Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

Hell, the "sort of" endorsement of Horwath in 2014 was intepreteted by many to be a huge rebuke of Horwath considering how pro-NDP NOW usually is. 

Even as a dyed in wool Dipper I cringe at how vehemently pro-NDP NOW is sometimes. I imagine it's how some Grits feel about The Star.

ctrl190 wrote:

Hell, the "sort of" endorsement of Horwath in 2014 was intepreteted by many to be a huge rebuke of Horwath considering how pro-NDP NOW usually is. 

Even as a dyed in wool Dipper I cringe at how vehemently pro-NDP NOW is sometimes. I imagine it's how some Grits feel about The Star.

I find the Star almost unreadable.  

Pondering wrote:

nicky wrote:

Pondering manages to sound ridiculous and whiney at the same time. Her disparaging attitude toward Mulcair has been noted.

I am not running for office, attacking me does not vindicate Mulcair. 

Actually, "Pondering", it does!

Lieberals are such crybabies. 

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

laine lowe wrote:

What is wrong with that article? I read it and found it pretty accurate. There might have been one point about Mulcair that seemed off early in the going but overall I had no problem with it. And Fisk is not beholden to any political party in Canada and has been an excellent critic on middle east affairs for the past 15 years that I have read him.

 

How about this:

"the Conservative prime minister, William Mackenzie King"

It's been corrected.

Oh joy.

When the difference between two parties is mostly the name -- that name really matters.

Noah Richler in The Guardiam:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/17/running-election-ca...

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

But Now's perpetual unwillingness to make a definitive endorsement annoys me.

I'm not sure democracy is better served when popular media makes a definitive endorsement of one particular party or candidate.

An endorsement of an issue, like PR?  Sure.  Or a critique, like the TPP?  Fair enough.  But why should we be disappointed if a newspaper fails to play favourites?

Perhaps the whole issue of newspaper endorsements should be rethought for the future.  But, for now, newspapers, including Now, do usually give endorsements for elections.  For instance, they endorsed Olivia Chow for mayor (link) -- this was not simply an article by Klein or Hollett, but rather the entire magazine (IE, presumably the editorial board).  Their failure to come out definitively for someone in this election is just cowardice on their part, IMO.

Now is not alone in this.  Both the Star and the Globe have also been guilty of displaying this odd sort of cowardice or indecisiveness.  Last election the Star gave an "endorsement" of the NDP while simultaneously instructing people to vote Liberal in various ridings.  Talk about confusing the issue.  And the Globe last time was a dual article endorsement that was pretty weird, which incredibly they topped off this time with throroughly bizarre inability to actually make a definitive commitment.  (But that said, as weird as their endorsements have been, at least they were willing to step up to the plate, facing the possibility of derision from some readers, which Now failed to do.)

I think it's a reflecion of the fact that news has been a lot more biased and tabloid like in its presentation in recent years.  So, rather than an endorsement being a break from the rigours of strict journalistic neutrality, it's now almost as if they're worried about accusations of bias and are using half-hearted endorsements as a kind of defence to such claims.  Perhaps instead of "endorsements", papers should admit that they're always endorsing a party and never, even in news coverage, are free from bias, and instead write "evaluations" (IE, "well, while we typically support XYZ party, this time we must say that we feel they're .... and the other parties maybe have .... so, in conclusion, vote XYZ.")

But regardless, as I said previously, endorsements are still the norm.  So Now should step up, rather than ostrich-like sticking its head in the sand.

Quote:

now there is a bona fide argument for extending that ban through the weeks before election day.

If such a ban were imposed, we would see anonymous "leaks" of real or fabricated internal polls on social media by those seeking to influence the vote, including the parties themselves.

You just can't stop the dissemenation of such information today, why is why it's better to have up front data from known pollsters.