"a tired rant about Harper holding journalists in disdain, which he does and we'd best get used to it because it's going to get worse."If you want to read the rest, you'll have to buy a NP, because I stopped reading there. Whatever Martin had to say after that would likely be a lie, because that statement was.
In the previous two paragraphs Martin wrote that Stephen Harper had bypassed the podium set up by his staff and had instead, started up the stairs. Martin says:
"Having reached the desired altitude for showcasing his superior attitude in vintage Brian Mulroney style, Stephen Harper turned to lord over the assembled media with his message.Martin spews this sort of venom, then expects us to trust him that the rest of his piece is a balanced observation of the Prime Minister and his actions?
Free advice to the Prime Minister: Until you shape up, being filmed from below creates seriously lousy television optics. That button-straining gut fills the screen and the downward stare adds a chin or two."
Advice to the columnist: Your inability to keep the personal jabs out of your writing belies your disdain for the PM. Don't expect me to take you seriously when you tell up front that your column isn't a rant, when you started it with a rant.
Don Martin's column might well be filled with the wisdom of the ages, but I couldn't get past his lie -- that his column had nothing to do with the animus between Harper and the media -- and I couldn't get past the fact that he tried to sell it immediately after slagging Harper with no less than three insults in the previous three sentences.
If the press wants us to see Harper as a bad-guy for his treatment of the media, they'd do well not to hit us over the head with it -- it makes them seem angry and petulent -- the exact qualities they attribute to Harper and claim to reject on our behalf. Better that they get to the point and in writer's terms-- show don't tell -- or better still, let Harper show how terrible he is, if in fact he is.
Martin's repeated personal attacks shut out any hint that what he has to say might be worthwhile. It's too filled with rage to be objective.
A scan of the rest of Martin's column uncovers the use of the words:
contempt, churlish, disregard, angry-Albertan, bitter and hard-done-by personality, furious . . .Martin is apparently describing Harper with all of these adjectives, but I think he's projecting just a wee bit -- he could just as easily be describing himself.
canadianna
14 comments:
An overreaction I think. Don Martin has been one of the most consistently fair of the political commentators. If he criticizes Stephen Harper, then it is because Harper is pushing the limits of acceptable behaviour, not because Martin is biased against him.
I have definitely noticed a change in tone in Martin's columns. But I would not overreact. While never a cheerleader, he has always been relatively sympathetic to the Conservatives. Moreover, Stephen Harper is a big boy and can take a little criticism.
While there is likely a solid strategic reason for the imperial and disdainful demeanor Harper has adopted of late, Martin is entitled to interpret it as he pleases. Harper communications team does pay attention to details like those which Martin notes. His advice is not without merit, although Harper may be purposefully rejecting it to appeal to the pudgy set--us ordinary Canadians--as part of his anti-elitist stance.
As to the rest, I think most Canadians will recognize a major disconnect between journalists whining and Harper's achievements. In fact, people are likely to respect him more if he ruffles a few feathers along the way. If this is the case, it is a bold strategy which he seems to be playing well.
How do you find this yahoo's e-mail address -
I am really getting sick of how the press is acting - they are like a bunch of junior high kids who are using bully tactics because they don't like how they are being treated.
Everytime the msm writes one of these fluff pieces, focusing on things like how the PM looks, where he is standing, who he chose to ignore rather than reporting on substance and actual news, they become more and more petty in my eyes.
What a joke. Time to grow up boys and girls of the media - you're in the real world now.
How can you guys defend Martin on this? When you lower youself to making fun of the PM because he's got a gut, you deserve all the disrespect that will come your way.
If you don't like his press strategy, tell us why it's bad. The response: "ya...well you're fat!" never reflects well on the intelect of the one who speaks those words.
If a journalist were to call any other citizen such derogatory names; insult their weight, etc. with this kind of vile diatribe I believe the slander and defamation lawyers would be lining up.
Yet the Chief Executive and leader of our country is fair game?
Jim, Steve -- you miss my point. Martin could have criticised Harper for saying that he'd keep the troops on in Afghanistan regardless of a vote; he could have criticised Harper's response to the Morgan thing -- all without the personal barbs.
He starts off the column with a slam against Harper that has nothing to do with governance, and then says he's not just going on in a rant because of Harper's treatment of the media. He made it personal, and then he tells us it isn't personal?
