Here we go again

Posted by ealboim under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Faculty links, Election 2011 Media commentary

Elly Alboim

The decision by the networks to exclude Elizabeth May from the Leaders’ Debates goes to the heart of the media’s sense of hubris in election campaigns.

Elections always feature a continuing struggle between media and political parties for control of the agenda. Media take on for themselves the role of arbiter of the truth and organizer of the hierarchy of importance of issues. In doing so, they work under two often contradictory values – loudly proclaiming the importance of accessibility and transparency and insisting on what they call news value in determining what they cover. Implicit in their narrow definition of news value is that the issue be interesting and/or entertaining to their audience, a judgment they insist is their excusive purview to exercise.

In the debates (and I’ve been party to those discussion many times), media organizers and producers worry first and foremost about the “watchability” of the debates and how to make it “good TV.” Although they cloak the discussion in high-minded discourse of making it accessible and interesting to viewers to foster increased democratic participation, it really is about applying game show and sports entertainment values to the process. They prize direct confrontation and angry conflict. Boring and incremental discussion doesn’t cut it – hence the rules on thirty second answers and the reportorial focus on “knock-out punches” and winners and losers in the coverage of the debates themselves. It isn’t really clear why that is important to them – after all there are no commercials to sell and no inter-network competitive urges to satisfy. But they can’t seem to stop themselves from being driven by production values because that is what they do every other day of their professional lives.

Read more…

Debating the debates – round two

Posted by cwaddell under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Faculty links, Election 2011 Media commentary

Christopher Waddell

So we are back where we were in 2008 – should Elizabeth May be in the leader’s debates or not?

Of course she should, as her party receives an annual subsidy based on votes and in 2008 collected 937,613 votes – 6.8 per cent of the total votes cast.

The broadcasters’ rationale that only parties with seats in the House should be in the debate is a circular argument – almost no coverage of smaller parties even during campaigns and then keeping them out of debates so they don’t get the visibility that might help them get enough votes to elect an MP – designed to make it almost impossible for any new national party without a strong regional base to get in.  (Where is the Competition Bureau when you need it!) In fact it is an approach designed to encourage the further regionalization of the Canadian political system.

In 2010 as media coverage of elections fractions in a million directions between the mainstream media and everyone else on the Internet, leaders’ debates are too important as the one common media experience open to all voters to assess the alternatives, to remain the personal fiefdoms of the political parties and their broadcast colleagues.

Here are my conclusions from round one of the debate about the debates in the media chapter in The Canadian Federal Election of 2008 – the book Carleton produces after every election.

Read more…

The trouble with online polls

Posted by padams under Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Media commentary, Media Commentary

Paul Adams

The redoubtable tcnorris has a post on the methodological issues with online polls and the reason that many, perhaps most, reputable news organizations in the United States give them a wide berth.

Online polls, especially those based on “opt-in” panels — that is, those that poll respondents who have signed up to be polled rather than being recruited by a random process — have a very checkered record in elections. Angus Reid, for example, produced an excellent result in the last Canadian election, but blew last year’s British election badly.

There has been considerable confusion about the conflicting “stories” told by the polls recently. Some have the Tories in the mid-thirties and others in the low forties.

However, if you exclude the online panels (Angus Reid and Leger), what you find is that all but one of the polls conducted by phone show the Tories at the lower level.  Nanos, Harris-Decima and EKOS are telling similar stories, with the Tories very much in minority territory. Among phone polls, only Ipsos joins the online polls in showing the Tories with a majority-territory lead.

Paul Adams is an associate professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton. He is a former Parliament Hill reporter and worked in the polling industry. You can follow him on Twitter @padams29

Iggy Coalition Climbdown Watch: Ding!

Posted by padams under Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Media commentary, Media Commentary, Political Strategy

Paul Adams

That didn’t take long: just one day longer that it should have. As I predicted yesterday, Ignatieff’s views on a coalition have “evolved” under withering pressure from the media, some Liberal commentators, and the government. There was no reason why this shouldn’t have happened yesterday other than political naivete.

As Stephen Harper walked into Rideau Hall this morning, Michael Ignatieff issued a release saying that, “We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties”. (Before you panic, the statement also says, “We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.”)

Ignatieff and his advisors have made the tactical judgement that his continued obscurantism was going to dog him through the campaign, and help the Harper Conservatives to fully realize the coalition bogeyman. They cleverly released the statement just moments before Harper’s prepared remarks that went heavily on the coalition that Ignatieff has now flatly disavowed.

So they think this is what is best for the Liberal campaign.

Read more…

Iggy Coalition Climbdown Watch: Day One

Posted by padams under Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Media commentary, Media Commentary, Political Strategy

Paul Adams

Moments after the government fell this afternoon, Michael Ignatieff gave his first press conference in full election mode.

When he had been asked about the possibility of forming a coalition government earlier this week, he parried the question, saying that there is only a Red Door and a Blue Door in this election.

The issue is important because the Liberals want to argue, as Ignatieff did today, that a vote for any party but them is a vote for the continuation of Stephen Harper’s government. If Ignatieff allows that he might form a coalition with the NDP after the next election, then that seems obviously untrue. In that case, the election of NDP members could also contribute to the cause of ousting Harper.

If Ignatieff admits he might entertain a coalition, he undermines this central appeal. If he flatly denies he would consider one, however, he will discourage some of his own supporters, alienate potential Green and NDP switchers, and most importantly limit his strategic options after the election.

Read more…

Election a bad idea? Ask a Libyan about that

Posted by jsallot under Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Faculty links, Election 2011 Media commentary

We’re into a federal election, a campaign that the governing Conservatives say is unnecessary and unwanted.

This will be the third federal election in five years, a fact the Conservatives hope can be used as a cudgel against the opposition parties.
Some news organizations are picking up on this theme.

“With a federal election almost certain, Canadian taxpayers will once again be footing the bill for their right to vote,” began a Postmedia news report this week. The report estimated the cost of this year’s election will come in at more than $288-million.

That’s not chump change for most of us working stiffs.

But it pales in comparison to the price being paid in blood by people in Libya, Yeman, Syria and elsewhere in North Africa and the Middle East to win the right to vote for their governments and leaders. Read more…