PropVille
Last Sunday Cynthia Freeland posted an edited video of Erin O'Toole discussing his desire to introduce a modicum of private healthcare delivery in Canada.
What was removed in the editing was Mr. O'Toole clearly stating that he wished to do this in the context of maintained universal access to care.
Here is what Ms. Freeland tweeted atop the edited video:
Sean Holman, speaking on Canadaland this week, pointed out that the editing itself was not manipulative given that the jump cuts in the video are obvious.
I agree with Sean on this point.
However, in my opinion, what was generated by the editing process was manipulative given that the video Ms. Freeland linked to in her tweet (and which Mr. Trudeau re-tweeted) strongly suggests that Mr. O'Toole wants to do something that many Canadians feel is bad (i.e. utilize private, for profit healthcare delivery) while simultaneously removing any indication that Mr. O'Toole wants to do this while maintaining universal coverage which, of course, most of those very same Canadians think is a good thing.
Now, you can (and the Liberals should) argue that Mr. O'Toole's strategy of mixed private/public healthcare delivery is a bad one, especially with respect to the likelihood that it will ultimately generate a more costly two-tiered system etcetera.
However, what the Liberal were doing here was not that.
Instead, they were being manipulative in an attempt to generate a 'gotcha' propaganda scare amongst a certain slice of the electorate that might be starting to kick the tires on Mr. O'Toole's campaign bus.
Thus, I'm happy that Twitter slapped a 'manipulated video' warning on Ms. Freeland's original tweet, even if Conservative insiders may have been the impetus behind said slapping (scroll down to 'Freeland vs Twitter').
Why am I happy?
Because I think that the only way to make our politics better is to call out this gotcha crap for what it is, especially when it is manipulative, regardless the party and/or politician that initiates it.
OK?
________
And no, despite the claims of some apologists, Ms. Freeland's posting of the full, unedited video down thread does not absolve her and hers...Why?...Well, ask yourself this...Why did Ms. Freeland not just link to the unedited video in the origina, top of the threadl tweet wherein she notes that our universal healthcare system is one of our greatest strengths?
However, in my opinion, what was generated by the editing process was manipulative given that the video Ms. Freeland linked to in her tweet (and which Mr. Trudeau re-tweeted) strongly suggests that Mr. O'Toole wants to do something that many Canadians feel is bad (i.e. utilize private, for profit healthcare delivery) while simultaneously removing any indication that Mr. O'Toole wants to do this while maintaining universal coverage which, of course, most of those very same Canadians think is a good thing.
Now, you can (and the Liberals should) argue that Mr. O'Toole's strategy of mixed private/public healthcare delivery is a bad one, especially with respect to the likelihood that it will ultimately generate a more costly two-tiered system etcetera.
However, what the Liberal were doing here was not that.
Instead, they were being manipulative in an attempt to generate a 'gotcha' propaganda scare amongst a certain slice of the electorate that might be starting to kick the tires on Mr. O'Toole's campaign bus.
Thus, I'm happy that Twitter slapped a 'manipulated video' warning on Ms. Freeland's original tweet, even if Conservative insiders may have been the impetus behind said slapping (scroll down to 'Freeland vs Twitter').
Why am I happy?
Because I think that the only way to make our politics better is to call out this gotcha crap for what it is, especially when it is manipulative, regardless the party and/or politician that initiates it.
OK?
________
And no, despite the claims of some apologists, Ms. Freeland's posting of the full, unedited video down thread does not absolve her and hers...Why?...Well, ask yourself this...Why did Ms. Freeland not just link to the unedited video in the origina, top of the threadl tweet wherein she notes that our universal healthcare system is one of our greatest strengths?
I was actually surprised that Mr. Holman did not see this as manipulative while he spoke with guest host Fatima Syed on Canadaland's podcast. Sean did say he found it to be biased and further noted that one has to be careful, given worse stuff, often coming from the right side of the political ledger, about trumpeting false equivalencies that lead to problematic claims of 'both siderism'. Ms. Syed on the other hand, while agreeing with Holman's point about bias, laughingly said that we all just want politics to be better after dismissing Twitter's manipulated media moniker. Well, if that's the case...
Mr. Holman also brought up the matter of how problematic Canada's access to information laws and procedures are, including how much hidden stuff should be publicly available without an FOI request...Here, I agree with him 100 percent...We also thank him for drawing our attention to Stanley Tromp's database of media stories that have been generated, at least in part, due to material obtained by FOI over at the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association's website.
Finally, hearing Sean talk politics on my non-radio device made me think it was a Sunday morning from days of yore even though it was a Thursday evening bike ride when I actually listened.
Update, late Friday afternoon: Sean Holman expands on his position in a good Twittmachine thread, here....Clearly, Sean is more hard-headed and realistic about how politics is routinely practiced in this country...Me, I see those practices as a big part of the problem with our body politic and want to see them changed, regardless how unrealistic that might be.
.
2 comments:
This manipulation is part of the mis- and dis- information that clouds what passes for debate in the greater political domain (as well as advertising and much social discourse), and it's a factor in getting people to stay entirely away from politics and the polls. thereby contributing to the fragmentation of society.
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.
---George Orwell
This masks, to a certain extent that the political goalposts are fluid, but limited in their scope, where in people might easily feel that there is no group running that represents the needs of society in any meaningful manner.
Of course, it is difficult to determine whether a vote means anything in an environment where there is a wide divergence between the promises of the campaign and the reality of eventual policy. I have both an MP and an MLA who are great people, people of conscience and knowledge, but whose whole discourse seems to have disappeared into the mushy amalgam of whipped party policy, meaning that neither the person nor the party will ever, under present processes, get done what needs to get done.
Add to this the phenomenon where most of society's business seems to be conducted far from public scrutiny and the "sale" of policy is the clearest result of these back room tractations, and general apathy in the body politic is the result.
So running across this set me to wondering if there is a way to start mobilizing voters around combating the apathy by getting our processes under the microscope:
https://www.liberation.fr/politique/democratie-participative-les-citoyens-mettent-la-main-a-la-pate-20210826_Z2CE6C2GUNBXDGTILM36ECLMFM/
Sorry about the article being in French, but those who follow Holman and others of his ilk (Laila, RossK, Norm Farrell), the intent is clear. Of course there are those who will shun any picking apart of the present house of cards (Republicans and other versions of Repubism, you know who you are!) because they are fine with ending the sham, or any, form of democracy.
Thanks Danneau--
One thing I know for certain, Mr. Holman will agree with you about how 'whipped party policy' contributed to the disappearance or your representatives' discourse.
.
Post a Comment