Thank you Justin for a great dispatch. I was just bemoaning on Monday why “really great”reporters weren’t at PP’s press conferences. Now I get it. A sad state of affairs. The medium is the message.
There are still fantastic reporters covering the Conservative leader! But I know there are also a lot of reporters who are, like me, just frustrated and burnt out by the state of things in Ottawa, across the board.
Wow! I can only imagine what your second question would be… thanks again for your great, factual and insightful reporting. Keep MAGA south of the border… or is it too late based on your previous report on polarization? Curious on your thoughts…
The funny thing is: In a normal world, where journalists actually had space to ask a variety of questions and pose follow-ups, I probably would've asked about his plan for the port. I actually *do* think that we should be engaging more on those kinds of policy issues. But it's the rationing of these media opportunities that pushes us to hone in on the issues that really get the meat of his political project — like this.
My gut tells me that people really hate this shit. I know from having a lot of conversations with friends and strangers that people are really receptive to Poilievre's messages around housing. But they're really turned off by him doing this conspiracy karaoke. I think it's hard to build a long-term political project based on a huge number of people who hate the character you're playing.
Have to agree that pp is not trump and agree he s running up a very big debt to some paranoid powers . I do not see him controlling a mob in any way. They let him carry their Tims. He ll get chewed up and replaced when those powers feel more secure. And I shudder to think who they might pick, with the world on the verge of a fresh war. Who is pulling strings from behind the scenes?
It seems the Prime Minister and the Liberals agree with you about negative ads. I do not see much positive coming out about the governments' many accomplishments, and I say this as a non supporter of the Liberals in happier times. They have to start tooting what they ve done right. It s a lot. They re staying mum. A wily old Communications DG once told me the rule is: Tell em what you re gonna tell em, Tell em, Tell em what you told em.
She accomplished a lot in a no good news portfolio like DIAND back in the 90s.
No one is following that directive today.
I am not taking issue with you because you re one of the voices who tell the truth but isn t it a testimony to the deteriorated media coverage these days that you need to host a private forum to get your messaging out there? The Big Lie is prevailing. Growing. My point is that the truth isnt getting presented much at all, never mind enough to counter the lies. People are infused with lies on facebook, X and every streaming vehicle and whatever else folk use. I play a personal whack a mole turning him off. He just keeps popping back up.
I d love to see a Bob Stanfield or Joe Clark Conservative in charge again. Hell I d vote for a Diefenbaker as my grandmother proudly did if it turned the tide away from neo fascism. O Toole might be on the right track personally, but he couldn t get elected.
I wonder what it will take to turn voters back to sense. I probably won t live that long. But I m very glad your voice is out here, wherever you get seen and heard.
Thank you for your reply. I am grateful you are doing what you re doing and I hope more people get to hear you.
I think we're at the center of a number of problems that just happen to be crashing together right now. It's a tough time for all governments, and the feds are wearing that; the Trudeau government is just not functional or functioning like it used to be; the media is stretched thin *and* its readership has gone off a cliff; a segment of the conservative base has become essentially radicalized in hatred of this government/liberalism; and the 4.5-way electoral split is pushing everyone into more desperate measures.
Some of these problems are going to have to give. Some sooner than others. What we desperately need, in my view, is a few things to focus on, as a kind of ideological north star, that we can all agree on. Joe Biden is trying this, to some success, with some of his big infrastructure bills — it's a program that, I think, will take deeper effect over the next year. Canada just doesn't have that, and it's incumbent on the government to figure out just what the hell that thing is. If they don't, I think the divisions end up getting much more acute.
Man if you could just watch the glaze across the faces of my innocent and kindly neighbours whenever they hear the name Trudeau....
and BTW I live in Eastern Canada where no national print news exists. Irving owns the bit of local news and the intrepid little Halifax Examiner is struggling to stay afloat on line.
The Cons own the story and they have no shame in the tear downs.
Yes if only we could figure out what to work on together. And get the story together...
Another great dispatch. I have been thinking as to what could be useful approach to reporting on issues that are dismissed by many political representatives using rhetoric, canned, or nonsensical commentary. Unfortunately my ideas only work in a long form content and so not in the social media ecosystem we have.
