Showing posts with label political communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political communication. Show all posts

14 April 2020

Doctor Aggie's H'Answer #nlpoli


“What do I have to do to get you to listen?” health minister John Haggie asked rhetorically and with considerable exasperation at Monday’s daily COVID-19 briefing.

Haggie was ranting once again about people across the province who he claims are flouting the restrictions on public comingling during the current health emergency.

On Monday, though, Haggie’s daily rants started to sound a bit more shrill and more than a bit condescending.

Anyone can appreciate his deep concern to prevent an outbreak of COVID-19 of the sort people have seen in Italy, New York City, or even Quebec.

But Dr, Haggie has the problem that the measures put in place so far have worked so well at containing the disease across the province that no one can see the danger in front of them.

And to be honest it is hard for the ordinary person to see the immediate danger, at least in the extreme way Haggie apparently sees it.

16 March 2016

Simple words work best #nlpoli

esquire.com last October.

 Big headline:
Donald Trump Woos Republicans By Speaking at a 4th Grade Level
Smaller head:
His competitors from both parties aren't much better.
Aren't much better.

01 June 2015

For want of a nail... #nlpoli

Dwight Ball demonstrated last week how very simple things can turn into problems very quickly. He handed his political opponents a stick they can use to beat him with. The fact they really don;t have much more than innuendo and speculation doesn’t matter. He’s given them a weapon.

Ball confirmed on Friday that the Liberal Party could have released relevant information on the party’s debt repayment on Wednesday.

Ball named the three banks involved in the debt forgiveness deal and indicated the total amount involved.  On Wednesday he had balked, noting there was a non-disclosure agreement in place.

What Ball also confirmed in the process is that he and his team simply weren’t ready on Wednesday for the announcement.  That’s not the first time Ball and his team have made this kind of a simple cock-up.  The simplest way to fix it would be to re-organize the senior end of his office.  Ball needs to bring in some new people, especially ones with significant political experience.  to augment his existing team.

16 January 2013

Happy Talk #nlpoli

Cuts.

Layoffs.

A couple of tight years.

Hard times.

Premier Kathy Dunderdale, finance minister Tom Marshall, and natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy have been preaching that since before Christmas.

Apparently, a couple of Conservative politicians didn’t get the memo.

29 October 2012

Darin King and the Tory Charm Offensive #nlpoli

A couple of the exceedingly small changes in the recent cabinet shuffle came out of the Bill 29 fiasco.  Felix Collins went from the relatively low profile job of justice minister to the complete obscurity of intergovernmental affairs.

Everyone saw that.

And over in another corner, there was a switcheroo people didn’t notice quite as much.  Jerome Kennedy gave up the job of directing Government business in the House so that Darin King could take over.

There was no doubt Jerome had completely frigged up in the House, just like there’s no doubt the Tories are way down in the polls.  The two went hand in hand all last session and indeed, for most of the last year or more.

Darin King offers no chance of changing that.

15 October 2012

The Language of Newfoundland Politics #nlpoli

Some of you may have noticed a couple of words turning up in any discussion of Muskrat Falls.

One is “confused”.

The other is “tired” as in tired of hearing about it.

These are very interesting code words, once you realise what they mean.

14 October 2012

Same Old New Energy! #nlpoli

Thanks to the Telegram’s James McLeod and his Twitter feed from Gander, take a look at two of the resolutions from the Progressive Conservative.

25 September 2012

Tone, Standards and Political Suicide #nlpoli

The song from MASH was wrong.

Suicide is not painless.

And political suicide is more painful to watch than any other kind.

10 September 2012

That and a buck fifty… #nlpoli

Former natural resources minister Shawn Skinner thinks that the Progressive Conservatives can turn around their current abysmal polling numbers if once they get beyond Muskrat Falls and turn their attention to other things.

Skinner was part of the political panel this weekend for On Point with David Cochrane.


Well,  that and a buck fifty and you have a cup of coffee.

08 June 2012

A sign of the problem #nlpoli

One of the reasons why the provincial Conservatives are in political trouble is that their communications are frigged up.

For those who are wondering, that is the relatively polite version of the technical term for it in the communications business.  Think of it like the B-52, one of the largest airplanes ever to fly.  The US Air Force used to say that the crews called it the BUFF:  big, ugly, fat fella.  Well, they didn't actually use the word "fella".  That's just the word the Air Force used so that prissy people wouldn't complain about hearing the word f**ker coming from someone in a light blue uniform.  For others, of another inclination, it's akin to why hippies used to refer to police as "pigs".

Anyway,  James McLeod has a thoughtful piece in his periodic blog over at the Telegram about something he and his colleagues in the Press Gallery have been having with government ministers for the past few months:  they won't talk about good news.

Basically it boils down to this:  ministers won't do media interviews until a bill hits second reading in the House.  Lately this has meant that the opposition and others are talking away about government initiatives days before the minister shows up for an obligatory, pro forma dog and pony show.

It can be a matter of days or weeks after it's been tabled before a piece of legislation makes it to the floor of the House of Assembly for second reading.
This interval is the crux of what we're talking about here today.

