Monday, June 13, 2011

The Party Of Paranoia

Obviously, a sweeping generalization, but in totality I would argue Conservatives tend to be a paranoid bunch. The rest of the world is an enemy, a host of motivations comes from an "us vs them" mentality, it provides inspiration and resolve. Fundraising revolves around fighting phantom menaces, positions always seem to entail some sort of suspicion, nothing is to be trusted, everything conspires. Taken to the most absurd extreme, even science is bloodied into some left wing vehicle, using dubious methodology to support ruinous theories.

In today's The Hill Times, a story about the real opposition the Conservatives face, the MEDIA. This thrust comes on the heels of what is perhaps the most bizarre fundraising letter from the Conservatives in some time. Now, we can argue about whether a bias against the Liberals, NDP in our mainstream media, supported by empirical, objective facts. BUT, one is entirely hard pressed to support the notion that the Conservatives persevered in spite of the "maelstorm" of negativity they were subjected to during the election. Fact, the Conservatives received the most favorable coverage during the election. Fact, the Conservatives received the most telling of all "support", with a near complete SWEEP of endorsements. On issues, the Conservatives played dodge and weave to great success, even the most nonsensical of proposals were quickly adopted as though credible. In other words, to actually posit that the Conservatives won DESPITE the media is patently absurd and requires certain psychological diagnosis for said proponents. And YET, I guarantee donations will flood to the Conservative coffers, because there is no question this idea of a media out to get them is deeply held and widely understood.

The Conservatives don't seem to understand journalism, or at least how it is supposed to act. Journalists aren't supposed to blow sunshine up your ass, they are supposed to hold you to account, they are inclined to ask questions and demand verifications. Let's take the evil Terry Milewski for example, a Liberal mole if I've ever seen one. Do Conservatives FORGET Milewski during the Liberals reign, the RELENTLESS pursuits, the dog on a bone mentality that haunted past governments? Did the world just start in 2006, or do we have the capacity to note that nothing has changed, the same zeal Conservatives claim conspire against them absolutely HAMMERED the Liberals in persistent fashion. Particularly in a majority situation, wherein the opposition is neutered and largely ineffective, the role of media becomes that much more pronounced to address and highlight slights that aren't in the public interest.

The Conservative base isn't mainstream, if the online manifestation is any template, it's a truly unattractive concoction. Perhaps the mentality within this fringe existence provides the clue as to kneejerk paranoia. Because the rest of the world operates outside the margins, there is a friction with the mainstream, it doesn't share the warped perspective so therefore it is the enemy. As well, this misfit manifestation forms an alternative collective, it feeds itself, insulates from outside assertions with mass denial. I submit the climate change debate again as a prime example, it's simply amazing to watch how shared reassurance can create an alternate universe. Again, forces exist trying to trick us, THEY have some hostile agenda and we must resist it and not be co-opted by THEIR "religious" desires.

You will notice on almost every issue, Conservatives have created an enemy, it begins with a negativism. The media perspective is nothing more than an extension of the core thrust which permeates almost everywhere. Even though evidence exists to support the exact opposite reality, Conservatives can still claim the press are out to get them- return their Liberal masters to their rightful domain- and find almost universal support amongst their hardcore base. So, when a reporter asks why you took money for a border fund and bought a gazebo, it isn't a pursuit for truth, it's an agenda showing itself. Seriously.

20 comments:

Jerry Prager said...

Since conservative supporters have proven over and over again that all their talk about transparency, accountability and democracy was a lie from the beginning, and that the need for reform applied only to their enemies, they will continue to fall deeper and deeper into their own sink hole, and the corporate media will continue to enable that delusion.

Never mind the hundreds of millions in wealth transfers during the Action Plan Spin Cycle Scam. Parliament is irrelevant, the PMO is now all, and this country is dropping like a stone into the fantasies of paranoid schizophrenics.

Bush League North, war as a racket of predatory capitalism, security state as a racket of corporatism, climate denial as as means of consolidating all water and arable land.

Woe to the pharisees and hypcocrites when they finally wake up and see how much they've been duped by their own willingness to believe every lie from Harper's mouth.

Shiner said...

The sad thing is that it wouldn't be an issue if the media didn't roll over and show its belly to maintain "objectivity".

Owen Gray said...

The patients are in charge of the asylum. And they will take proactive measures to ensure that "the staff" are kept outside.

Tof KW said...

I hate to say that short of a complete economic collapse, I can't see the media turning on the Harper government ...and even then they'll just figure out a way to blame the Liberals for it.

The MSM were bad enough during the Chretien years, but even so they still stuck with stories like Shawinigate and the HRDC Boondoggle.

But with Harper, aside a few individual reporters, on the whole our MSM has become almost useless now. Harper's had so many friggin' scandals now I can't keep track any more, yet a lowly page carrying a 'Stop Harper' sign seems to get more attention in the news than anything else.

So now the media are the CPofC's enemy? That's like saying the Taliban are Al-Qaeda's enemy.

Frunger said...

You can argue both sides of the "media bias" angle by throwing examples from left and right, but don't try to convince anyone that one editorial endorsement at the end of an election outweighs 39 days of election coverage and years of prior slant.

With the rare exception of ideological papers like the Tor Star or the Sun chain, most middle of the road newspapers just try to pick the winner to cover their butts.

