More on the “media correction”

Sometimes it happens that the punditocrisy over-indulges on spin. In doing so it loses perspective and with it a certain amount of credibility. It’s easy to do so. Spin is often made to be more interesting than the real story.

When investment advisors and the market pundits on TV oversell a particular stock or fund only to have it bottom out on them the next week they call it “a correction”.

Siminarly, there is something of a “media correction” occurring right now, as pundits and columnists are being reminded – by each other – that they collectively over-bought and over-sold the Liberal party’s spin on the NDP of late. Columnist Ralph Surette makes such a case in the Halifax Herald ...

"The scorn heaped on Layton’s head, mainly by national media pundits, especially those on those TV talk panels, has been gleefully relentless. According to the narrative, Layton, the sanctimonious pinko and prototype of his ilk who was always berating the Liberals for propping up the Tories, is exposed as a hypocrite at last. The guy who piously preached making minority government work but two-facedly voted relentlessly against the Tories, is now back to co-operating because he’s freaked by the prospects of losing seats in an election. How juicy. But second thoughts have kicked in about the worth of Layton and his works, showing that maybe even the media are marginally redeemable. There’s the obvious, of course: that Layton spared the country an election it doesn’t want, and that there will be some improvements to EI."

Polkaroo is not the only imaginary thing on TVO

People who live outside Ontario will have missed the panel on TVOntario tonight on “The Future of the NDP” which is too bad, because it was some of the more contrived programming ever offered by the basic cable superchannel (and that includes the Today's Special when Jeff's magic hat gets lost at the drycleaners).

Let’s run through:

On one hand there were the detractors: Buzz "Basil" Hargrove (best remembered for musing about running for the Liberal Party in 2008) and self-described radical Judy Rebick. These two firmly of the timeless opinion that New Democrats will only succeed when they sound less like your neighbour and more like hectoring 1970s anti-market crusaders -- Brother Hargrove intoning at one point that calling Employment Insurance “Employment Insurance” was tantamount to giving in to the man (the irony having clearly been lost on the Champion of the Working Class (TM) that it was his old pal and CAW jacket honoureee Paul Martin who changed the name from Unemployment Insurance back in 1995.)

Also on the panel was Globe and Mail columnist Adam Radwanski, who could most charitably be called, oh, cynical about the NDP and Jack Layton.

In the middle of this maelstrom of the imagination was NDP MP Niki Ashton who did a fine job at checking the sur-reality of having her party's obituary read to her by the detractors and occasionally by host Steve Paikin while the party, quite heathily, lives and breathes.

The only thing that appeared to be missing from the program was a ticker giving moment by moment updates about Michael Ignatieff’s feelings about puppies and his childhood crushes.

Come on. We get it. The Liberal Party membership had a new leader forced upon them and are therefore up in the polls from their historic low. Does it necessarily follow that the New Democrats are doomed, let alone even affected by this? No, but that's not stopping TVO from assembling a panel to suggest it.

Funny how the only people saying the New Democrats are down and (almost) out are the same people who say your favourite sports team sucks … non-supporters.

The imaginary "crisis" of the New Democrats

Satire, they say, is best when it contains a little bit of truth.

Knowing this, it’s easy to conclude that Chantal Hebert’s column is not satire. Because her second in a series in the Toronto Star on the thesis “the NDP is down in the polls and Layton needs to go” is completely without a morsel of truth.

Her column is built on the fact-vacant allegation that "Current polls do suggest that [New Democrats are] facing diminishing returns in the next election."

What?

Presuming that polls DO matter to decisions parties make this far in advance of an election, the fact that the NDP is polling at or near the margin of error of the 2008 election in the middle of a love-in for Michael Ignatieff is no small feat.

Even in Hebert’s home province, the NDP is today holding the 12 percent it got in Quebec six months ago – effectively disproving her claim that “Outremont’s Thomas Mulcair might not even have a seat in parliament after the next election.”

But even if you took Hebert’s wild argument at face value: do you dump a popular leader who brought the NDP from 13 seats to its second highest result in history on the basis of a poll? That’s ridiculous. If polls were all that mattered, we would be marking the 100th day of President Hillary Clinton’s administration today.