McLeod wanted an explanation so he went to Jerome Kennedy, the minister who is responsible for wrangling his team in the House.  Kennedy's response was that this was a time honoured practice going back before 2003.  The idea is that to talk about the bill before it was debated in the House would be an insult to the members of the House.

Well, Kennedy may think that's what is going on.  After all, that explanation is similar to what happens in court.

The truth is something far different. Your humble e-scribbler spent seven years dealing with the legislature in the early 1990s.  If that sort of thing was happening back then, your humble e-scribbler is drawing a complete blank in his old brain box about it.  You see, back in those days, sessions of the House lasted a long longer than they do these days.  Members got lots of time to prepare for debate.  They got the text of the bills well in advance and lots of people talked about one bill or another long before it got to the floor of the legislature.  Wide public debate is what everyone wanted, even when the government might have a bit of pain over things like the Lands Act in the early 1990s.

Somewhere along the line, the government party started to shorten up the time a bill got any discussion in the House.  Remember in the House of Assembly patronage scandal that some stuff went through the House in a day or two?  Yeah, well, this is part of the same thing.  What the government party used to do was try and jam the opposition up.  They'd keep a bill close to their chests until the last possible minute.  Then on the day the government decided to call second reading, they'd hold a media briefing in the morning, then have a briefing for the opposition, give them all the wording of the bill and call the thing for debate in the afternoon. 

The current crowd  - Jerome's crew after 2007 - were famous for it.  They took to the anti-democratic practice just like they loved another Tobin era practice called poll goosing.  The result was pure crap, of course.  The opposition got stampeded into going along with the government because they didn't have any information other than what they'd been fed.

If the House became dysfunctional in the process, to use Kathy and Danny's favourite word for it, it's because Kathy and Danny and some of the crowd before them made it that way.

It's also why they introduce big things like the access to information amendments in the last few days of a long session.  They want to limit discussion and get their way before anyone realises what is happening. 

Someone just said "coughexpropriationbillcough". 

Exactly.

So James does a fine job of highlighting a problem the current crowd are having.

And to go with it, there you have a bit more of the story.

The fact the current crowd are frigging themselves up apparently because of their misunderstanding just highlights why they are having basic political problems.

-srbp-

09 May 2012

The Poster Child for Useless #nlpoli

One of the rationales the provincial government has used to justify Muskrat Falls is the idea that the island will have electricity shortages starting in 2015 and by 2020 there’ll be blackouts, brownouts or some sort of unspecified catastrophe.

If you missed it, here is one official version, from The Economy, 2011:

After years of planning and analysis, Nalcor’s subsidiary, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (Hydro), determined that developing Muskrat Falls is the least-cost solution to a looming electricity shortage in the province, which is expected in the next five to 10 years.

In 2015, Newfoundland and Labrador will reach a capacity deficit when, at peak times, capacity needs may not be met. By 2019, the province will experience an electricity deficit, where the province’s overall electricity demand is greater than what is available.

It’s the worst kind of fear-mongering but it is what they’ve been saying. 

The solution to that looming crisis is pretty simple, according to the provincial government.  Again, here’s what The Economy 2011 lays out:

Hydro assessed the options for new generation sources to avoid the capacity and electricity deficits. The Muskrat Falls project, coupled with a transmission link project to the island, was determined to be the least-cost option.

So with all that as prologue, consider this question posed by Dean MacDonald stand-in Dwight Ball in the House of Assembly on Tuesday:

… what is the government’s plan to those energy blackouts that residents will experience between 2015 and 2018?

You can guess what the answer was from natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy.

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is quite simple. What will prevent the brownouts and the blackouts between 2015 and 2020? Muskrat Falls.

If you are not either banging your head against the table or crapping your pants with laughter at this point, then you are just not paying attention.

This is funny stuff.  You could not possible script a more ridiculous line of questioning at this point in the public debate over the hydro-electric megaproject.

You could not make this stuff up.

Given the Premier’s penchant for telling us that Nalcor is filled with geniuses of other-worldly origins, one might more sensibly ask how it could be that the rocket scientists at Nalcor managed to let the island get into the state where we are on the verge of catastrophe.

After all, that is the logic of their argument.  In 2010, they noticed that the power needle was flirting with the edge of the red zone and the Big E. 

How in the frack could they have missed so obvious a thing?   After all, it is their job to keep an eye on that stuff.  They are supposed to make sure the people who pay their bills have a stable, reliable and low cost supply of electricity.

Now, as a politician, you’d ask the aggressive question because it shows pretty clearly that what Kathy Dunderdale says about Nalcor and  their actual demonstrated managerial competence are two different things.  After all, an opposition political party is supposed to ensure that the government accounts fully “for the management of the public affairs of this province…”.

By contrast, Dwight Ball asked questions  on Tuesday that would normally come from a Tory backbencher sucking around for a promotion to cabinet. For the leader of the Opposition, the questions  were amateurish and reeked of incompetence.

The other questions that Ball asked on Tuesday, like pretty well everything he’s done so far this session, have shown Ball to be the poster child for everything that is politically useless and ineffective. With only one exception, the rest of his caucus have been no better.

Small wonder that the Tories spend all their political energy attacking the province’s New Democrats. The Tories know that the Liberals are more a political threat to themselves than they are to anyone else.

