The theory, or so it goes, of televising debates of national leaders during an election campaign is to inform the citizenry of the serious issues of the day that face the country. This presumably is in order to allow the voters to make a better informed decision when they go to the polls on January 23. The theory, of course is total nonsense. While the media elites like to believe in their role in advancing what in Canada has become a technical democracy, the real purpose is to get ratings. and this is not easily achieved when the English language debate is aired on a Friday night when in addition to regular Friday night pursuits, people are either attending Christmas parties or are out shopping in overcrowded malls.
The media lives for the so-called knockout punch during a debate which hasn’t occurred since 1984 and very rarely happens. It was practically impossible for a knockout punch to occur considering the format of this year’s French and English language debates. In order to bring civility to the debates, the microphones were cut from all the leaders except the one whose turn it was to speak so there could be no yelling back and forth. It didn’t seem to matter that these one-on-one exchanges often provide the clearest assessment of which candidate will make the best or for that matter the worst leader. Taking the cross-arguing out of the debates was like taking the fighting out of hockey. although the elites claim that both these things are bad, they are a major reason why many people choose to watch both hockey and political debates. The format also allowed the leaders to rehearse prepared speeches that could not be interrupted such as Paul Martin’s impassioned "my country" rant that was aimed at Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe.
Barring a clear knockout punch such as the one that Brian Mulroney levelled at John Turner during the 1984 debates, determining who the debate’s winner is highly subjective. This fact, of course did not stop much of the media from declaring a winner and those news media that did so, clearly showed their biases.
The headline in the next day’s Liberal-friendly Toronto Star read, "Martin lashes out at rivals". In contrast, the conservative National Post blazed the headline, "Martin focus of attack." Well, which one was it; was the PM lashing out or being attacked?
a lot of issues have been discussed since the election has been called and it is difficult to determine which if any issue was the main issue in the debate. That fact did not stop the media from trying. It appears that the major issue of the debate was in the eye of the beholder. a headline in the Globe and Mail read "Harper rebukes Martin for tiff with U.S." according to the London Free Press, unity was the major issue according to the headline, "National Unity highlights debate". and Toronto’s City TV, as expected, devoted more time to their favourite topic (and the one that most of their info babes can understand); same sex marriage.
Ironically, the most neutral headline seemed to be the one that appeared on the website of Voice of america. It simply read, "Heated debate marks Canada Election Campaign".
and . . .
Time Canada has named Justice John Gomery as Canada’s "Newsmaker of the Year". The only question that can be raised concerning the magazine’s choice is why? Not to suggest that Gomery did not do a good job in his inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, but how can he be Canada’s top newsmaker when most Canadians couldn’t care less about "the news". The total corruption of the Liberal Party has almost become a non issue in the election campaign that so far is focused on national unity, daycare and that old Canadian standby, health care. The fact that the polls continue to show the Liberals in the lead means that when it comes to determining the composition of the next parliament, Justice Gomery’s findings will have less impact than Stephen Harper’s hairstyle. Besides, Gomery’s conclusions that these acts of corruption existed and that the Liberals have a "culture of entitlement" hardly qualifies as "news" to well informed Canadians. The real newsmaker of the year should have been Jack Layton; after all, how often does the leader of the 4th party get to pass a budget and practically run the country if only for a few weeks?