rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Parsing the punditry

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca in its summer fundraiser today for as little as $5 per month!

There was a "debate" among the leaders of the three main Nova Scotia political parties on Tuesday evening - Rodney MacDonald for the Progressive Conservatives, Darrell Dexter for the NDP and Stephen McNeil for the Liberals.

The discussion following such a debate often starts like this:

"Did you watch the debate?"


"Who won?"

"I don't know.  I haven't heard what the pundits are saying yet."

The "debate" is not really a debate at all.  It's not a discussion or even a conversation. It's a series of fairly predictable questions and answers which gives the leaders a chance to display their personalities and to demonstrate their ability to think on their feet and to present themselves for your approval.  The pundits will usually declare a winner based on how comfortable they are with the performance and/or the views of one of the participants.

One of the things the pundits can be counted on to say - as a criticism - is that the leaders were "scripted." That's lazy punditry.

There's a fine line between "scripted" and "prepared."  If Rodney is asked a question about whether his budget put the province into deficit and his response is, "Dexter has no plan," that's scripted. If he's asked about health care, education and the weather forecast and his answer is, "Dexter has no plan," - scripted.

But if Darrell is asked a question about removing the HST from your electric bill and the answer is something you've heard many times before, that's not scripted - he's being consistent with his answers. He's been answering that question and giving the same answer for some time now.

I have no doubt that the pundits themselves, when they make their pronouncements about winners and losers are armed with notes of varying detail - and rightly so.  I'm sure we'd rather listen to someone who we felt had cared enough to make her/himself ready for the gig.

One batch of pundits asked for the leaders to have more charisma, to show more passion and a sense of humour.  We'll leave charisma aside but I hate to think of the pundits' reviews if any of our leaders had shed a tear, thrown a punch or told a joke during the debate.

Nowadays, another indication of who "won" is the number of comments in favour of one leader or another at the end of news stories online - the amateur pundits.  Mostly what these comments tell us is which party is best at getting its support mobilized and ready to flood the site with their views at debate's end.  The comments are like lawn signs or getting the vote out; they indicate the degree of on-the-ground organization that each party can turn to.

I'm giving the pundit prize to this comment. You have to admit, it takes some nerve to offer this as an analysis of the debate:

If there was a winner - and this is debatable - it had to be the Liberals' Stephen McNeil ... because he was least often the target of his opponents and therefore suffered the fewest body blows.

Surely by this reasoning, Stephen McNeil would have been a runaway winner if only he'd stayed at home.

This is the view of Chronicle Herald columnist Marilla Stephenson, ( http://thechronicleherald.ca/Election/1122965.html ) considered to be a hereditary Liberal.

Oh P.S.  Darrell Dexter won the debate.  He was knowledgeable, intelligent, poised, sophisticated, gracious.  What more do you want?

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.