-srbp-

05 May 2012

Political Effectiveness #nlpoli

As these things go, George Murphy’s two days of news about compliance with the province’s ban on pesticides was a tidy and effective bit of political theatre.

The provincial government announced the ban in 2011.  They set May 1, 2012 as the day for the ban to take effective.

Like any enterprising politician, Murphy trucked off to a local store a day or two after the ban took effect.  He found some of the chemicals for sale.  He took some pictures and asked the environment minister about it in the House of Assembly.

The next day Murphy turned up on CBC.  The chemicals had disappeared from the first store but they were still available at one other store CBC featured by name.

“You know we have to see some action on this,” said Murphy. “If the government is going to do something, then go ahead and do it ...get to the job that's supposed to be done here, get these products off the shelves,” he told CBC News.

Simple message.

Effective delivery.

Backed with an example of a department that failed the simple task of doing what they said they would do.

For his part, environment minister Terry French looked like a slack-assed, slack-jawed goof. Here’s what he said in the House of Assembly in response to Murphy’s question:

I just want to remind the hon. member, he seems to have bought them recently. I hope they were not on the black market, Mr. Speaker. I also hope he does not use them, because if he uses them, he will be facing a significant fine.

What you don’t get there is the joking tone French had. It conveyed a sense that French didn’t take the issue seriously.  French came across dismissively, as if saying yeah, we banned it, frig off ya little twerp.

In itself, the story may be relatively small. 

Add enough of these hits together and they will have an impact.

- srbp -

03 October 2011

Do debates matter? Part Deux #nlvotes #nlpoli

Last week ended with a wonderful bit of insight into where televised political debates figure into an election campaign.

Before you go any farther into this post just stop for a second and think of all the media chatter last week about the debate, what the strategies were supposed to be and then what the fall-out was after the whole thing was over.

Now with that load of crap firmly in front of your mind’s eye, look at some of the results from Market Quest Omnifacts’ poll released last week.  look at the bit about the election.

Only one third of those polled actually watched the debate.  Some news media played up the fact that 36% thought Kathy won, 22% picked Lorraine and some small percentage thought Kevin Aylward came out on top. The rest thought no one came out on top.

What likely slid by most people was the fact that only about one third of those polled actually watched the debates at all.  MQO then presented the picks as if 100% watched. 

That’s a fine an example as you can get of how some pollsters mislead people when they ignore the undecideds in their poll results on party choice and tell you only what the decideds said.

You see, two thirds of those polled had something better to do than watch the debates.

That’s the real story for that question:  66% were combing their armpit hair or something else that was more pressing than listening to the province’s three party leaders discuss what they’d do if they got the chance to run the province for the next four years.

A mere 12% of those polled thought Dunderdale won the debate.  Lorraine impressed the bejesus out of seven percent and Kevin picked up two percent of respondents.

13% thought neither of them won.

The debate itself was not some sort of major event for most people in the province. As a result, the debate itself was just one more thing they might see as part of the campaign’s communications alongside print ads, a brochure,  radio and TV spots and stuff that is cropping up on social media.

You’d have to dig into some hard numbers on audience share for the broadcast to get a better sense of how the debate stacks up in impact compared to the others.  Based on experience, your humble e-scribbler would say the debate itself mattered a lot less than other stuff including, incidentally, the media hype, torque, spin and general bullshit that surrounded it.

Include in that general bullshit the way Nalcor’s pollster reported the results:

When asked about the leaders’ debate, 34 per cent of those polled said they watched the televised leaders’ debate on Wednesday, September 28. Of those respondents who watched the debate, 36 per cent felt Kathy Dunderdale won the debate, while Lorraine Michael was seen as the winner by 22 per cent, and six per cent said Kevin Aylward came out on top. The remainder of respondents said there was no clear winner of the debate.

That got into news stories almost word for word.  Here’s the way the Telly reported it, for example:

Thirty-four per cent of those polled said they watched the televised leaders’ debate on Wednesday. Of those who watched the debate, 36 per cent felt PC Leader Kathy Dunderdale won, while 22 per cent saw NDP Leader Lorraine Michael as the winner, and six per cent said Liberal Leader Kevin Aylward came out on top.

The remainder of respondents said there was no clear winner.

Nothing, as some famous politician once said, could be further from the truth.

But you can bet lots of people last week were misled into believing Kathy Dunderdale emerged the clear winner of the debate last week in the opinion of other ordinary voters.  They’d get that idea as a result of the way the poll results wound up in the news fare.

And that message, carried by the province’s news media as if it were true,  likely had a much bigger impact than Kathy Dunderdale’s comments on the night.

- srbp -

29 September 2011

It’s unanimous: more of the same… #nlpoli #nlvotes

So now you’ve either seen the debate or read some of the media coverage about it.

Here’s a question for you:

  • what was the ballot question for you as posed by each of the leaders?

While you’re thinking about that for a second, let’s just review a few things.

Elections are about choices.

Candidates want you to pick one among them.

The ballot question is why you should vote for that one candidate as opposed to the others. The question should be stated in a way that distinguishes one candidate from all the others.  Political campaigns ought to be structured to reinforce the basic choice – the ballot question – over and over.

