Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy

Paul Adams

Harper, like Jean Chrétien before him, used to be firmly in the apology-means-weakness school of politics.

Remember the  Conservative press release in 2004 that was headlined “Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography”? He pulled the release but wouldn’t apologize. “I’m not going to, in any way, give the Liberal Party any break in its record on child pornography,” he told reporters when he was asked whether he would apologize. “It is disgraceful, they have had multiple opportunities to do something about it [child pornography], and they have refused.”

Since his election in 2006, though, his government has issued a series of apologies to historically aggrieved groups, and this apologetic spirit has survived into the campaign.

After the puffin poop outrage, Harper said: “My apologies for it having been up.” (Odd choice of words, but the thought is there).

And today, a campaign aide who took a swipe at the father of a soldier killed in Afghanistan, was both suspended and ordered to apologize by Harper. (I guess it must have been in the reverse order, come to think of it).

It must be that sweater vest.

Paul Adams was a political reporter with CBC and the Globe and Mail. He is now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty and executive director of EKOS Research Associates.

Reality TV

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy, Election 2008 Media commentary

Actual puffin pooping

As the debate dust settles . . .

Posted by cwaddell under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy, Election 2008 Media commentary

Christopher Waddell

Following the comments of my colleague Ira Wagman, three observations from the “Greens in the debate” controversy.

For Canadians, it’s a little example of the impact of media concentration – what can happen when the same people own TV networks and newspapers. While enough Canadians were clearly sufficiently upset to force the NDP and Conservatives to back down in their stand against having the Greens in the televised debates, surprisingly the issue didn’t capture the imagination of the two national newspapers. The Globe and Mail (ctvglobemedia) walked an editorial tightrope to avoid criticizing the networks for agreeing to keep the Greens out while the National Post (CanWest Global) so far is missing in action on the issue. Wonder why?

For the NDP, it is a sign the party is feeling the pressure on the environment. That issue used to be the NDP’s preserve but the Layton campaign realized that it can’t afford to alienate environmentalists (and others for that matter) by keeping Elizabeth May out of the debates. That just gives more reasons for them to jump either to the Greens or the Liberals. It’s particularly important as the Liberals are the main rivals in many of the seats the NDP currently hold as well as the ones it wants to win.

For the Conservatives, while they are running a campaign designed to highlight Mr. Harper as a family man, even they get concerned when he starts to look too much like Father Knows Best.

Christopher Waddell is associate director of the school and a former Globe and Mail Ottawa bureau chief, former CBC-TV parliamentary bureau chief and election night executive producer for CBC TV News.

The networks, the parties, and the debate, continued

Posted by cwaddell under Election 2008, Election 2008 Media commentary

Ira Wagman

One of the benefits of sharing the same building with current and former journalists is their ability to mine their sources for information.  Paul Adams’ post on the piece by former CBC head Tony Burman on the Globe and Mail web site in regards to my earlier entry on this blog is an excellent case in point.  However Paul’s posting and the comments of “Final Spin”, the first person to comment on the blog (do we have any cool gear we can send to this person for being the first one to comment?), miss the point of what I was getting at there.  

The point is not whether the nets wanted Elizabeth May to participate in the debates.  This is of little consequence to my argument and frankly, since it doesn’t look like we’re going to find out how the discussions were actually undertaken, who was involved, and how the decision was rendered, we are shadow boxing on this one for the time being.   

The point is not what the broadcasters didn’t do or didn’t want to do.  These are questions of motivation which are great for speculators but offer little analytical value.  It is was they did do that is important.  By citing party participation as a factor in the decision-making process, the consortium effectively took the parties at their word.  Even if broadcasters adopted the party’s arguments for their own interests—and maybe they did think 5 people on the podium would be difficult to manage — it doesn’t change the optics that the political parties are telling the media what to do.  Even the idea that one person would have “veto power”, as Mr. Burman suggests places the power where it shouldn’t be.  

The Consortium’s position should have been as follows :

1. The debates are an excellent opportunity to gain national exposure for your party and to engage with the other party leaders.  

2. The debates take place on October 1 and October 2. 

3. The decision about participation at the event rests with each political party.

4. The debate will take place with those who choose to participate.

In other words, the question of participation should not be related to the question of whether the debate should take place.  If only one of the parties chose to participate, then it’s an hour of free advertising for them.  Once someone learned that there was only one horse in the race, another would enter the fray.  And if none of the parties participated, then the broadcasters could run a 2-hour special, one using the investigative staff of CTV News, The National, and Le Telejournal which would focus their efforts on the decline of real debate in the deliberative process of elections. That would be fine with me.   

I’m obviously guilty of overstatement here, but the fact remains that it is not the broadcasters responsibility to get in the middle of things.  And this is precisely what they have done and it is highly problematic, whether Elizabeth May is in or out of the debate.  

