Recently, it’s seemed to me that the news has been dominated by two stories that:
- Most Canadians don’t care about
- Have received far more media attention than they deserve
The first is this absurd ‘Quebec as nation’ debate. Who cares? As I understand it, the moniker has no constitutional or practical impact–it’s just a noun. In Canada, we have this queer obsession with the naming of cultural differences.
Secondly, who gives a flying Fallujah about the Liberal leadership convention? A third of this country can’t be bothered to vote in federal elections, so how many people are worried about the leader selection process for a given party? Yes, the proceedings should be available for public consumption, but I’ve been hearing about the race and the convention in the news for weeks.
I certainly don’t think the media should be strictly limited to the most popular (and populist) stories, but lately they’ve been spending a little too much time inside that Ottawa echo chamber.
UPDATE: By the way, if any of you political keeners do care about the Liberal leadership race, Stephen is there and blogging up a storm, and Tim wrote a good summary of the speeches.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
“The first is this absurd ‘Quebec as nation’ debate. Who cares?”
Only the people that are worried that this is a step towards the breakup of Canada (not just in two, but into many smaller pieces).
Or a step towards decentralization of Canada, which could mean a more united Canada in the long run, ironically.
Darren: what, then, would you pick as underreported stories that these things are driving off of the national pages?
I care a great deal.
It seems that Harper wished to out maneouver the Bloc by co-opting a motion that they planned to bring to the table.
The vagueness of this motion troubles me. My guess is that it will open up a legal can of worms in the future DESPITE the fact it has no constitutional or legal footing. However, it does open a crack in which levers might be jammed.
Yep, it troubles me.
I think they’re both very interesting stories, and both very relevant. Both are perhaps boring and don’t mean much now, but they will (or at least could) sometime in the future, say if separatists somehow squeeze through a crack opened up by the motion, or say if Michael Ignatieff becomes prime minister and people start asking, “Now how the hell did this come about?”
Ryan: To be honest, I don’t follow the news closely enough to identify the under-reported stories.
The media certainly is completely to blame. They report (or at least they should report) what politicians talk about.
I care about the liberal leadership campaign. One of those guys has an excellent chance of being the future prime minister. Seeing who the liberals also shows where the party is pointing. That gives an indication of whether or not it’s worthwhile pushing the green (or other) party , or if it’s possible to achieve more positive results from ye olde liberals.
I don’t personally care that much about the Quebec as a nation debate. Having lived in that province for some years I can understand why it’s big news though. The separatists were on the up-and-up until the conservatives beat them back a bit in the last federal election. There’s still a serious fight going on in Quebec on whether or not it should stay in Canada.
I’m not sure how relevant the media coverage of the Liberal leadership campaign is, given that WE have no say in it. If, afterward, we wanted to know “how the hell it came about,” I’m sure there’ll be plenty of summarized coverage of the progress. I have no idea who any of these people are, and wish that I had some kind of voice + choice in the matter, though I understand the implications of that. I do agree they should be focussing on more important things, such as, hmm, Canadians’ disregard for the environment, toxins in our homes and food, and corruption.
As for Quebec, since I disagree with the notion, I do care about it. Again, though, I have little or no voice, so I’m not following the coverage, plus I greatly dislike Harper who is just kissing @$$ and they will probably not go through with it. We’ll see. They’d better ask the rest of us.
Erika: If you’re not a card-carrying Liberal, then there’s no reason for you to have a say in the whole convention thing anyway. And as irrelevant as the convention might seem compared to the issues you raised, it’s still newsworthy. And bear in mind that the choice made by the Liberals will most definitely have at least some future impact on things like Canadians’ disregard for the environment, toxins in our homes and food, and corruption. Hopefully a positive impact, but perhaps I’m being too optimisitc.
Jordan (and others): Just to be clear, I wasn’t claiming that these stories aren’t newsworthy. I said they’ve received ‘far more media attention than they deserve’. They should have been reported–just with significantly less intensity and frequency.
I wasn’t saying the convention itself is irrelevant, just — as Darren just put it — its extensive media coverage. (“I’m not sure how relevant *the media coverage* of the Liberal leadership campaign is.”) I don’t think they should ignore it, but there are important issues that deserve media attention. The fact that the outcome of the Liberal campaign DOES have a future impact is the whole reason why I wish we had some kind of say in it.
I’m glad Dion won, for the environmental reasons since I found out he’s positive about that.