If you are still wondering about this – and that would be a bad thing for the parties – let’s just begin by figuring out which parties want change and which parties want things to stay fundamentally the same.

After all, in an election where there is an incumbent, the basic question is change versus more of the same.

Take another few seconds, if you need to.

Okay.

Time’s up.

So what was the answer?

Let’s start with the easy one.  The Tory message is the classic incumbent one:  stay the course.  Kathy Dunderdale wants you to vote for the Conservatives because things are good and they will get better.  Tories made a change and now you need to stick with the course that brought the change. 

Kathy Dunderdale said it at the beginning of the debate and she said it at the end. her comments in between supported the proposition by pointing out the good things she and her friends have done and all the bad things the others did or would do if given the chance.

In her television spots, Kathy Dunderdale says she thinks every day about who put her in her current job. Well, it wasn’t ‘we”, but that didn’t stop her from using the magical persuasive construction of talking about joining with her:  “together, we…”

Plus, she respectfully asked for your vote.

She hit her marks every time.

So what about the other two?

Well, it’s a bit of a trick question really.

Parties other than the incumbent should be advocating change.

But if you thought that in this election you’d be dead wrong.

The NDP message was “it’s time.” 

Time for what?  We’ll, Lorraine wasn’t really sure.  it might have been it’s time to give the NDP a turn at the wheel but her heart really wasn’t in it. 

Lorraine Michael spent a lot of time in her opening remarks telling people what they  - the people  - thought. 

No need:  they already know.

She talked about how the NDP had listened and would do something.  people were looking to her for some idea where the NDP would go that was different from where things are.

But when things got going, Lorraine reverted to the default NDP mindset of being a supplicant.  Take the discussion about a seniors advocate. Lorraine talked about it as a nice idea. Kathy got away with saying:  we have no objection to that.  There was the implicit idea behind her comments that Lorraine should come talk to her after the election so the Premier could think about it.

And when Lorraine wasn’t doing that she was criticising the Tories.

Lorraine’s attitude and the general vagueness of her message confirmed that the NDP want the Tories to win.  They have already conceded that they don’t really want change.

Ryan Cleary was right.

And that brings us to Kevin Aylward and the Liberals.

His opening remarks were the first shot to make a simple, clean statement of the ballot question.  Instead, he spent two minutes talking about the other guys. He talked about their ideas and their actions.

And throughout, he spent his time criticising.

That’s what opposition politicians do.  They criticise.

They don’t push ideas of their own and force the other guys to respond on their terms.

They don’t set the agenda for discussion.

Neither Lorraine nor Kevin set the agenda.

They didn’t even try.

If you look at the election platforms of the parties you can see the same thing.  They don’t distinguish themselves.  They give you variations on a theme.

For voters, the message was clear:  better to stick with the crowd you do know than the ones who already told you that where the province is going is just fine.

And if you want to know the extent to which the Liberals and NDP love where the province is right now and what the Tories have been doing – with a few exceptions - consider which parties in this election want to talk about Danny Williams.

Kevin Aylward said the other day that Danny did some neato things.  Heck, Kevin Aylward loves Danny so much he was trying to get Liz Matthews to run for the Liberals in her father’s old seat of St. John’s North.

When confronted about their crude oil tax and tearing up agreements, Sin Jawns North New Dem and party president Dale Kirby invoked the sacred Old Man.  Lorraine would pull a Danny, sez Dale, and not stop until the job got done fighting Big Oil.

At the economic forum on Tuesday night, the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats actually spent more time agreeing than disagreeing on anything.

While the Dippers and Grits are talking about yesterday’s Old Man, Kathy Dunderdale accepted their premise that she will win the election. 

Dunderdale claimed the title of leader Kevin and Lorraine offered her and passed herself off as the agent of change during the debate even though what she is really talking about is more of the same, too.

The debate  - as it turned out - was nothing more than a continuation of the message track each of the parties has been following since Day One.

Funny thing, that.

- srbp -

26 September 2011

Welcome to the Echo Chamber #nlpoli #nlvotes

Pretty simple idea, really.

Opinions, beliefs and ideas move around among like minded people in what is an essentially closed space. 

The effect can be amazingly powerful just as it can be amazingly deceptive and distorting.

President Barack Obama talked about the echo chamber in American political coverage in early 2010 during a meeting with Senate Democrats:

"Do you know what I think would actually make a difference.... If everybody here — excuse all the members of the press who are here — if everybody turned off your CNN, your Fox, just turn off the TV, MSNBC, blogs, and just go talk to folks out there, instead of being in this echo chamber where the topic is constantly politics. The topic is politics."

In the United States, the problem Obama is pointing out is not just the idea of people from different political perspectives focusing on politics exclusively all the time. 

This isn’t the Permanent Campaign* as all-consuming.

It’s about political polarization in the 100 channel universe. People chose what they want to pay attention to and, increasingly, that seems to be a matter of picking only the information  - websites, radio stations and television news programs  - that reinforce their existing beliefs.

Princeton University professor Cass Sunstein describes it this way in the 2001 digital book Echo Chambers:  Bush v Gore, Impeachment and Beyond,

Many of these vices involve the risk of fragmentation, as the increased power of individual choice allows people to sort themselves into innumerable homogeneous groups, which often results in amplifying their pre[-]existing views. Although millions of people are using the Internet to expand their horizons, many people are doing the opposite, creating a Daily Me that is specifically tailored to their own interests and prejudices. Whatever the exact numbers, it is important to realize that a well-functioning democracy—a republic—depends not just on freedom from censorship, but also on a set of common experiences and on unsought, unanticipated, and even unwanted exposures to diverse topics, people, and ideas. A system of “gated communities” is as unhealthy for cyberspace as it is for the real world.

Slightly north of the great republic, and in a much smaller place, there’s another kind of echo chamber.  The way it works may be slightly different but the concept is still the same.

The provincial government makes the noise.  Other provincial opinion leaders – other politicians, key interest groups and news media – reflect the noise back. 

The political parties themselves are semi-closed organizations dominated by self-selecting elites. The rules on who can get into the elites and how aren’t written down.  Sure both the Conservative and Liberal parties have constitutions that set out rules about how they are supposed to work.

But as first the Conservatives and the Liberals showed in 2011, their constitutions are fictions.  First the Conservatives twisted and turned before finally rejecting as illegitimate a candidate for leader of the party who followed exactly the same rules the party bosses themselves used.  Then the Liberals switched leaders.  The party executive may have created the process that ended with Kevin Aylward as leader, but what happened in the five weeks before that – secret offers to this one and that one – could only take place in a group where the written rules and the real rules are two different things.

And lest anyone thing the NDP is different consider the special role given to unions in its constitution.  A party with the word “democratic” in its name was hardly democratic at all.

To see how all this works, consider a couple of examples.

Start with the fishery in the current election to see insiders talking among themselves.

Earlier this year, CBC released the results of an opinion poll they commissioned from Corporate Research Associates. CBC found that:

… 60 per cent of the province believes the fishery should be concentrated in fewer locations to be more efficient.

Only 23 per cent say it is well managed and doesn't need change.

The majority opinion is that a smaller leaner fishery would be more profitable.

That isn’t as surprising as it would have been even five years ago. Times have really changed in the industry. And such a poll result isn’t surprising given that the industry leaders themselves agreed that they have to reduce the number of people and plants in the province.

What is surprising is that – even though a clear majority of people in the province support downsizing and the industry representatives themselves seem to agree - both the provincial Conservatives and Liberals want to create a new version of the Fisheries Loan Board in order to get more people into the industry. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives mentioned that this idea came from the union that represents plant workers and fishermen, incidentally.

Amazing, though, this fisheries policy might be, Muskrat Falls remains the finest example of the echo chamber of local politics and the interconnections among the groups inside the chamber that help to reinforce the messages.

Over the past 18 months, poll after poll done for the provincial government showed that only three or four percent of respondents thought it was the most urgent issue for the province.

Health care was at the top of peoples’ list of major issues, across the province hands down.  The economy and jobs came in second.

Nonetheless, Muskrat Falls has dominated provincial politics since Danny Williams announced his retirement deal in November 2010.

Muskrat Falls is the centre piece of the Conservatives’ re-election campaign.

The Liberals have a section of their platform devoted to hydro-electric development issues.

The New Democrats include it as well, although their comments are much more vague that the other two parties’ commitments.

A St. John’s Board of Trade panel selected the Lower Churchill overwhelmingly as the major issue for the election.

And lastly, a poll released last week shows that Muskrat Falls was a major issue for 13% of respondents.

But hang on a second.

As it turns out, the poll came from the firm that polls for the provincial government’s energy corporation. 

And that Board of Trade thingy.  Well, the panel had only four people on it.  While the BOT didn’t release the names of the panel members, M5 was so proud that Craig Tucker had made the cut, they tweeted about his work on the Board’s panel that put together some comments for the election.

Yes, gang, that Craig Tucker.  Co-chair of the 2003 Tory election campaign, former Tory-appointed director of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro after 2003 and now the guy whose advertising firm is the agency of record for Nalcor.

Meanwhile, the CBC uses Nalcor’s lobbyist as an election commentator alongside their own provincial affairs reporter, as if the two were the same sort of independent political observers.  They didn’t even bother mention that the guy is Nalcor’s lobbyist in Ottawa.

What’s most amazing about CBC and those who reported the poll last week without noticing the Nalcor connections is that they didn’t feel the need to notice the Nalcor connections.

For people inside the echo chamber, that sort of detail might be so well known they didn’t feel like it was an issue.

But outside the circle of au courante types, out among the audience?

Not so much information that they’d readily have those details or even that they’d feel the need to go check. They trust the news media to give their all the relevant information, after all.

More than two decades ago, political scientist Susan McCorquodale wrote about the relationship between the media and politicians in this province.  She described it as '”symbiotic”, a close and long-term relationship that works to the benefit of both.

“News originates with the press release, the press conference or the daily sitting of the House of Assembly,” she wrote.  These days she might have added twitter, e-mail or the Blackberry message from a political source feeding tidbits to reporters.

McCorquodale noted the lack of investigative reporting, something else that remains little change these days.   And she also noted the “tendency of reporters to end up in comfortable PR jobs with government.”

What she could not have foreseen was the day when the president of the major commercial radio broadcasting firm would sit as a political appointee on the board of one of the provincial government’s energy companies.

