I am the first to say it, voter suppression is not fair play in any case. And again, even with the fact that this action is not fair how many voters *really listened* to robocalls? I am sure that the main reason why this  »scandal » did not had a long run in the last election is because this was not a lot of people who actually cared. And then, all political parties have spin doctors, which their job is doing  »voter suppression » as their day job.

But again, as a spectator I have seen worse things happens at elections or leadership contests. Do you thing that making voting homeless people for booze or cigarettes is any better? Or putting a 5 or 10$ bill next to a leadership contest form? Or using shell organisations with nice sounding names (à la Working Families) to put negative advertising to put the party looks clean is any more clean?

Having been educated  in the same schools with the same professors (there are not a lot of school for journos in Canada), groupthinking is something which I tend to believe in quite common in journalism. Some scandals are just more  »journalistic » then others and especially WHO is doing it. I am very cynical by saying this, but I find one common method of spin used by journalists is to say that a same scandal is done by a bad apple (in one case), which in the other case everybody in the given organisation is responsible (this is used when journos are at war with this given organisation).

Take the current US president, except for a few exceptions, it’s taboo among many in the Canadian media establishment to say that he is corrupt war-monger, paternalist  »do-gooder », constitution hating (while ironically being a professor of constitutional law in the past) and protectionist dimwit who comes from a city machine where the Mafia is using more  »legal » methods then the Democratic Party organisation of his city.

Hell, just look at how the current president Senate seat successor in Illinois was chosen. But the Obama administration are smart, they know awfully well how to package  »scandals » with nice looking names to make them more presentable among the do-gooder crowd. I believe that whatever the cost implicated, having a scandal based on  »green » energy seems more winner for example then having one based on  »unsexy » things. At least, some could say,  »well…they have good intentions at the start ». Remember, the cost or the impact on taxpayer is secondary in this case because the supposed  »good intentions » are the key.

This is what I hate about politics, the opposition wash their hands is saying that they are perfect, while to be power you need to use many  »dirty tricks » to have access to the pot of taxpayers money to access to power.  And then, do you think that patronage based on millions on taxpayers dollars taken by coercion is any better? Hell, the best (and easiest) way to win votes is by spending the cash of others. Alas, so few people are saying that this *is* bad. Even that in some parts of the country this is normal.

At least, even through I don’t think this is fair play, an average person could be suspicious of a robocall done by anybody. With state coercion, you don’t you have a choice to give in or face consequences whatever you like it or not.

But remember, quite a few journalists love state coercion whatever to pay their salary in some cases or to have corporatist perks (such as a special status invented by the state) associated with their job in other cases.

An advice to any political ruler, have the media on the side and you could go VERY far.


Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )


Connexion à %s