Essentially, here is the proposed approach. first state the content of the initiative or proposal. Provide references as appropriate. Seek points of view from different segments of society. Seek expert views and explain why they are experts. Then using a well framed open ended question about the issue ask each political representative the same question and share their actual words. Invite the listener to reflect.
I recognize that this is too long and requires significant effort and associated expense. However I truly believe that most of the problems today defy black and white answers and require reflection by the general population.
I am constantly impressed by your efforts in this direction. Keep up the great work.
I wrote a few weeks back about how fundamentally screwed up our news distribution system is. I think that's the real barrier to doing the kind of journalism you describe. We don't know how to get people to read stuff online, which makes it harder to experiment, take stuff slow, go longer, etc. But I think there's a real demand for the kind of elaborate, detailed, diverse reportage. Unfortunately, on the other side, there is zero appetite by the political class to actually engage in those kind of conversations. The quality of debate and dialog has gone off a cliff.
There was a time when newspapers would pose questions to candidates (even if it was only to state their platform) and publish the answers. Though it wasn't live and we don't know who wrote the answers, it was better than the tiktok i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶action that we get today.
ChatGPT would probably write better responses! No ego to protect, no base to play to, no ‘say-nothing’, ‘commit-to-nothing’ games. In fact if PP and the GOP kind of cynical attack politics wins the day, I might end up voting for an AI over them.
Unrelated but related, currently reading, “Blood” by Dr. Jen Gunter, very interesting work.
Her motivation for writing the book ( 462 pages) was the concerning proliferation of wacky “medical content” on the web re women’s health specifically related to menses. Her “Final Thoughts” ( page 14) explain the Illusory Truth effect- people are predisposed to conflate repetition and accuracy. “It is believed to be related in part to processing fluency which is the ease with which humans can digest a piece of information. If we have heard or read something before, it’s easier to process ( and accept) when we are exposed to,it again”.
Fertile field for MSU ( making stuff up) for our soon to be PM/ PM in waiting.
Cannot imagine him on a world stage and the composure needed to formulate a truly thoughtful and
I have followed politics and journalists in print, tv & internet decades now.
And I have seen exactly what you said so well to the point I rarely listen to any of the leaders of the their party because as you said, they shy away from the answer and either repeat their stance or belittle the journalist/ reporters.
Thank you for again for the clarity with your incredible writing in this increasingly frustrating state of affairs.
Now my question, is what we can do about it. The far right have managed.
This is line that Trudeau uses a lot
"This Is Not Who We Are As Canadians”
Has run its course.
This whole thing is who we are and thank you again Mr Ling for making sense of all this dangerous kerfuffle.
You say.........At a time of dwindling resources, we need to move away from cover politics-as-sport and towards more thoughtful conversations on problems and policy solutions. But it would be foolish to think that if mainstream journalists did better, Poilievre would ease up. ...He has some good policies and solutions( I m paraphrasing because your format won t let me back to find the exact quote).
And Hitler made the trains run on time.
I hate to think of you as disingenuous but Oh Justin Ling, can you be letting journalism off the hook to report the actual danger? Journalism that was gloriously free if multi sided in my young Boomer days and has become owned, decrepit, dim witted, one sided. Published voices don t even start at the middle these days, they just veer right, off to the horizon.
The one thing that is our front line defense against populism and any other isms taking over the hearts and minds of the country? Mustn t put a dainty toe outside the Boundaries of Objectivity? Do journalists today even know where those boundaries are? They ve moved so far right from my day that the CBC actually seems to think it s still a bastion of liberal thought. It must always be on guard to counter with actual far right justification?
You, the smartest guy in the room, and the voice I hear from Youth, is ignoring false equivalence?
Nothing will stop pp s boundless ambition except an informed and voting public. And for that we urgently need big doses of truth where the public eyes and ears are. Old style media has lost that game already and you professional communicators might be the only ones who can help find them before it s too late and bloodshed leads the way.
I don't think Poilievre is, say, Donald Trump. I think he is what many Republicans want Donald Trump to be: A guy who plays a character, who can win elections, and who can get the agenda done. Some would say "same difference." But I think it's an important distinction — I don't think, for example, that Poilievre is at risk of questioning the integrity of the next election if he loses. But, on the other hand, I think he's become beholden to an increasingly angry and paranoid class of people. How far is he willing to go to keep them happy? Or, perhaps more acutely: Who replaces him, if he fails to keep them happy? (see: John Boehner -> Paul Ryan -> Kevin McCarthy -> Mike Johnson.