Hebert mentions NDP strategist Brian Topp, yet she studiously avoids two points he made in a recent Globe and Mail discussion, 1) New Democrats don’t have the culture of “playing leadership politics” the same as the old line parties and 2) Layton’s leadership is on par with past NDP leaders:

The federal NDP doesn't play leadership politics the way the Liberals and Tories do. We debate things, including the leadership, but don't generally divide into suicidal factions over leadership issues.

Second thing worth saying: Jack Layton has only been federal leader for six years. In that brief time he has taken our caucus from 13 to 37 members, added 1.5 million votes to our column, and has been working very effectively in Parliament in the best traditions of his predecessors. It's true that he didn't get to the Cabinet table (this time) - but he did force a Conservative government to do a 180-degree turn on its what-me-worry policy towards the economic crisis, and to adopt stimulus measures it fundamentally rejected only weeks before. Not bad for the first few weeks of a new Parliament.

The most cynical bit in all of this is that the column doesn't provide anyone, anywhere calling for a change of leadership except for “comments” to a previous column from people she describes as “some New Democrats”.

But only a few weeks ago, Peter Stoffer, among the most independent-minded MPs in the NDP caucus, and one who has not always seen eye-to-eye with Layton gave an unequivocal endorsement of his leader and flatly refuted claims of any displeasure in the grassroots:

"To say that we're looking for a new leader is simply false, I haven't heard that on the ground, I haven't heard that in our caucus, I haven't heard that even privately from people who speak to me on a regular basis. I haven't heard that at all. So it's simply not on."

In sum, the “NDP is down in the polls and Layton needs to go” thesis is the stuff of a Red Bull-fueled imagination. Almost no one is discussing leadership change in party that just achieved its second best result in history. What is out there is an erroneous assumption that there's “panic” based on polls that are not a great deal different from the historic result of the last election.

So what is this really about? Without being out right cynical, who really knows?

But like the klutz who shoves you from behind and then points to the fellow next to him, the only thing that columns like this are trying to do is create a problem where none actually exists.

Lawrence Martin asks "where are the New Democrat voices in our media"?

No party ever thinks they get a fair shake from the media and New Democrats are certainly no exception.

Today, the New Democratic Party runs a very popular government in Manitoba. It stands a good shot of returning to power in British Columbia in May and is poised to make history as government in Nova Scotia in the next election.

The people of Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Yukon have all elected NDP governments in the past 19 years. And in the last federal election, 2.5 million Canadians voted for their New Democratic Party candidate sending the second largest NDP caucus to Parliament Hill.

So, the question gets asked, why is it that "there are fewer left-side media voices in the country than probably ever?"

Except this time, the questioner isn't a hardened New Democrat voter, academic or even MP, but Lawrence Martin, columnist in the wait for it … mainstream Globe and Mail. He goes on to say:

"The Toronto Star has the odd left-wing columnist but is predominantly Liberal. The CBC has a leftish reputation, but try finding anyone among its top TV commentators who trumpets NDP values. Rex Murphy leans right, Andrew Coyne is predominantly conservative, Allan Gregg has been anchored in the Tory party for decades and, among Chantal Hébert's many colours, pink is not prominent."

Martin’s prescription: there needs to be more NDP voices in the national media:

"To change the voting culture, you have to change the media culture. Without a bigger voice in the fourth estate, the left's chances of making a breakthrough are minimal. The Reform/Alliance party eventually hit pay dirt, becoming the dominant force on the conservative side, because big media promoted its religion.

The NDP has a good public relations team and a media-conscious leader. But even with prevailing economic orthodoxies shamefaced, New Democrats can't break the journalistic ritual that sees Liberals and Conservatives with a stranglehold on coverage. Until they do, until they alter the media perspective, until their supporters gain ownership of media properties - as happened on the right with Fox News and CanWest Global - not much will change."

When a leading voice in the Ottawa press gallery is noticing this as a problem, you can be sure that it is.

So, a proposal to our embattled Canadian media empires: speak to a young, erudite and growing audience that doesn't have anyone speaking directly to them right now. Instead of going pearshaped, go orange instead.

Give FOX News' "Red Eye" a black eye

If you are disgusted by this schlock passing for "journalism" on a channel passing for a news network ...



... here's how you can let FOX News know: redeye@foxnews.com

Maybe it's time somebody gave this show and its witless production staff and host a year long break of thier own.