Nor could McCorquodale have expected that this same fellow, so tight with the pols the could receive a patronage appointment, would call his own station to complain about media coverage of his patron’s health problems.

Politics in Newfoundland and Labrador occurs inside a large echo chamber.  While in the United States, there are separate political echo chambers for people with differing political views, in newfoundland and Labrador, the echo chamber tends to separates the opinion elites from the majority of society.

To see it work, you only have to look at the general election campaign.

 

- srbp -

15 September 2011

There are no free lunches #nlpoli

Heard that before, right?

And it’s true.

Just because it is true - and most adults know it is true – doesn’t mean that all of them still aren’t willing to crave a free gnosh.

And not just lunches.

Free anything.

One of the oldest marketing ploys around is the old BOGOF:  buy one, get one free.  One of them really isn’t free.  You just think it is.

Still.

See that BOGOF over there.

You know you want one.

Go on.

See?  Told ya.

As in life, so in politics.

Free sells big.

Free education is the ticket for the province’s New Democrats in this election.  They are aiming heavily at the student vote. The provincial Dippers hope young people will work voting miracles.

So they are promising them free education.

And when they’d finished announcing that policy, they announced that they would actually phase it in.

First would come more grant money.

And eventually education would be free.

Give the Dippers your vote, the one you got for nothing in the first place, and they will deliver you free education.

Eventually.

Like four or five years from now after you’ve finished your degree.

And only if they accidentally accumulate enough credits to form a government first.

But that’s just details. 

Look.

Vote one, get one!

Free!

And free is really popular.  You can tell because the Canadian Federation of Students - a completely impartial group  the DNP loathes -  released a poll on Wednesday confirming for those who remained doubtful that fully 84% of those surveyed in the province thought free tuition was an amazingly, wonderfully great idea.

Coincidences are wonderful too, aren’t they?

Anyway, this Harris-Decima poll is a penetrating insight into the friggin’ obvious. People love freebies.

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, you have to hand it to both the Dippers and the CFS for coming up with a bit of retail politicking that plays to a potentially important voter segment for them. 

Education is one of the big issues for people.  We know that from the quarterly government polling that some people have pried out of government under access to information laws.

And this fake free lunch thing is exactly the sort of freebie that can get some headlines, generate some interest and hopefully not cause people to think too hard.  it’s simple enough that people can get the full impact of the NDP message in two words;  free education.

They just have to pray to the deity of their choice – for those who aren’t atheists – that no one thinks about the whole thing for two long.

For starters, people would realise that the NDP have to win this election to collect on the vote sell-off implicit in the NDP offer.  Since the NDP are actually campaigning for the Tories to win, that’s gonna be a hard one to collect.

Then there’s that whole free lunch thing.  “Free tuition” would actually be paid out of tax dollars.  And if it turns into increased cash to universities and colleges and grants to students for living allowances,  that ‘free’ is going to get quite expensive.

Forget tax cuts.

Forget spending more on other areas people want to see action on, like health care.

And if that wasn’t painful enough, consider that at the heart of the provincial NDP policy, they are really talking about having taxpayers in this province give a free education to people from anywhere but here as well.

There really are no free lunches.

But marketing like the Dippers are using just wants you to turn off the rational part of your brain for a long enough to cast a vote.

Just think of the free education policy as the spindly super vacuum that runs on double A batteries but sucks better than a Dyson and didn’t break a few weeks after the Canada Post truck dropped it off.

You got two for the low price of $49.95 or whatever it was.  You just had to pay the separate shipping and handling for both.

Same basic marketing premise.

- srbp -

19 July 2011

Like Momma always said…Part Deux und Trois

The only funnier thing than a guy up on assault charges claiming he is a wannabe Tory candidate are opposition party politicos who campaign for the incumbents.

In the past couple of weeks, comments coming from both parties have highlighted positive economic news.

Liberal leader Yvonne Jones did it before she headed back to Labrador for a series of meetings. She issued a news release that mentioned how the Labrador economy is booming.

Then  provincial NDP president Dale Kirby tweeted a link to a Globe and Mail story about how well the provincial economy is doing in comparison to the rest of the Atlantic provinces.

Wonderful stuff.

Except that in both cases, Jones and Kirby wound up reinforcing the classic argument for staying the course and keeping the current government in power. Things are going well, say the incumbents. Don’t risk all the good times by changing horse in the middle of the stream of cash and jobs.

Opposition parties need to draw attention to things the incumbent party isn’t talking about. There are plenty of issues. Some of them are ones the incumbents just don’t give a frig about but opposition voters do.  Some are issues the incumbents haven’t figured out are potentially decisive. Others are ones the incumbents will scream blue murder about because they are sore issues.

But talking about how good things are under the current administration?

Not really a message that says vote for me, the leader of the party that didn’t deliver all this good stuff.

It’s good for them to be positive, you say.  Otherwise the opposition parties would be all negative.  No one likes it when you are negative.  More people would listen to the opposition parties if they weren't negative all the time.

Well, for starters if you think that way, then you are – without question  - an ardent supporter of whatever incumbent government we are talking about.  Either that or you make Pollyanna look like a suicide waiting to happen.

