"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.