The Future of the Federal NDP, and the MSM
Hello all!
People on here tend to complain about how the main stream media (or MSM) has treated the NDP, saying they are biased towards the Liberals and the Conservatives. I'm not going to claim they are or aren't (well, except for SUN news), because I think such a thing is hard to prove, or at least it would be for me. However, I thought the topic was a good idea for a thread, on seperate from the leadership race threads, since if the MSM really is biased against the NDP, it's going to be a problem no matter who the leader is.
And regardless of what you may think of the MSM, it's main stream for a reason, since that's where most people get their information from. So if the MSM really is against the NDP, how can the possibly get around it and be able to form the federal government in the next Federal Election? I've read elsewhere that MPs like Olivia Chow and Peter Julian have been going on the road to talk to Canadians face to face, or something like that, so that may be one way (can't remember where I read it unfortunately).
Any other ideas? Could social media be used effectively?
just putting the idea out there, be interested to hear what everyone thinks!
I was following the 2011 race very closely, including the lead-up and the aftermath. I would frequently search around for "NDP" on google news.
Early in the race, stories on the NDP were minimal. Some local stories. A token paragraph about the NDP at the end of a long article. The broader stories about the race were about how this election was going to create a Parliament that looked a lot like the last one.
The only substantial story about the NDP early on was Jack Layton's health.
The media would keep asking, unironically, "why can't Jack Layton shake off the questions about his health?" Like a 5 year old saying "why can't you get me to stop punching you? Huh? Huh? Huh?"
By the middle of the race, there were some stories about the debate. Leading up, there was a lot of focus on a one-on-one Iggy-Harper debate. After the actual debate, there were a lot of stories about it being a stalemate.
The NDP blip started here.
A few stories noted that Jack Layton had a great performance, and also that there was a small uptick for the NDP in Quebec. Within days, they'd connected the blip to his appearance on Tout Le Monde En Parle. Soon after, it was more than a blip.
We all know how that ended.
-------------------------------------
So, to answer your question, how can the NDP succeed without the media?
The answer is we just did.
We had a few highspots in the mainstream media, usually when we were allowed to present our message unfiltered. Our ads, Jack at the debate, Jack at an interview. Those messages were amplified through social media. I was shocked at the number of people who I thought were apolitical or misguided Liberals who were suddenly painting their Facebook profiles orange in the final days of the campaign.
There's one point of caution.
After the race was over, the media (again, completely ironically) said that the NDP was lucky to have gotten through without much scrutiny. In 2011, we succeeded with the media basically ignoring us. In 2015, we're going to deal with a media that's openly hostile to us. Bet your bottom dollar on that.
I subscribe to three newspapers, CA, two dailies and one tri-weekly throwaway.
The Globe and Mail ignores the NDP where possible. Without a leadership race there's nada to be found except the usual dismissal of pie-in-the-sky economics.
The Waterloo Region Record has gone from token Liberal to hard core Conservative in the 8 years since I served on its community editoria board for a time. They are desperate for those ads from Chamber of Commerce members. It's a case of survival.
The tri-weekly will accept letters to the editor, but there's a dirth of people willing to appear beside the letters from the hoi-polloi...about cats crapping in the flower beds, etc.
At the time of the formation of the NDP the only newspaper onside was the Windsor Star...you guess why that might have been the case. :)
No, the newspapers are in the same anti-democratic, commercially dependent position that Thomas Jefferson found them, and if you get a chance to go through some microfiche of early Canadian newspapers you'll find that it was EVER only Tweedledee or Tweedledum that got support, and "the other" attacked. Tommy lashed out at them in the early 60s and then resorted to ignoring the bastard publishers and their paid hacks, as he had in the CCF.
The "social media?" When they and some other things can fly... to breaking news.
Never underestimate the power of social media - the MSM pays a lot of attention to what goes on there.
ETA: CanadaApple, your question, as per usual is provocative without being at all negative or hostile. I really enjoy participating in the threads you create.
Never underestimate the power of social media - the MSM pays a lot of attention to what goes on there.
ETA: CanadaApple, your question, as per usual is provocative without being at all negative or hostile. I really enjoy participating in the threads you create.
Thanks, I'm glad to hear that. = D
Unions need to buy into newspapers, as long the corps run the show they will have dominate voice.
Oh Rebecca, come on. You'd miss us trouble makers. You don't really want all of us to be like CanadaApple? Do you?
I think newspapers are dying off. The only newspapers that do well are the ones that appeal to a niche, high-paying segment. That means it's a lot of the finance driven newspapers with huge business sections that can reach a high end audience, and bring in the big advertisers to boot. (Wall Street Journal is one of few newspapers beating the downward trend.)
If working people are going to have a medium to reach people, it's going to be something else. (Not necessarily something new.)
If working people are going to have a medium to reach people, it's going to be something else. (Not necessarily something new.)
Would blogs and/or vlogs work? I think they could as far as getting information out there, but getting people too read/watch them might be hard.
MSM is just that, main-stream. It seeks to repeat the familiar - familiar players, familiar scripts, familiar opinions. If you are presenting the unfamiliar - a perenial third party with only a token presence in the second largest province - you are not going to have the story front and center until the shift has already happened. The next phase (both in the election, and until the next one) is the "it's an abberation" meme. Yes this unexpected event occured but it was a one off, a fluke of a weak Liberal leader, exhaustion with the unity debate in Quebec, the personal appeal of the now dead NDP leader.
The MSM is not a predictive vehicle but a validation vehicle. When we become a regular voice in the MSM, the respected (or at least not overtly ridiculed) alternative to the Tories, that will be the signal that the media elite has accepted the change (and that we have "sold our soul" :-) in the crass pursuit of power).
I think the suggestion that organized labour pool its resources to get a voice in the game would be a welcome addition to the national conversation. I know that the idea has been floated many times but I would love to see a truly progressive counterpart to the National Post on every street corner in the country. Flipping open the paper to get to the Labour section would be transformative but until then, we need to hope to replace the Liberal voices with NDP voices through natural attrition of opinion writers and the dimming electoral prospects of the Liberals (two more cycles needed for this to occur, IMHO).
I think the internet killed mainstream everything. From now on, the audience will be more fragmented. There are fewer blockbuster movies, TV shows, and albums. People are finding their own little enclaves for news, art, and opinion. Some of that will be blogs and vlogs. But the irony of all this technology and information is it's killing the idea that there are a few powerful channels of communication, or a few major opinionmakers, and return us to the only trusted source of information: word of mouth. The NDP's success won't depend on our control or influence over a single powerful channel, and will instead depend on our ability to start conversations and have them continue between people, one-on-one. Maybe those conversations can happen on facebook or on email, but it's still ultimately word of mouth.
That's my best guess. But who knows what technology might do?
That's my best guess. But who knows what technology might do?
I'm still hopeful for Time Travel someday. = P
But I do agree with you, that word of mouth is very important.