Only incumbent politicos and their staunch supporters dislike it when others talk about problems.  Face it:  problems exist all the time.  They may not be big problems but they do exist.  It’s natural for people to talk about them if for no other reason than they would like the incumbents to fix them.

But incumbents hate people talking about problems.  The longer the incumbents are in office the more they dislike problems.  The longer the incumbents are in office, you see, the more likely it is that they caused the problems.

Incumbents also know that problems energise the opposition supporters.  After all, talking about the problems at the time are what helped get the incumbents elected in the first place. 

It seems like ancient history these days, but those who can recall the period between 2001 and 2003 will remember Danny Williams talked relentlessly about problems.  He was angry.  He stayed angry even after the 2003 general election. In fact, Danny stayed angry right up to his last days in office.

Tories  - and Danny lovers - don’t see it that way, of course. They think he spoke the truth.  But that’s what one would expect Tories to say, just as Liberals would have said the same sorts of things the last time Liberals were in power.

And when the incumbents hissed at Danny that he was too negative, he just ignored them and carried on about his business.  Danny carried on because he knew what opposition politicians are supposed to do if they ever want to get back into a government office again.

- srbp -

12 March 2011

Good Tory? End of story

Telegram editor Russell Wangersky maps out the new normal in federal and provincial politics in a devastating column titled “Lies, the new truths.”

Russell’s right on the solution to the problem:  people have stop accepting what they are told at face value especially when it comes directly from people involved and who, in certain instances, have a vested interest in the story.

Do that and, among other things, you might avoid the gigantic embarrassment of tweeting “I just heard from her. This is a patently false rumour” only to have to suck the whole thing back minutes later when the thing turned out to be patently true. 

- srbp -

24 December 2010

Delacourt and the political rumour mill

From Susan Delacourt at The Toronto Star comes a column taking issue with two of her colleagues at other publications who have taken, it seems, to writing about a rumour as if it were true.

Delacourt quite rightly chastises her colleagues and truthfully her metaphorical pen has an edge to it that ought to cause corporeal real wounds it is so skilfully wielded.

Journalism involves investigating tips or questions, determining their accuracy, and telling the public the facts.  The difference between Misters Spector and Cohen is that they seem to have taken a little shortcut there, or worse, done it backwards. They've reported the rumour and asked other people  to investigate. I would hope that Mr. Cohen is not teaching young would-be journalists to do the same. Apart from being supremely unfair, it's also just plain lazy.

Over the past few weeks, the local political world has been beset by all manner of story.  Your humble e-scribbler tossed up two separate ones so that readers could be aware they are out there.  Neither was presented as fact.

One of them merely added a bit of colour to what had existed as whisperings but that was quite clearly becoming fairly obvious true:  within the Conservative party someone  - alone or in concert with others – had resolved to avoid a leadership contest over the next couple of months and instead have Kathy Dunderdale carry on as leader of the party and, by default as premier, until sometime after the 2011 general election.

The other, as David Cochrane reliably tweeted, is one that he tells us all he’d checked into it a couple of weeks ago and received a denial from Danny Williams’ publicist. 

That one is important, though, not for the substance of it but for the fact that it existed in the first place. Danny Williams’ left abruptly and without apparent cause or explanation.  As a result, a great many people are wondering why Williams left as quickly as he did.  A great many of those are Conservatives who have been left very unsettled by his departure. 

And if nothing else, the rather speedy exit he made created the climate in which the party is now engineering a little story to avoid a leadership contest of any kind at least until after October 2011.  People are searching for an explanation.  The Maple Leafs’ rumour seems as good as any of the others that are flying around the entire province but which are more obviously preposterous.

In a sense, that’s the same sort of discussion Susan Delacourt offers after slapping her two colleagues.  She recounts the story of the rumour story itself.  That’s actually quite useful since by telling the whole tale, Susan has helped inoculate people against this sort of foolishness in the future. 

Nothing kills corruption like daylight.

Good on Susan for spreading a little daylight on this nasty infection.

- srbp -

13 December 2010

How to win without news media – Part 2

A month or so ago, some of you may have read the post called “How to win without news media” and the story of Texas governor Rick Perry and his rather curious media relations strategy.

Undoubtedly, the smart alecks out there caught on to the real story:  Perry didn’t win without conventional news media. Perry used them as an integral part of his media strategy. Perry did media interviews.  Local news media throughout Texas  carried his news releases and other media events.  After all how could they not cover any candidate for the state’s highest elected office?

The secret to Perry’s success lay in part in how he used the media. Perry used his polling to tell him the attitude he needed to take toward conventional news media in order to strike a chord with voters across the state.

The answer was to ignore them, for the most part and kick at them every once in a while.  Most certainly, Perry never kowtowed to them or showed any sort of deference to the conventional media.  And when newspaper editors, long used to being courted, got wind of his attitude and took up their pens against him, Perry profited by their anger.

Rick Perry capitalised on a thread of animosity toward news media that runs through a swath of the North American population and cuts across a wide range of demographics like age, income and education. 

It tends to be concentrated in the Republican or Conservative bits of the population, though. Sarah Palin plays on the anti-media theme, as have a number of successful Republican politicians in the United States over the past few decades.  Palin likes to talk about the media’s negative slant or their dark and sinister side

Conservatives north of the 49th also use the media as a convenient prop, much like their southern cousins.  And that’s really what the media is:  a prop.

