Bulletpoint > News

You want to know why the newspapers are dying?  It’s because of articles like this:

Imagine a country where Parliament is padlocked twice in 13 months to frustrate the democratic will of the elected majority. That country is now this country.

Imagine a country that slyly relaxes environmental regulations even as its neighbour reels from a catastrophic oil leak blamed on slack controls. That country is now this country.

Imagine a country that boasts about prudent financial management while blowing through a $13-billion surplus on the way to a $47-billion deficit. That country is now this country.

Imagine a country where a political operative puts fork-tongued words in a top general’s mouth. That country is now this country.

Imagine a country that refuses to fund the same safe abortions to poor women abroad as it provides at home. That country is now this country.

James Travers of the Toronto Star goes on for twenty-three paragraphs in this alliterative, subtle-like-a-hammer style of prose, numbing the average reader into blind agreement, while those who skipped their morning coffee ended up messing their pants.  There are several ideas he seems to be suggesting, but none of them are borne out.  Is Canada retrogressing to an earlier time?  Not really, unless you consider ‘earlier time’ to mean ‘imaginary world that Liberals don’t like’.  Are the Conservatives devastating our political heritage?  Not really, unless if you pretend that there was some golden age where our country wasn’t a mess.  The bullet-point style of this article only serves to provide dyed-in-the-wool Liberal supporters a warm glowy feeling, because somebody smarter than them wrote something that looks sciency.

Some of the things he points out would piss off anybody: the surplus-turned-deficit, the dishonesty in our highest ranks, and fractured system of accountability.  Others are contestable: should we have bailed out GM?  Was Afghanistan worth it?  Has the BP oil spill demonstrated a need for greater oversight?  While the rest are nothing but political sleight-of-hand – I’m thinking of the first point in particular, “frustrate the democratic will of the elected majority”.  When half of your ‘majority’ is comprised of the Bloc, voted in because you convinced Quebecers that Harper was going to stop all funding to the arts, you begin to lose the moral high ground (to anybody paying attention, anyway).

The only discernible theme through the article is that of fashion; rather than have a transparent stance on why some things are good and others bad, Travers frames his argument on what is politically fashionable right now.  You’ll have an easier time understanding him through slogans such as ‘Hope and Change’, ‘Support the troops, not the war’, ‘No blood for oil’, and ‘Climate Change’ than through trying to figure out where he stands on Austrian economics.

Now I’m only 28 years old, so I can’t say that I remember a time when Newspapers were about informing the public, rather than creating the rhetoric with which to cloud the real issues – but Art from back in the day seems to suggest that this was once their role (back then Watergate, nowadays they affix ‘-gate’ to whatever the marketing department says is interesting).  But even if that noble tradition is no more historically accurate than a Knight in Shining Armour, well, guess what Travers?  Times have changed.

Better writers than you are on the scene now, publishing garbage like this online for free – and you can call it amateurish, if you want, but at least our hearts are in the right place.  Some of us actually want to talk about what’s happening – not put a big smoke screen in front of it.  That’s why your newspaper is dying.

So to finish off, let’s look at his conclusion – maybe he actually has a point in there.

Every example is familiar, all are documented. Only the cumulative effect is surprising.

Conservatives came to power knowing reluctant Canadians could only be shifted to the political right incrementally. That movement is now advancing according to the plan Conservative thinker, strategist and Stephen Harper mentor Tom Flanagan infuriated the Prime Minister by making public.

Imagine that.

Ah, so Stephen Harper is a dirt bag, who may-or-may-not sexually molest bags of kittens before drowning them, and politics are about manipulating the public perception (which estate helps them do that, I wonder) and slowly introducing policies, rather than convincing them outright through flashy sloganeering.

We really ought to change out country’s slogan from “A Mari Usque Ad Mare” to “Sit down, Shut up, and Vote Liberal.”

The day after I wrote this article, XKCD published this: