very well be wrong, but IMO, it's the political geeks who watch this stuff and they're likely to watch regardless. If that's your audience you should be ratcheting up the intelligence, not playing it down. I'll go back to the by-elections in closing, does anyone know what the issues that matter are to people in Vaughan, Winnipeg-North, or Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette? No. Understanding those issues, even if we forget them the next day would give us a much better context for ourselves as a people, and show us concrete examples of the local examples of national issues (whether it be the economy, health care, infrastructure, environment etc) than watching partisan pundits hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil when it comes to their own team.

    • Jenn_

      Maybe its journalism school and the "narrative" they're all apparently supposed to find. If I want to read a story, I'll get my e-reader. If I want to know the news, why the hell do I have to wait until it fits into some pre-determined story-line? And if it does have to fit into some pre-determined story-line, why are they all writing the same book? Geez, and they say romance writing is all the same . . .

    • hollinm

      I fully agree. The media decided they wanted to talk about the Vaughan by-election so they could develop and promote a story line. Just like today the story is that Fantino is going to replace Toews. Nobody knows but that doesn't stop the media from speculating.
      I doubt most people watch the boring political shows other than political junkies.Their boring hosts and their lame panels of pundits, and MPs spouting their talking points. Its like they are sitting in a bar, over drinks. Most of the stuff amounts to gossip with little intelligence about the real issues. How did we get to the point where the media interviews the media and that stands for real political commentary in this country?

    • SamDavies

      Alas – this publication has lowered the bar as well. I'm still waiting for Coyne to get back to me on this: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/26/why-should-pol…

      We chase all sorts of shinny objects, and pay little attention to the important things.
      It's interesting how little attention is given to Bill C-32, or things pertaining to Telecom.
      It's also interesting how media has an invested interest in these matters. Hmmmm….

  • bergkamp

    "I found myself wondering today if that might not also be true of some pundits. "

    This might be the only sentence of Pearson's writing that I have ever agreed with. There are many journos who have overstayed their usefulness but Jeffrey Simpson's two plus decades at the Globe is the most inexplicable.

    • FVerhoeven

      Yes, it boggles my mind why the Globe is so full of Jeffrey Simpson. I mean, he may have contributed enough during his career, but that doesn't mean he should be able to feast on such feats forever. His opinions are dated. But then again, he seems to indicate at least this much:

      "And just as the political journalists, the political parties are captured by old habits that prevent them from thinking afresh about the country’s problems and how to connect with voters. So the trench warfare continues." (Simpson, Nov.20)

      Personally I think Lawrence Martin is even worse. He's stuck in a rut even deeper than the one Simpson finds himself in.

      • kcm

        Coming from someone who's professed an admiration for Gunter i find your take hilarious. Simpson is still relevant and Martin really surprised me when i read Harperland. Overall it was a pretty balanced and thoughtful look at the Harper years to date… interestingly Martin was a thorn in the side of Chretien too – no doubt you were complaining then too?

    • wellwell

      That's funny, I immediately thought of Jeffrey Simpson. I've met him, and he's quite a nice man, but his innards have slowly turned to sawdust. Each of his columns conveys essentially the same message: "Let's not be too hasty."

  • JoeC

    I think 2 changes would significantly raise the level of political discourse in Canadian politics:

    1) Preferential Ballots – reduction in partisanship, a more representative and legitimate parliament, etc.

    2) Make polling for political preferences illegal. Maybe then politicians and journalists would focus on sound governance more than how whatever has happened is affecting opinion polls. Polls have become a crutch for both politicians and pundits so that they don't have to have any serious discussion or analysis of policy. The story about a policy becomes about poll numbers rather than analysis of whether or not something is a good idea.

    • kcm

      Like both those ideas. As someone said above, was there any dicussion of issues for voters in any of those ridings at the nation press level – nada!

