Roundup: Agenda-setting out of the gate

Posted on by

With the proclamation signed by the Governor General to dissolve parliament, the 43rdgeneral election started, with Justin Trudeau emerging from Rideau Hall to have a ready-made human backdrop assembled for him. After a mention of the anniversary of 9/11, he launched into his election pitch about the record of economic growth because they rejected the austerity of the Conservative years, and yay Middle Class™ And Those Working Hard To Join It®. He listed accomplishments, and the choice of investing in Canadians, and the choice to move forward or go back to the “Harper years.” The questions afterward were dominated by two themes – the latest SNC-Lavalin news from the Globe and Mail, and Bill 21 in Quebec, and the linguistic duality on the two questions was quite evident. On the former, Trudeau simply said that he trusted the Clerk of the Privy Council’s judgment with regard to the cabinet confidences, and on the latter, he said that he opposed the bill but that now wasn’t the time for the federal government to interfere legally.

Jagmeet Singh held his launch minutes later in London, Ontario – one of the regions where they are looking to save the seats they have. Singh spoke about his personal connection to London, as he lived there when he attended Western, then launched into the tales of woe he heard from people there about pharmacare and healthcare costs – and lo, he has a pitch about expanding coverage around them. He then said that what his party had was the “courage” to take on lobbyists, corporations, money launderers, speculators, Big telecom, big polluters, and “fossil fuel subsidies” – a long list to be sure. He then moved on to claiming that “Trudeau charmed us with pretty words and empty promises”, and that Scheer was not the answer, then turned to the human backdrop and said “These are the people I’m in it for.” Like his slogan. In the questions, he was asked a local question about the General Dynamics plant which is building those LAVs going to Saudi Arabia, and have basically saved the local economy. Singh insisted that they could still have those jobs selling equipment to the Canadian Forces and to “non-oppressive regimes.” Err, except they have their own local suppliers, so he clearly has no idea what he’s referring to.

The Bloc’s launch in Quebec City was largely a laundry lists of exaggerated grievances and talk of a renewed Quebec nationalism, and one of the phrases that leapt out at me was talking about “people who will be like you,” which seems like a dog whistle, but perhaps it was a translation issue.

Next up was Elizabeth may in Victoria, where she brought local “climate striking” children on stage, and then launched into a speech about holding the line on climate change, decrying the Trans Mountain pipeline, and touting her “Mission: Possible” climate plan. She also demanded that parties “jettison partisanship” to solve climate change – never mind that she herself is partisan, and it’s become a Green tendency to pretend that sanctimony is non-partisanship. When faced with questions about vote splitting, she asserted that “Greens don’t split votes, Greens grow votes,” and when pressed about Pierre Nantel’s declaration of separatist sentiments, she prevaricated and assured us that “we’re all Earthlings.”

Finally we had Andrew Scheer, from Trois-Rivières, Quebec – one of those seats he’d love to gain. His 9/11 mentions included the plot of Come From Away as an example of why he loves the country. Using the Harper-esque prefacing of all statements with “friends,” his pitch was that it was time to elect a government that would elect a party that would improve peoples’ daily lives, while he claimed that Trudeau would raise their taxes (err, except that the record is the opposite). And then it was a laundry list of lies and disingenuous framing of issues, hammering on the Globe story about SNC-Lavalin – again, exaggerating what the story actually said. His message to Trudeau was that “starting today, recess is over” – part of his constant attempts to infantilising Trudeau (remember the constant claims that Trudeau is busy colouring in the House of Commons, or that he “wrote” a colouring book). For his Quebec audience, he added a few references about “open federalism” and Quebec being a nation within Canada, while slamming the Bloc as being ineffective in Ottawa.

This all having been said, I did want to touch on that Globe and Mail story for one other aspect, which is the fact that they deliberately published the story about “sources saying” the RCMP has been asking questions about “possible obstruction of justice” in the SNC-Lavalin case – which is not an investigation – on the eve of the election, because they are trying to set the agenda. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t ask these questions, but agenda-setting – particularly where your stories are thinly sourced and with torqued headlines that give a misleading impression of what the story actually says – is of dubious ethical practice, and it’s something we should be cognisant of and think critically about.

Other election stories:

  • Here is a look at the campaign busses and planes.
  • As Ontario will be a key battleground, here’s an exploration of how the messages will roll out therein.
  • As deepfakes become more prevalent, here are some thoughts as to how they will be used in disinformation campaigns targeting elections in Canada (as elsewhere).
  • The NDP lost two candidates yesterday – one because of threats to punch a pipeline proponent in the jaw, the other for allegations of domestic violence.

Good reads:

  • A Canadian Forces aerospace operator at the NORAD base in Florida was murdered during an assault.
  • Here is more backstory on the Great Defection of New Brunswick NDP members to the Greens last week.
  • Here is a wrap of the Manitoba election.
  • Kevin Carmichael notes that while the election may be about the economy, all of the parties have a special disregard to the country’s wealth creators.
  • Matt Gurney is curious about Elizbeth May feeling the need to self-edit her religiosity if her party is as tolerant and inclusive as she says it is.
  • Susan Delacourt explores the issues of what the election means to children, both in the issues and the juvenile politicking.
  • Colby Cosh delves into the NDP’s promise of a “super wealth tax” and what’s wrong with it.
  • Paul Wells gives a fantastic overview of the electoral landscape, and the various dynamics at play in all parties.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

2 thoughts on “Roundup: Agenda-setting out of the gate”

  1. I never thought I’d agree with Trump on anything, but the MSM really is the enemy of the people. Fife the Knife should have been run out of the business after what he did to Mahar Arar, and what he and the untamed shrew with a vendetta are clearly trying to do to Trudeau. Trudeau is not Nixon and Fife is neither Woodward nor Bernstein. CBC has turned into Click Bait Corporation. CTV is Conservative TV. Goebbels News is Fox lite. Even the Star has begun publishing Trump apologia as of late and both-sides-ing CPC lies and bigotry. Then there’s Postmedia, aka National Enquirer North, home of anti-immigration op-eds and incendiary screeds about refugees making goat sacrifices at Toronto hotels. Aside from a select few quality independent journalists, the media has become a malignant cancer rotting the body politic from within.

  2. Thanks for touching on the Globe and Mail article about the RCMP “investigation”. I am totally confused by it and, since the first article was behind a paywall, can’t enlighten myself about the substance. Given that it is behind a paywall, it seems totally irresponsible to let the headline tell the story. The timing is troubling, for the reasons you say, that it appears the Globe and Mail is attempting to set the agenda. Not to mention the implication of misinformation, which coming from a respected newspaper, is alarming.I can only guess, both from remembering the Goodale incident in 2006, the lack of confirmation from the RCMP, and that the media doesn’t seem seized with the story, that it’s not quite as the G&M says.

    I watched the Steve Paikin interview with John Ivison about his book about Trudeau, and it was startling to see an interviewer challenge (in the most courteous way) a journalist’s take on Trudeau (or any non-right-wing politician). I just don’t see that very much anymore. The extent to which media has accepted JWR and Philpott without challenge really perplexes me.

Comments are closed.