I have been especially mindful of that fact given two recent events: the Liberal loss in the Toronto-St Paul by-election, and the Biden-Trump debate. A consensus narrative quickly emerged that has quickly become political orthodoxy, denying people the opportunity to analyse these two events for themselves.
By all accounts, the by-election loss was a devastating judgement of Justin Trudeau. Almost all of the ensuing stories concluded that it is time for the Prime Minister to go. While there is no doubt that his plummeting popularity played a significant role in the results, there are also other factors to consider, factors the press seems loathe to consider.
First, there were over 80 candidates to choose from, giving voters the formidable task of wading through a jumble of names. Rather than enhancing democracy, this stunt served to make a joke out of the electoral process, as almost none of the alternatives were serious candidates. That the Liberal candidate, Leslie Church. lost by a mere 500 votes seemed to merit barely a notice.
Second, by-elections are traditionally seen, not so much as a referendum on the party in power but as a safe way to take them to task for perceived deficiencies; they are not necessarily an augury of future general election results. Instead, the narrative we have been handed almost exclusively focusses on Trudeau and his unfitness to lead the Liberals into the next election. While I am not suggesting there isn't room for such speculation, the fact that this is the sole interpretation of the result should disturb all of us capable of thinking for ourselves.
The same might be said about the Biden-Trump debate. While Biden's performance was not good, again, the media are presenting his performance as proof he will lead the Democrats to disaster in the November election. Having watched the entire debate, while Biden moments were indeed cringe-worthy, he did offer reminders of Democratic policies that have benefitted wide swaths of Americans, but did so in a less than strong, forthright way. On the other hand, Don Trump let loose with his usually litany of lies, but the attitude of the press seemed to be, "Well, that's just Donald being Donald." And, of course, little was said about his refusal to answer the questions asked as he indulged in efforts to refute previously-made points by Biden.
There are no doubt many amongst us who want to be told what to think. I am not one of them, and I am sure there are many more who prefer to exeercise their critical faculties rather than be force-fed what can only be described as media group-think.
I agree with you on the by-election fuss.
ReplyDeleteOn Biden, I disagree and think the NYT etc., got it right.
I did read the NYT's editorial, Pov. Whether I agree or disagree seems almost beside the point, given the juggernaut unleashed by the media against Biden.
DeleteSocial media has given politicians a massive audience of people who do want to be told what to think and have an overwhelming need for effortless reinforcement of their half-baked conclusions. Follow that audience and the dollars that go with it. I wonder what Spiro Agnew could have done with it.
ReplyDeleteWell, I know old Spiro had a rather low opinion of the media, dismissing, them, as I recall, as "effete snobs." I suspect he would have used social media for his own dark purposes, John, as many politicians do today.
DeleteI thought that Leslie Church losing by 500 votes was actually a good sign for the Liberals. Winning a by-election is not always easy because people are annoyed and are happy to vote against the party. This is not to mean that the Liberals are in good shape but the hysteria in the media is rather ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI think Biden showed that he was mentally incompetent. Of course Trump was not much better though he was a little bit sharper at the moment. It's rather terrifying that one of the major powers of the world may be ruled by totally incompetent and mentally deficient people. Who actually runs the USA it sure as hell isn't Joe Biden. And if Trump gets elected, we need to ask who the hell is going to be running the country then because it's sure not going to be Trump.
I have been asking myself the same question, Anon. When Biden ran for president the first time, he said he was only going to stay for one term. What happened to that promise? Did the powers-that-be decide that he would be useful to them as a second-term president and hence exerted no pressure for him to honour that promise? The same can be said about Trump. Why did the party fall completely in line with that narcissist? Given that he promises an authoritarian reign, I can only assume that suits the purposes of the monied entities who run the country. After all, private enterprise did very well under the Third Reich.
Delete