In 2008, this paper gave Harper an endorsement, fulled with a bunch of caveats, almost a way of covering themselves, while simultaneously giving approval. A mere month or two later, Harper's actions proved their "growing into the job" thesis was laughable, but I suppose when on is bent one endorsing, you find rays of light regardless. I took pleasure in the fact, that once again, the supposed left wing media, was an illusion created by ideologues, with no basis in fact.
Here we are in 2011, and as EXPECTED, The Globe and Mail, formerly Canada's great paper has endorsed Harper again. It's a strong word "endorse" because it gives sanction to action, it gives the stamp of approval to a campaign, what has transpired. Let's forget about the Liberals, NDP for a moment, and just assume their presentations don't deserve endorsement. This fact then, doesn't automatically mean endorsement is guaranteed based on a relativism. No, you are ENDORSING someone, you don't weasel out using the opponent plan to find admirable qualities, you are saying we ENDORSE this man, his party, their behaviour. If you have problems with said party, you can simply endorse no one, and that in and itself is really a testament to a certain integrity, a standard. However, this paper, in another example of falling stature, has ENDORSED Stephen Harper. Let's review then what they have ENDORSED:
- a party that changes its budget 17 days later, completely undercutting any fiscal credibility, refusing to explain the changes, rationale, costing.
- a party that purposely misleads Canadians on the BIGGEST military expenditure in history.
- a party which has promised Canadians a package of goodies, based on unforeseen events, using dicey math, all in a brazen attempt to change the rules on what constitutes a "promise"
- a party which has purposely distorted the nature of Parliamentary democracy, the very core principles upon which this nation exists
- a party which limits accountability, a Prime Minister who manipulates the press with unilateral rules and constraints. In a democracy, the attempt to avoid scrutiny is alarming, particularly when it involves flipping the bird to YOUR OWN MEDIUM.
- a party which does background checks on audience participants and attempts to sanitize their presentation in such a way that is snake oil salesman-like visually.
I could go on and on, but how any paper which prides itself on its high journalistic standards, an entity which supposedly stands for integrity, could ENDORSE this behaviour escapes me. Again, fine, don't endorse the Liberals or NDP, but that decision doesn't DEMAND you ENDORSE this most shameful of campaigns, the likes of which simply has no PEER. The Globe and Mail has endorsed the politics of fear, the notion of unaccountable democracy, the idea that a budget is fiction, the precedent that one can lie about military expenditures with no recourse, THIS IS WHAT an ENDORSEMENT means. The paper doesn't get to separate the totality and cling to certain arguments, an ENDORSEMENT is just that, you've sanctioned this behaviour, you've told Canadians it's fine to run this type of campaign, these tactics, you've given it your blessing. I will never look at The Globe and Mail the same, it has only reaffirmed that it's part of the problem, not any solution for those of us who aspire to a true HIGHER standard. Shame on The Globe and Mail, shame indeed, you have failed, again.