We read more stories about some kid getting kicked out of a rally (1 day story, tops), Brett Carson (who cares?) and obscure candidate Gaffe-o-the-Day tracking than thoughtful analysis of any party platforms.

Steve V said...

Fair enough, but don't isolate yourself to just this facet of a larger conversation. The McGill study for the past election showed a decided advantage in "favourable" coverage for the Cons, which simply can't be the case if you buy in to the idea that they were hammered relentlessly during the campaign. Also, endorsements do matter, they do say something, and the one sided nature the past three elections isn't just coincidence or not worth considering.

Alison said...

For your files, Steve, in case you don't already have it :
Dwayne Winseck's breakdown of each media groups' market share and election editorial endorsements as of May 1

Steve V said...

Thanks Alison :) I looked at the wiki list for the last three elections, but not market share.

sharonapple88 said...

Brett Carson (who cares?)

Do you mean Bruce Carson? There were several controversies attached to Bruce Carson.

1. Carsons was employed as policy analyst/troubleshooter from 2006-2008 even though he has numerous past fraud convictions. (minor controversy)

2. Lobbying. Carson becomes executive director of Canada School of Energy and Environment after it receives a federal grant and lobbied for the program while a part of the PMO. He also lobbied the government for his fiance's water company. Turns out that Carson's exploiting a loophole that allows government officials to lobby the government before the 5-year ban. This is enough for numerous letters of Conflict of Interest sent to the Ethics Commisioner, an RCMP investigation, and for Democracy Watch to get upset about it.

3. Questions are raised about why Carson becomes executive director of Canada School of Energy and Environment. He has no academic background in the environment or energy. The Tyee article linked above questions why Carons was at the helm there.

Stories on the government may or may not be important, but until we know the details, we can't really make a judgement either way on the matter.

Steve V said...

Great breakdown, and everyone should care, particularly about number 3.

Jerry Prager said...

Carson was also rubber stamped by now RCMP Commission then National Security Advisor Wm Elliot, the man in charge of RCMP G20 security, story disappears: Guy Giorno gets tagged in Duceppe phone tap tape as a Quebec racketeer, story disappears. The reality is 80% of Canadian media is own by three conservative corporations, add in spin cycle scam money, and voila, crime pays.

Marpman said...

In reference to paranoia I read today's issue-at-large, Kevin Page raising warning flags about the government's austerity plan.
The number of commentators who call him a Liberal Hack and call for his dismissal. It seems that the Cons love to create these offices to provide the illusion of accountability and transparency, but heaven-help the person who is appointed. Kevin Page has continually attempted to fulfill his mandate, but his days must be numbered, replaced with someone who read the memos ordering him to say sweet things about the government.
Also in reference to your 'us vs them' comment....the number of people who comment on the news article with 'we won, so get over it lefties.' is just scary.
So much for democracy.

Steve V said...

The way the Cons go after Page is quite revealing on the accountability front. Any questioning and people are labelled liberal stooges, look at every civil servant that has dared dissent. The reactions to Page are an extension of the paranoia.

sharonapple88 said...

Great breakdown, and everyone should care, particularly about number 3.

Agreed. If you didn't like Adscam, how could you be indifferent to this?

Also in reference to your 'us vs them' comment....the number of people who comment on the news article with 'we won, so get over it lefties.' is just scary.
So much for democracy.


Democracy doesn't get it right all the time. We do get the chance to correct mistakes. ;)

Still, if Kevin Page was wrong, you'd think that they'd have something to back up their points with fact. Pointing to the election say nothing on whether Page is right or not.

Tof KW said...

The Harper Government® appointed Kevin Page as Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer on 25 March, 2008. Clearly that makes him a Liberal stooge.

Roy Eappen said...

It is quite amusing to read your blog. I guess you are saying 40% of Canadians are a fringe group , while liberals who got less than 20% of the vote are a majority opinion. Keep up that attitude and your party will disappear.
The Tories work harder than the grits and are better at fundraising and keeping up with their grassroots.
Some of our appointments become ottawashed. The grit hires have openly opposed the Tories since the beginning. That will slowly change with time.
It is also amusing to watch the openly grit Toronto Star now snuggle up to the dippers.

Steve V said...

40% of Canadians aren't part of the base, it's gullible bots like yourself I refer to. Keep up the delusional existence and I'll keep NEVER reading your blog :)

Jerry Prager said...

Kevin Page has already said (before the election) he won't seek a second term. which is too bad, because Page has been right in his numbers EVERY time Flaherty was wrong. But then Flaherty lied to the Ontario legislature about 5.6 billion in debt he had hidden when he was Ernie Eves min of finance. That never stop the corporatist media from thinking Flaherty was a great finance minister, nor did it stop conservatives from call the McGuinty liberals fiberals because they couldn't keep their election promises because of Flaherty's lie.
You just have to look at Roy's comments to know that he doesn't care about principles, just power, it doesn't matter what the Cons campaign on, power is the only thing they care about, when they start shooting people on the street, people like Roy will say it serves people right for not obeying their masters.

Jerry Prager said...

And to nit pick, the cons didn't win 40% of the vote. Their majority also only hinges on 6000 votes in 14 ridings.

Jerry Prager said...

And to nit pick, the cons didn't win 40% of the vote. Their majority also only hinges on 6000 votes in 14 ridings.