It isn't Martin's opinion of Harper's actions or words that I'm taking issue with -- it's the personal assaults on the man's looks, the characterizations of his demeanour and the unbridled dislike of him that oozes from every sentence.
I'm fine with people not liking Harper, how he acts, where he stands on issues -- but Martin consistently makes of judgements based on a personal dislike of Harper.
Martin's tone routinely smacks of haughtiness, sulkiness, petulence and anger -- all the qualities he seems to attribute to Harper.
It's a pot/kettle thing where Martin claims to be writing objectively.
Canadi-anna, I actually think Harper is trying to cultivate some opposition from nominally conservative journalists, and that is what Don Martin is. I do take your point about the personal attacks.
The fact that Martin, with his petty attacks, and Coyne, with his more substantive policy differences, snipe at Harper and the CPC is probably by design. Getting attacked from all sides places the CPC right in the middle. And the middle is shifting right, which is a good thing.
You also have to remember that the point of journalists writing columns is to sell newspapers. For that, they need to spice things up. Harper and company have not exactly made it easy for journalists to fill the news hole. In the absence of getting spoon fed the government's talking points (à la Paul Martin), you might say it was time they did some actually digging to get their stories. But journalists are fundamentally lazy. Hence, the ad hominem attacks.
Nadine: Harper is a paranoid control freak who avoids the media and doesn't let his caucus talk to the media for obvious reasons.
Tell us how you really feel.
Anyway, unlike you, a journalist should be able to describe what Harper does in such a way that we, the reader, draw the conclusion from what is written, that Harper is a paranoid control freak, without actually coming out and making personal attacks.
Defend Martin all you like, but you will never convince me that Harper's weight or Martin's perceptions of Harper's demeanour have anything whatsoever to do with his policies or governing decisions.
And as usual, rather than sticking to the issue at hand, you use this opportunity to slag reformers and Christian convervatives because you don't have anything to say that actually relates to the post.
(T)he media allowed the Harper Reformers to win
Holy cow! Talk about paranoid. Thank God the media didn't allow your pal Jack to win; one can only imagine what would happen if the NDP was a real party with a chance at governing anything. Yikes!
I agree, C. - Don Martin's behaviour is surprisingly childish - this is the stuff of schoolyards.
Good post, C - Don Martin, from my experience, while not necessarily a Liberal fan is no CPC supporter, either. He is churlish and much whinier than Jack! when Olivia is having a bad hair day.
Canadiana,
I agree. Wells' points out that Martin is a very big activist in the press gallery wars.
He mentions, in that column, twice, how fat Stephen Harper is. I've never seen him mention Libby Davies rotundness, however.
The column you're focused on is particularly galling because its a lame attempt to renew the idea that PMSH is rage-filled and petty.
I'm not sure its going to play out the way DM wants, though.
Does he mention that Harper is really seeking higher ground so as to pee down on all the reporters who diss him over his fat belly.
Actually, Don Martin has been a lot easier on Harp than Greg Weston has been. Weston can't get through a paragraph anymore without comparing Harper to Bush.
Having said that, I though Martin was a little rough on the PM too. Something obviously made him very bitter, and he wrote a scathing column without giving himself time to cool down is my guess.
I think the PMO is now making reporters work for their stories, as opposed to having soundbites and prepared statements released for them to regurgitate on the evening news and in the morning papers. This has some scribes a little ticked. I can see their side of things, even if I don't feel a damn bit sorry for them. Had they been forced to work a little harder during the Liberal years, the Libs wouldn't have gotten away with half of what they did.
I listen to Don Martin every day on CFRA and I don't know what any of you are talking about. I think he genuinely likes Stephen Harper, or at least, wishes him well, and would prefer not to see public opinion turn against him. I was also pleasantly surprised by the treatment Harper received, and continues to receive, from Canadian media in general, which is more balanced than I expected.
"Free advice to the Prime Minister: Until you shape up, being filmed from below creates seriously lousy television optics. That button-straining gut fills the screen and the downward stare adds a chin or two."
To call this spewing venom is seriously overreacting. When Harper appeared in a tight vest during the Calgary Stampede (filmed from a low angle), he was widely ridiculed. I'd call it what it was: Free communications advice (of the kind that maybe Stockwell Day could have used back before he wore a wetsuit to a press conference).
I left you a link - even though it's the CBC, it's worth reading. You're not helping your cause with the type of analysis you're providing.
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/mediaadvisors.html
Post a Comment