scribblet Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 I think it should be he who understands the media and can win the support of the dailies, wins. Newspapers no longer report news, they try to shape it. The G & M seem to be getting a bit antsy He who understands TV, wins By JOHN DOYLE Monday, January 9, 2006 Posted at 3:06 AM EST Stephen Harper has sailed smoothly toward tonight's Federal Leaders Debate (CBC, CTV, Global and all-news channels, 8 p.m. EST) by ignoring a lot of sneers. If you're an aficionado of political satire on Canadian TV -- and there's a lot of it -- you'll know that Harper has been the target of severe sneering since the first day of this campaign. Both 22 Minutes and Royal Canadian Air Farce have their Harper routines and both amount to the same impression -- he's an automaton, his TV ads are hokey and hilariously inept. No, they're not and he's no robot. No matter what happens tonight, this campaign is essentially over. Harper has won it and I'll tell you why. The Conservative campaign began early and relied heavily on both TV ads and photo-ops tailored for TV news. The army of CBC comics, the middle-class intelligentsia and the self-proclaimed media-savvy can sneer, but they've missed the point. Harper and his cohorts took a page from the Mike Harris campaign that swept Ontario in 1995, a campaign built around the relentless provision of TV photo-ops that, at the time, also produced an awful lot of sneering. But, as the Ontario Liberals and NDP found to their cost, Harris and his handlers displayed a stunning grasp of the simple-minded recipes for TV news reporting. You may have seen those TV ads with Harper being interviewed by a phony interviewer and taking questions from a phony voter. The ads have been mocked relentlessly. The ads are too square and amateurish, say the media-savvy. That's seriously missing the point. At election time, voters want the message presented as simply as possible. In an election campaign with little significant difference between the two main parties, the currency is simplicity. The voter/viewer has a basic request: "Keep it simple, stupid." And one simple question, "What's in it for me?" The Harper campaign fulfilled that request and answered the question, using television. more here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../Entertainment/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 I think it should be he who understands the media and can win the support of the dailies, wins. You are probably right about TV appealing to the masses scriblett. Randomly flicking channels doesn't take much mental or physical energy. Newspapers are generally good, but they arlso contain lots of clutter. It's also expensive to subscribe to more than a few newspapers. I've lived without TV for 10 years and don't miss it at all. Piped laughter and hyper-edited speechs are pretty monotonous after a while. They do have to cut to the commercials, though (every 5 minutes), to pay their bills. You can get information way faster on the net. That might be why TV is the media of choice for conservatives. It keeps people blissfully ignorant compared to new technology. It might also explain why the net may be coming under attack. At Stake: The Net as We Know It Google et al fear broadband carriers will tie up traffic with new tolls and controls. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/con...1215_141991.htm Note that Bush only had an 18% approval rating on a recent USA today internet poll, but he's up to 41% on traditional Gallup polls. I'm guessing that a big chunk of that is because guys on the Internet have access to 100 times more information than the guys flicking channels on telivision. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/ http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13582.content.htm I would like to see the debates tonight though. I'll have to listen to them on CBC Radio instead. I just wish the debates were more exhaustive. Timed 2 minute speeches only seem to scratch the surface. As far as I'm concerned the whole campaign should be public debates, with all politicians being required to directly answer the questions they are asked. It's ridiculous that billions of dollars are wasted on mindless lawn signs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Four points. 1. I love people who refere to *the masses* implying they are members of some intellectual elite. 2. Any support for your assertion that *TV is the medium (singular tsk tsk) of choice for conservatives*? 3. Go down to your local NDP candidate`s campaign office. Like-minded souls and probably some free food/drink for you to ingest while watching the final nail in Martin`s coffin. 4. Billions of dollars on lawn signs???? Do you know how much a billion dollars actually is? It is a thousand million dollars. There will not be that much money spent on lawn signs by ALL candidates in this campaign. You are probably right about TV appealing to the masses scriblett. That might be why TV is the media of choice for conservatives. It keeps people blissfully ignorant compared to new technology. It might also explain why the net may be coming under attack. I would like to see the debates tonight though. I'll have to listen to them on CBC instead. It's ridiculous that billions of dollars are wasted on mindless lawn signs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Four points.4. Billions of dollars on lawn signs???? Do you know how much a billion dollars actually is? It is a thousand million dollars. There will not be that much money spent on lawn signs by ALL candidates in this campaign. You are probably right about TV appealing to the masses scriblett. That might be why TV is the media of choice for conservatives. It keeps people blissfully ignorant compared to new technology. It might also explain why the net may be coming under attack. I would like to see the debates tonight though. I'll have to listen to them on CBC instead. It's ridiculous that billions of dollars are wasted on mindless lawn signs. If you added it up over all the elections it probably adds up to a few billion. 1 lawn sign = $10 1 lawn sign for each 100 people (Canada and the US) = 4 000 000 lawn signs per election cycle. 1 election cycle every 1.6 years (federal, provincial/state, municipal) = 40 years to spend $1 billion dollars on lawn signs in Canada and the US. If you take Europe, Latin America and Austalia into the picture, Literally Billions of dollars are wasted on lawn signs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Four points. 1. I love people who refere to *the masses* implying they are members of some intellectual elite. 2. Any support for your assertion that *TV is the medium (singular tsk tsk) of choice for conservatives*? 3. Go down to your local NDP candidate`s campaign office. Like-minded souls and probably some free food/drink for you to ingest while watching the final nail in Martin`s coffin. 4. Billions of dollars on lawn signs???? Do you know how much a billion dollars actually is? It is a thousand million dollars. There will not be that much money spent on lawn signs by ALL candidates in this campaign. [. Cute eh! Billions in lawn signs LOL whats the limit on spending for a campaign, (I don't mean third parties) and only a portion of that is spent on signs. I think its around $70,000 not sure, and how many ridings actually have that much in their war chests? Course there's always money that was allegedly diverted by Quebec advertising firms into trust funds controlled by Liberal party operatives. Hence the conjecture that some MP's might not have won if it were not for those funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 TEN BUCKS on a lawn sign. Where the hell did you pull that number from? Less than a buck would be more realistic. You have never been around a campaign of any kind. Have you? Guess that means 400 YEARS for a billion dollars on lawn signs in Canada and the U.S. 1 lawn sign = $101 lawn sign for each 100 people (Canada and the US) = 4 000 000 lawn signs per election cycle. 1 election cycle every 1.6 years (federal, provincial/state, municipal) = 40 years to spend $1 billion dollars on lawn signs in Canada and the US. If you take Europe, Latin America and Austalia into the picture, Literally Billions of dollars are wasted on lawn signs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 No matter what happens tonight, this campaign is essentially over. Harper has won it and I'll tell you why. The Conservative campaign began early and relied heavily on both TV ads and photo-ops tailored for TV news. The army of CBC comics, the middle-class intelligentsia and the self-proclaimed media-savvy can sneer, but they've missed the point. I love the CPC logic ... No matter what happens, Harper has won it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 No matter what happens tonight, this campaign is essentially over. Harper has won it and I'll tell you why. The Conservative campaign began early and relied heavily on both TV ads and photo-ops tailored for TV news. The army of CBC comics, the middle-class intelligentsia and the self-proclaimed media-savvy can sneer, but they've missed the point. I love the CPC logic ... No matter what happens, Harper has won it.... Read my "Tonight's Debate" thread err...I believe I gave the NDP equal footing with the CPC... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.