That’s because for me the issue is not about Elizabeth May, but rather about the position Canada’s media needs to occupy in the election.  If it’s true that 24 Sussex really had veto power over this (or that any political party would hold that kind of influence over the networks) then this says something very serious — and indeed, very troubling — about the relationship between Canada’s media outlets and the political parties they cover.  

Ira Wagman is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Carleton University’s School of Journalism and Communication 

Tories on the brink of majority…really on the brink

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy, Election 2008 Media commentary

Paul Adams

Doing seat projections from polling data can be a bit risky. Polls are estimates of public opinion, even if usually quite accurate ones. Figuring out how these figures will translate into the distribution of seats in our first-past-the-post system is a tricky and imprecise business.

However, pollsters and journalists have spent the last two weeks implicitly making seat projections every time they have spoken of the Conservatives “being in majority territory” or “on the brink of a majority”. They just never show their work.

So here is what they are talking about. Taking EKOS’ national sample of over 2000 Canadians from Monday and Tuesday, and running them through a model that takes into account both the special arithmetic of our first-past-the-post system, and the parties’ historical patterns of support, when we say the Tories are “on the brink” we really mean it.

A majority is 155 seats.

The model gives the Tories 156 seats, Liberals 82, NDP 37, BQ 33.

Paul Adams is a former political reporter with the CBC and Globe and Mail, now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty and executive director of EKOS Research Associates.

May in after all?

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Media commentary

Paul Adams

A source in one of the networks tells me it looks like May is in the debate after all.

Heard it here first

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy

Paul Adams

EKOS is about to release new numbers from Monday and Tuesday which show (drum roll…), no change from last week.

Tories 37%, Libs 26%, NDs 19%, BQ 8%, Greens 10%

For those riding along on my gender gap hobby horse, the Tories are still running away with the men’s vote, but the Liberals have lost their skew towards women. The NDP is attracting women in much larger proportion than men, however.

Here’s the link

Paul Adams is a former political reporter with the CBC and Globe and Mail, now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty and executive director of EKOS Research Associates.

Intriguing corrections

Posted by cwaddell under Election 2008, Election 2008 Media commentary

Christopher Waddell

From today’s Globe and Mail:

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May wished good luck to the Liberal candidate running against Conservative minister Jim Flaherty, but did not endorse him, as stated yesterday.

Christopher Waddell is associate director of the school and a former Globe and Mail Ottawa bureau chief, former CBC-TV parliamentary bureau chief and election night executive producer for CBC TV News.

Did the networks really want Elizabeth May?

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Media commentary

Paul Adams

Yesterday, Ira Wagman raised the question of whether the networks really wanted Elizabeth May in the debates to begin with. In an article on the Globe website, the former head of the network consortium, ex-CBC Supremo Tony Burman, who is belatedly advocating an independent debate commission, sheds some light:

Early last year, as Canada’s new Conservative minority government was under attack in the Commons, I called the networks together to quietly discuss the format of the next debates in case a sudden election became necessary. We invited Ms. May and her senior colleagues to make their case to us.

After they left, the networks privately debated the issue. We never actually reached an agreement that day, although all of the networks were sympathetic to the ‘public service’ dimension of the Greens’ case. Some networks worried that adding a fifth leader would make the debate “unwatchable” but we all knew that the elephant in the room was actually living at 24 Sussex Drive. And he – the Prime Minister – would effectively have veto power. Within days of the meeting, we were privately told by the Conservative Party representative that Prime Minister Harper would not participate in the debates if the Green Party leader was there.

So the answer seems to be “yes and no”.

Paul Adams is a former political reporter with CBC and the Globe and Mail who is now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty and executive director of EKOS Research Associates

More about women

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy, Election 2008 Media commentary

Paul Adams

Further to my post yesterday about the Tories’ decisive lead among men, and the Liberals’ struggle to maintain their traditional lead among women, this from the Globe this morning (based on Strategic Counsel’s work in battleground ridings):

The poll also indicates that the Conservatives’ strength in battleground ridings is fuelled by a commanding lead among male voters, those with higher incomes, and voters over 50.

The Liberals, who typically need a lead among female voters to win, are trailing the Tories among women in the B.C. and Quebec battlegrounds, and are essentially tied among women in the Ontario battleground.

“It used to be almost mirror image, where the men would disproportionately go for Conservatives. Now [the Conservatives] have still got their advantage with men and they’ve evened the score with women,” Mr. Donolo said.

Peter Donolo knows, of course. He was Jean Chrétien‘s communications director.

Paul Adams is a former political reporter with CBC and the Globe and Mail. He is now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty and executive director of EKOS Research Associates.