So-called word wars

Last week the Prime Minister used some selected words when being grilled on the environment. He referred to greenhouse gases as “so-called greenhouse gases”. Queue the imperial death march and lower the black helmet. He’s obviously gone mad to refer to the very truth of environmental issues at such a demeaning level, adding the words “so-called” before it.

By adding those two simple words before the problem, he belittles the situation and wraps up all the focused attention to it with a seemingly smug attitude. Almost showing the sense that he knows something more than the screaming masses on some elevated level of thinking.

That’s the question here. Some have said that Harper has an utter disrespect for the environment and those folks would push toward measurements like Kyoto. Others may suggest that it isn’t in the typical ‘neo-con’ personality to be of concern for the environment, big Alberta oil, etc. These automatic assumptions have made some jump onto Harper’s words with some zeal.

Jason Cherniak is a lawyer in Toronto, runs the Liblogs blogroll, and he has elevated levels of zeal for the situation. He jumped first. In a recent email to Liblogs subscribers he asks that they make mention of the words in their blogs and establish a gathering storm, so that the main-stream media will pick it up and run stories about the phrase. In his opinion it was a “big screw up on his (Prime Minister’s) part”. I understand those emotional feelings Cherniak has towards this situation and he feels they are being lowered levels at a time.

But just for a second, tear away the emotion in the situation (because Harper doesn’t seem to act on an emotional level) to see what is the real reason for his choice of words.

It isn’t a secret to say that the media and Harper have butted heads in the past and continue to do so almost on a daily basis. Now if you were to ask yourself who in the press gallery represents the biggest thorn in Harper’s paw, I would hazard a guess that the CBC would top the list. A public funded broadcaster to the tune of almost one billion a year, with a seeming slant against the party that Harper represents. This slant has been acknowledged and denied thousands of times and will never stop spiraling that way. The CBC has a keen fashion in bending facts or reporting on one side that is almost at an art form. And if you happen to catch them in the act, they will refer you graciously to their in-house ombudsman who will investigate at lengths and explain to you (in CBC terms) why you were mistaken (and it usually translates into “you’re just not smart enough to understand”).

The “so-called” phrase has a meaning in this context. Years ago the CBC adopted a mandate to change two of it’s reporting styles reflecting their left of center views. First was “Terrorist = Fundamentalist” followed by “The War on Terror” = “The So-Called War on Terror”. These terms were abducted and switched in all television and radio news reports and the reason for doing so was explained at an elevated level of thought (thanks to the CBC ombudsman).

That smug attitude and belittlement raises its head again, only this time it is on the other side of the politic spectrum. Just as greenhouse gases are an environmental concern, terrorists and a war are concerning as well. Neither of which should be brought down to the level of being labeled “so-called”.

Harper proves his point with that statement. His point is sharp and hurts those who disagree or choose to see the world in a narrow view. This emotional turn of terms is pointed directly at the Liberals and seems to have extracted the emotional reaction Harper was looking for. However in a Liberal is there ever any other reaction other than emotional?

I’m sure some juice will be squeezed from the “so-called greenhouse gases” phrase, in Liberal blogging entries or on CBC NewsWorld. They will react and accuse the usual suspects in the usual ways. Now all the Conservative party needs is a “so-called” ombudsman to explain why their emotion is misplaced and mistaken.