Whatzisname Ain't Happy

With Dion—allegedly surrounded by hated Martin people—rebounding in the polls and his buddy Steve-o sliding like kids in a water park, it appears that whatzisname is trying to work the Canadian media a bit. Which is kinda funny, considering they're more in the tank for the conservative movement than the American media has for years. But it's par for the course.

Anyway, teh funnays:

• WINNER: The Toronto Star. Like a certain Liberal In Exile© I, um, know, you could always count on the Star to suspend its critical faculties and urge folks to vote Liberal under any and all circumstances. Like some of us, it had the LPC logo tattooed in its nether regions. For the Star, no more! In this campaign, the Star has been scrupulously fair in its coverage - and, editorially, not nearly as slavish in its devotion to the NGP as it once was. It'll endorse the Grits in the next week, but big deal - newspaper editorial newspaper support is irrelevant. Kudos to the Star, and its revitalized Ottawa bureau, for playing this one straight.

Welp, no surprise here. Normally whatzisname here hates the Star, because they have hookers in a weekly urban alternative magazine they run.

(I'll pause here to let you catch your breath on that incredible revelation. Yes, it's older than my namesake, but it's new to him.)

But now he's lauding the Star. Why? Well, isn't it obvious? At least two of their columnists openly despise Dion. Neither Hebert nor Travers have ever forgiven the Liberals for not choosing Ignatieff, and I suspect that's probably the majority view at the Star. (Maybe not Siddiqui, who was never too fond of Iggy's hawkish positions, but he doesn't appear to be the force he used to be. The Star hasn't "played this one straight", but it has played it just like Our Hero wanted them to.

• LOSER: Maclean's magazine. I'm not fan, going back to the appalling way the magazine dealt with the Muslim community. In Campaign 2008, a lot of what I've read in Maclean's online - like many Canadians, I never actually buy the thing - continues to have the same smirky, snarky, aren't-we-clever style, and it's off-putting. Wells, Coyne and Potter are great, but the magazine just plain isn't.

I'd agree, but it actually has one of the better blog sections in the Canadian media landscape, and O'Malley (whom whatzisname left off for some unfathomable reason) has been good enough that I'm starting to think she deserves Coyne's job.

• WINNERS: The CBC. MotherCorp, like the Star, always gets tagged for being a black helicopter-driving, One World Government-loving, latté-sipping, secular humanist conspiracy. And, let's face it, they often were. This time around, they provide outstanding political coverage, online and off. And they have gone to extraordinary lengths to solicit the opinions and input of regular folks, and have received precious little credit for doing so. Cynics will sniff they're currying favour with the Tories to avoid future budgetary cuts. Me, I just think they're doing their job.

That you're a "cynic" doesn't mean you're wrong. Unlike, say, all this nonsense about "latte-sipping secular humanists".

Isn't this guy supposed to be a media expert? Doesn't he get that using Luntz Language to describe what—occasionally—he calls his own side is playing directly into the hands of the Republicans and their frosty Canadian offshoot?

(Well, yes, of course he does. He just doesn't care. It's pretty clear that "liberal" is a label to this guy; those who consider it a belief system or a philosophy aren't welcome.)

(Speaking of which.)

• LOSERS: The Blogosweird. Unlike the mainstream media (the so-called MSM), I haven't broken any stories in this election. Unlike the MSM, no one pays money for my opinions. Unlike the MSM, I don't command the attention of millions. But the blogs and vlogs and social networking sites have been significant mainly for one thing in this campaign: they have provided the fodder for myriad campaign embarrassments. Here's the thing, bloggers: you aren't changing the story - you have become the story, and not in a good way. Most of the felled candidates? Bloggers. Or online onanists. There's a lesson there, O Vanity Press For The Deranged. But I don't expect you to heed it.

Interesting story here. From what I understand, the government he does support, the ontario provincial Liberals, doesn't have any real campaign finance restrictions. They can get money from anybody, and as much as they want.

Keeping that in mind, this stand kind of makes sense. Let's be clear: progressives under campaign finance restrictions cannot effectively fundraise without a strong Internet presence. The biggest failure of the Liberals has been that they haven't replicated the online activist community of bloggers and twitterers and social networkers and MyBOers and whatnot that fuels American progressivism. Without that community, you'll never be able to keep up with Republican-style direct mail campaigns. With it, you'll crush them.

His team has no campaign finance restrictions. The others do. His team doesn't need to find alternate sources of funding. The others do. His team doesn't need an online activist community to get that funding. The others do.

Why wouldn't he mock the one thing that could close the gap? "Liberal" is nothing but a label to him. There are no real beliefs involved. There is no real philosophy involved. It's just the game, and if it isn't his team, well, they can go to hell.

• WINNER: The Canadian Press. With the exception of their regrettable decision to run an AP story about how to copy Sarah Palin's hairstyle, CP has been an indispensible source of info about Campaign 2008. Where the leaders are! What they say! What they do! What the issues are! What Harris-Decima's Bruce Anderson had for breakfast! CP rules in this race.

...because they're in the tank for Harper.

Yeah, you get it by now.

Sorry, buddy, but even if he looks like a hobbit, Cherniak was right. At least he's loyal to something.