  • FVerhoeven

    "With the Harper government being stubbornly stable because of the onerous discipline coming from the PMO and its lack of openness with the media, pundits concentrate more on the other parties and their difficulties. In so doing, they have lacked the imagination to truly examine the harm that has been done to democracy in the last few years and keep it enlightening for citizens. And so they concentrate on the politically vulnerable in hopes of keeping things interesting. "

    Yup, interesting piece! It all comes down to trying to fool the public from all sides: being stubbornly stable, the onerous discipline, its lack of openness with the media……….Liberal woes are all Harper's fault. We understand. Mr.Pearson. Keep it up!

    • Holly Stick

      It's a shame you don't even understand what he is talking about. Are you not capable of recognizing the harm done to our democratic government by the Harper government? Before you jerk you partisan knees, I'll add that it is a process started long before him, but the contempt Harper has shown for Parliament, for peace, order and good government, and for the people of Canada is absolutely evident to anyone who is capable of objective thought.

      • hollinm

        You are so full of crap it goes beyond belief. You can't stand it because the Conservatives have a tough leader who is not prepared to allow himself, his party and his government to be walked over by the media and the opposition parties. Harper operates within the rules and you know it. If you don't like the rules change them but to suggest somehow he has shown contempt for peace, order and good government is stupid and lacks rational thought.

        • Holly Stick

          "…Harper operates within the rules…" Lie.

          • hollinm

            Ok big shot tell me what rules he has broken. As you can tell I am not too impressed with your comments. They are way over the top. Has the PM used the rules to his advantage? You bet but he sure has not broken the law or rules as you put.

            When you make such over the top comments then it is up to you to support them with facts. I repeat facts. Not your impressions or your feeling. Just the facts.

          • Holly Stick

            "…When asked if he had a licence to drive an ATV, especially on a runway, Harper said, "I think I make the rules."…"
            http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/08…

            Probably thought he was being "manly" as Fatwa Flanagan would put it.

            And where are those documents on Afghan detainees that he prorogued to avoid having to provide to Parliament?

            And is Dmitri Soubdas still hiding out from being called before a Parliamentary committee?

            And when he broke his own election law?

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Glen Pearson is probably taking a swipe at John Ibbitson in particular.

    Does anyone else notice the little flecks of "snow" that fall down the screen over the text of Pearson's blog? For a moment there, I thought I needed to get my eyes checked.

    • Blue

      Yeah, the flecks kept falling on my screen even after I turned the page.

    • wmabey

      I read Ibbitson's piece after the by-elections, and it read very much like he'd written it the day before, and then stuck in a line or two about how gaining a seat in Manitoba didn't matter, since only Southern Ontario was important.

      It was one of the worst columns I've seen in a long time; the guy should be ashamed for writing it.

  • Emily

    I have often breathed a sigh of relief when certain commentators or authors have passed from the scene.

    The image of Canada is then able to change.

    Something else that will help us is the tipping point reached by population….a tiny echo bubble held us back.

  • Skipper

    They're just holding out for the next round of Senate appointments

  • sourstud

    The pundits will slowly die out with the rest of the MSM. In this day and age most documents or transcripts are available freely on the internet, and there isn't much use for some old school newspaperman/woman to explain the "nuance" of the situation. They're just a bunch of folks who used to have a monopoly on certain information, and can't survive in a world where others have access to the same information. On that note, *highfive* to the Macleans online staff. Always doing a top notch job!

    • SamDavies

      Holy brown nose. Alas – this publication falls into the same paradigm. I'm still waiting for Coyne to get back to me on why my RSS feed had 10 or so turd pieces on royal engagement, but skipped entirely a report by the Minister of Industry.

  • peter

    "the worst day in power beats the best day in opposition"…I think that about sums up all the bafflegab. I'd be remiss for not observing i find this particular blog to be the most relentlessly anti-conservative of any of 15 or 20 msm ones I follow with any regularity. I gave up on O'Malley long ago.

  • Andre

    Hold the alt key, type 130, release the alt key. You get 'touché'.

  • Candace

    Geez, Aaron, when I read the line about knowing the slant just by seeing the byline I immediately thought of you. Have you looked in the mirror lately?

    "… it’s best for them to step aside because they are too set in their partisan opinions…" – food for thought, Aaron.

Previous

Next

From Macleans