The newspaper editorial that never was
February 8, 2006 · By Peter Rempel
“Following the election a couple of weeks ago, we, like most other media outlets, made much of the fact that the Conservative government had not won any seats from Canada’s “major urban centres,” namely, Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. In unveiling his cabinet this week, the prime minister took decisive and unorthodox steps to correct this situation. Both Vancouver and Montreal are now represented not just in the Conservative government, but in the cabinet as a whole. Given our previous preoccupation with the government’s lack of representation from these urban centres, we applaud the prime minister’s leadership on this file.
Oh wait, that was yesterday. We no longer care about representation from urban centres; we now care solely about the the circumventing of the democratic process represented by appointing a non-elected minister and a member elected by another party. We call on the prime minister to address this egregious problem.
Of course, we also called on the prime minister to address the egregious problem of lack of representation from urban centres, which he just has. But that was yesterday. And rest assured that if the prime minister addresses the problem that we are currently dissatisfied with, we will find a whole new problem with him to bitch about the next day. That is, as the Canadian media, our sacred trust, that is our solemn promise to you. ”
Do you realize that you would make the life of the Toronto Star miserable if they had to explain inconsistencies in their editorials?
Weston had the nerve today on Countdown to say “none of the big papers in Mtl/TO/Vcr were saying “oh no, we don’t have our own MP”…” WTF? Short memories.
Good call on the “editorial that should have been written”
The Star’s article on this today was a complete joke. It was completely based on “anonymous sources” within the CPC. Ask yourself: How many “sources” do you think the Star has in the upper echelons of the party?
The problem with the media is that there’s too many columnists and editorialists and oracular pundits who have to write something every day, so they dwell on every tiny idiocy that comes along. Combine that with their journalism school-induced sense of outrage, and one becomes nauseated very quickly.
I concur in all respects with exception to referring to the Toronto Star as “Canadian media” or representative thereof. While true, it’s a little to generous. The TS has certainly lead the charge in early criticism of Harper, but calling them “Canadian media” is giving them a doggie bone of self-satisfaction they don’t deserve.
It’s time, I do believe, for those in the spiritually boisterous parts of Canada, those who can appreciate responsible government and provincial rights, giving them an uncynical future, to start correcting the poor, beleaguered and cynically oppressed of Toronto on how to best define things Canadian. Unfortunately, all told by the Toronto Star, they still seem to think the country revolves around them. Alas, no.
So, what’s my solution?
Let us editorialise with greater fervour the city of little men, Toronto, and its media, clearing the air on the pathetic uncivilised wasteland for political correctness that city has become; how if that cluster of a few large buildings and an extremely over-sized radio antenna (compensating for something, are we?) on the northern shore of lake Ontario never gets another seat the federal cabinet table for the next twenty years, it is probably in the best interests of Canada.
Let Torontonians shout “Toronto wants in!” for twenty years as maybe it will be a good way for them to learn about Canada.
Michael Fortier to the federal cabinet. Well, well, that did it. Nope. For several days the mega b-stars of the modern blogging world went into a tizzy. Perhaps this fresh look at Harper’s choices might hold a kernel of wisdom - um truth?The newspaper editorial that never was:
I think it’s pretty funny that Harper twisted himself into a pretzel to get representatives from Vancouver and Montreal into cabinet…..and then couldn’t be bothered with Toronto.
Harper’s Conservatives still haven’t been elected to seats in any of the “big three” urban areas. The only hypocrisy here is Harper’s (and Emerson’s).
I heard a good point about the “big three” urban centres on the radio the other day, wondering exactly why it is we care about them. The only good response was that no one was really sure why. They certainly are not representative of the urban vote in Canada, especially when you consider how other large cities, though not AS large of course, voted. So Conservatives really don’t need to worry too much about the big three urban vote, those voters will go wherever they get the most gratitude and self-importance; they rarely vote for what’s actually good for them or the country anyway.
My very early guess is that the Tories will do better in Vancouver next time around. If they don’t ever pick up a seat in Toronto or Montreal, it really won’t matter. Harper has gone out of his way—twisted himself into a pretzel—to extend an olive branch anyway, and he certainly hasn’t acted hypocritically.
Emerson’s fate will be decided by his constituents next time around, and my guess is that if he runs again, he will survive.
Was the media talking about Vancouver proper or Greater Vancouver? If the former, it’s not much of an urban centre (the city of Calgary has almost twice as many people). If the latter, then the argument is moot because Conservative candidates were elected.
Just another example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the media’s recent coverage of the CPC.
This makes too much sense, and it’s much more fun to make Harper squirm.
The media is promoting this story. It hasn’t got the legs, they’re just building stilts.