What Dana said

Welcome to the inaugural edition.

H/t both Dana and Steve V. at Far and Wide.

An excerpt:

" ... the news media live in a bubble too, just like their pet creation.  Remember that they do not live by bread alone but by the closed room circle jerk as well.  They look to one another for verification or reinforcement more often than they look to actual citizens, if they haven't relegated citizens to the realm of the legendary or mythical."

There's more to it, of course. I'm not so sure I'd buy into the characterization of younger journalists – it's a little too close to the "kids these days!" mindset for me. In particular, the suggestion that they're conditioned by their education and training to be obeisant to the mighty corporation doesn't really ring true. Some of them, in fact, are smart enough to put in their time, get what they can out of it in a few years, and then leave to set up their own startups.

But it does sum up why the national discourse is so poorly served by the corporate media.

On thwap and honesty as the best policy

Full disclosure here: I like thwap. Honest, spirited and refreshingly nasty. Although he is given to the occasional vulgarity. Makes me feel all naive and earnest by comparison.

Was just reading his stuff (I'd recommend it to anyone of a progressive mindset, by the way), and had to comment. And then I thought to throw the discussion open to a wider audience. (That means both my readers.) So, read thwap's post here.

What I said in response:

@SueAnnLevy in her own words

What's that website again? Blogging Tories in Their Own Words?

(I have a slight problem with the appropriation of voice implicit in the use of the term "Tories" in this context, but I'll let that go for now.)

#Elxn41: emerging theme from the week? Don't know yet

It would be easy to make it all about the expulsions, and the screenings, and the secret files, and the vetting of people on the basis of who they've got pictures of on their Facebook profiles. It's an easy story to write; the bad guys are obvious, the narrative simple, and the shades of meaning very few.

Unfortunately, as Simon points out, that's part of the white noise that helps Harper mask his ugly intentions. Not sure which polls to believe, and whether or not the arrogance and isolation and condescension are really hurting. And as Paul Wells argues, the more we focus on why Harper's so mean to reporters and so afraid of unscripted moments with people who haven't been filtered out by the multi-layered security screen, the less we can focus on other things – health care, aboriginal communities, fiscal policy, corporate-tax cuts, so-called free trade, climate change, our carbon footprint, the tar sands, energy, environment, just to name a few.

All important, yes, but based on what we've seen this week, I'd suggest that our overarching strategy still has to be making this about Harper's character, his aggressively totalitarian impulses, his hyperpartisan bitterness, what his wackjob base wants, and what would be in store for us if he ever got his majority. Ultimately, it's on those terms that we're best able to distinguish him from the opposition (after all, it's not like the Liberals are suddenly going to depart from their pattern of serving the ownership-class agenda).

And we can do that without reducing it to a simplistic two-dimensional story that's easy for the corporate media to digest and twist. That's the message at which we have to keep hammering away.

(Update: one possible suggestion ... )

On @meslin, @nowtoronto, principle and pragmatism

Taking a break from #elxn41 for a minute here.

Toronto tweeters will, I'm sure, have followed the contretemps between Dave Meslin and Now magazine with some interest. A couple of days ago, Meslin finally lost his patience with Now and took exception to their characterization of him as a "seal" because of his willingness to swallow the fish tossed by Rob Ford.

What's worse? The lies, or the insult to our intelligence?

Tough call.

Stephen Harper, surprisingly, isn't addressing questions about the Gestapo-like screening techniques in use at his campaign events.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm going with Door Number Two. I expect a certain amount of disingenuous bullshit during an election, but the inherent contempt for voters and citizens in Harper's duckspeak really goes beyond the pale.

Sent from my mobile device

Aggressively totalitarian: maybe it's not just hyperbole

A recent post suggested that the phrase "aggressively totalitarian" could become this week's meme. At the time, I acknowledged that it might seem a bit over the top. (It might also have too many syllables for the average Harpobot, but that's another issue.)

Three links from fellow progressives lead me to think, however, that it's not just hyperbole.