From mainlanders who spent a bit of time in St. John’s at some point and think they understand Newfoundland.
For the most part, the only thing worth saying about Senator George Baker’s comments is that they have been matched in their shallowness by the editorial commentary in some of the country’s newspapers.
If Dan Leger actually knew anything about Newfoundland – and maybe even Labrador – he’d realise that Senator Baker is largely the pre-occupation of the mainlanders.
Outside of the local crowd that stand eternally ready to promote their fantasy of victimisation, the rest of us had better things to do than sweat the rise of a bloc-head party.
We’ve heard all this before.
-srbp-
4 comments:
And we've heard all about soaring poll numbers before, too.
But that won't stop the latest poll-news (which, according to the Tely, show that "not much has changed") from shaping the next news-cycle.
Perhaps coincidentally (?), the Tely is also carrying a CP story that Dangovt has produced a baby boom in NL.
Wiseman's performance at Health was so last-week's news.
"If Dan Leger actually knew anything about Newfoundland – and maybe even Labrador – he’d realise that Senator Baker is largely the pre-occupation of the mainlanders."
Wasn't that an underlying point of Leger's piece?
What exactly did he get wrong?
Liam:
Winston actually wrote something worth looking at since it really expands nicely on my point overall.
In this case, leger's comments struck me as being what happens when some guy spends a bit of time here and then thinks he knows it all. It's really superficial.
To say that Baker was the buzz of the coffee shops is to grossly overstate the reality. Some mainlanders got the knickers in a twist. The rest of us just carried on with our lives after another "here he goes again" moment.
We've all seen this stuff before and having people talking about separatism or anything else along those lines is old frackin' news, at best.
Leger's also off-base if he assumes that any reaction to Baker is based on the idea that "small" provinces aren't allowed to "speak up for themselves." It's happened before and it happens all the time so there is no sense to my mind that provincial governments cannot discharge their responsibilities.
It's like the bit about Newfoundland being the butt of jokes and so on. This is just in the hyper-personalised nature of discussions lately and really gets into the realm of caricature. What he missed though is that part of the problem between St. John's and Ottawa right at the moment is the highly personalised, deliberately polarised nature of the relationship. Just because the current crowds in both places act this way does not mean the relationship is fundamentally broken. it's only broken in the minds of the people who see some personal political advantage in presenting their approach as being the salve for a wound which is - for the most part - invented.
Overall the thing that struck me wasn't that Baker spawned the predictable blather; he WAS the predictable blather. Leger just joined the fray with what apmounted to blather of his own.
For me, the three "back home" groaners in Leger's piece were the real kickers:
1) "The equal knee-jerk reaction back home was every bit as predictable."
2) "And if Canadians only knew how mainstream Baker’s ideas are back home, they would be shocked."
3) "What Baker said last week shocked the country. But it’s daily coffee shop chatter back home in Newfoundland."
The "back home" writing tic is not just annoying. It also serves as a type of rhetorical cover for his lack of actual reporting, since he backs up his assertions by claiming personal knowledge: "I have lived and worked in Newfoundland."
Post a Comment