Old media hands like Bob Wakeham [audio link] can live in the past all the want. Danny Williams’ rant at the news media last November, all 12 minutes of it, was not an effort to get the heretics to conform.  Rather, Williams was just reciting another part of the catechism that binds his own followers together.  They love Danny and loathe the media and having that outside enemy helps unite them in the greater cause. 

There’s a bit more to it than that, as well.   There’s no accident that Williams singled out the CBC for his ire the other night. Aside from the visceral hatred many ideological conservatives feel toward the Ceeb, the Mother Corp is to some local Conservatives what the New York Times is to southerners:  it symbolises the smarmy, elitists who suppress the Conservatives’ truth.  And let’s not forget the big part of it for these Conservatives:  the CBC is not local.   It is the Canadian broadcaster.

There’s not a shred of reality in the anti-media belief system, of course.  The Ceeb’s been as good an outlet as any local news media for spreading the Williams’ mythology. In that respect, they are the electronic version of the newspaper supposedly run from Quebec that, in fact, tended to favour Williams and the Conservatives more often than not over the past seven years.

But for all that, some people cling to their hatred of the Ceeb so intensely that last spring they laid siege to the Corporation’s Parkway bunker last spring for something that the Ceeb reporters didn’t do.  NTV broke the story of the Premier’s heart surgery. Yet, the cultists attacked the CBC and, to a lesser extent, the Telegram.

November’s rant was by no means the first such Williams tirade against the news media.  In fact, it was a regular feature of his fund-raising speech starting in 2006. He’s launched into the same sort of tirade at other times, as well, claiming that he’d have been able to do so much more if only pesky people wouldn’t bother him;  bother him, that is with requests for information about what government is doing.

And, of course, Liberals were always a favourite source of Williams ire.  They were the ones who supposedly gave away all the province’s resources, for instance.  There’s a bit more to this whole thread, however, than just a Tory rant.  Consider, for example, the vicious rhetoric Williams employed in a June 2001 in a speech he delivered to Nova Scotia Conservatives:

The more that I see, the more nauseous and angry that I get. The way that our people and our region have been treated by one arrogant federal Liberal government after another is disgusting. The legacy that the late Prime Minister Trudeau and Jean Chrétien will leave in Atlantic Canada is one of dependence on Mother Ottawa, which has been orchestrated for political motives for the sole purpose of maintaining power. No wonder the West is alienated and Québec has threatened separation. Canadians - and Atlantic Canadians, in particular - realize the importance of dignity and self-respect while Ottawa prefers that we negotiate from a position of weakness on our hands and knees.

Yes, friends, conservatives love to use liberals – with initial capital letters or not – and the media for good measure as scapegoats.  That’s a subtext to all this by the way:  things would be better except for these identifiable groups who conservatives, like Danny Williams, can blame for stuff.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, though, scapegoating is a much more deeply ingrained part of the local political culture than one might imagine.  The most obvious one is something  called Quebec.  All Danny Williams ever had to do was say that Quebeckers were behind it and everyone accepted the idea, without questions. 

No Lower Churchill deal?  Quebec is blocking it.  Ask a question about problems with the Lower Churchill?  Get ready to be labelled a Quebec-lover, code for race traitor.

Lest you think these are peculiar examples, consider the Western Star editorial last spring after the people of the province found out that the provincial government had buggered up the AbitibiBowater expropriation rather badly.

Blame the people who did it?  Heavens, no.

It’s time they admitted their shortcomings in the process.

It’s the duty of the opposition to challenge the government on legislation it brings before the house, and make sure these kinds of potentially expensive hiccups don’t make it into law.

They were asleep at the switch in this matter — there’s now way around it.

They dozed in their seats, didn’t ask enough questions ... and let the bad legislation become the law of the land.

It should be a lesson for all concerned.

Our system works best when the tough questions are asked ... not when  government gets a free pass.

Liberals got the blame not only for the mess but for not questioning it in the beginning.

And what about the sorry state of House of Assembly, sitting for a scant eight days of a fall sitting this year?  The Star’s sister newspaper opted to highlight last week the supposedly weak opposition, the Liberal opposition who, the editorialist claims, have had a whole year to do better than make a single mistake.  And for good measure, the Telegram repeats the same foolishness the Star did, blaming the Liberals for things done by the government:

Governments and their ministers are paid by taxpayers to govern the province.

Opposition members are paid to thoughtfully and thoroughly examine the decisions of the government — not for opposition’s sake alone, but to try to help the province keep from falling into errors like accidentally expropriated paper mills and hydroelectric deals without escalator clauses. It’s a serious job with serious responsibilities.

Get some game. Earn the pay

Danny Williams’ political success came in part from his skilled use of messages that resonated with his audiences.  Blaming Liberals and the news media for everything is a case in point, but you have to add in the notion of scapegoating to truly appreciate the power of his messaging and the extent to which patterns of thought are so thoroughly accepted in some segments of the population in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Danny Williams, like Rick Perry, couldn’t win without news media.  The difference was in how each politician used them.

- srbp -