And, two, I think we've tried browbeating people with hypothetical fears. It certainly didn't working in convincing people in the U.S. in 2016, or in the Brexit vote, etc. I think journalism works best when we engage consistently and constantly on issues that matter to people, while simultaneously noting the attacks on our institutions. It's a weird balancing act. Sometimes it requires giving credit when it's due, even when the messenger is engaging in bad faith. We've got to hope that either people make up their own minds and reject that kind of cynical politics, or that kind of coverage encourages politicians to drop the shtick and focus on stuff that matters. Journalists shouldn't be campaigning, because I think it risks alienating the very people we're trying to talk to. I'd be happy as a peach, e.g., if Poilievre dropped the media-bashing, the anti-trans bullshit, and the messianic messaging and actually focused on housing and cost-of-living stuff. I think there's a huge opening for constructive conservatism here. (I had a good chat with Erin O'Toole about exactly this a few months ago: https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2023/07/17/why-erin-otoole-wants-politics-to-be-less-polarized/)
At this point, I can't imagine taking anyone seriously who "wants politics to be less polarized" but ran for the leadership of the party solely responsible for said polarization. Some of us still remember the transformation that took place when the evangelical Reformers took over with their "bozo eruptions" that were slightly amusing at first, as was the fact that Preston Manning talked just like the American actor Jimmy Stewart for some reason. But the novelty slowly shifted to quiet horror that has only increased, especially when one unfortunately resides in Alberduh.
And I also agree with Bev that it's false equivalence and/or "bothsidesism" for anyone to take Poilievre seriously AT ALL in the context of any kind of actual governance. He's got nothin.'
Remember how he came off when Joe Biden visited? Like the fucking brat of a kid that he is.
Like all the cons now, who didn't used to be called that btw, he's flat-out dangerous, period, along with the entire Convoy Party of Canada.
Not following the logic. Or do I have it wrong? You seem to be saying that he is behaving differently that other politicians, behaving differently from his own predecessors. And yet, still, treating him differently would be "partisan"? Do Liberals also have to disrespect the press to the same degree before you'd act on it?
The article didn't mention the other aspect to this "presserjacking" (My new word, based on "carjacking"; like it?). The politician is casting every journalist as an Enemy of the People, to be deliberately disrespected; PP gained accolades for spitting in a journalist's face, basically, that apple video was kind of gross to watch, for a neat-freak - accolades because those followers cheer when journalists are put-down and sneered at.
You seem to have gone down to that cold, windy presser to hand him free material to be sliced and diced to his own usage, yourself used as a prop-villain. Would you really do that twice? Why would anybody?
I guess what I'm really scratching at is: What does 'differently' mean?
I think there are those who want journalists to go and, essentially, campaign against the guy. That's both not our job, and it's only going to play into exactly what he's accusing us of doing now. There are others (and I think you may be in this camp) who think we should basically boycott the pressers: But, we tried that! We did it with Harper, and it backfired spectacularly.
I think we've got to have some faith in the public. Journalists should keep going and asking about serious policy questions. If Poilievre wants to continue going apoplectic at us, ranting about how we're spreading disinfo, he can do that. It will, as I break down here, energize a certain minority and perhaps win over some converts. But I think that shtick gets old very quickly. I think most people will start to see this circus for what it is — and that will either prompt Poilievre to drop the act, or it'll lead to him being punished by voters.
Oh, and "differently" means "treating you as the opposition, not as a ref". Enough of a change in degree, becomes a change-in-kind.
Newt Gingrich called the opposition "sick", "twisted" and "traitorous" but not the media, directly.
Sarah Palin escalated it to "lamestream media" insults, but those were minor compared to Trump's "Enemy of the People". Poilievre is past Palin's level, and going Trump-adjacent with spitting on people. I just think it's a line, crossed.
Well answered; you're taking the Anthony Fauci/Bonnie Henry approach of just staying on your own game, same message, same demeanor.
I just think that backfired with Trump: elected. The same seems likely with PP. I think Wells has used the approach of listing the questions he'd like to ask, and discussing what answers are even possible, given known positions. It gives one a column.
I think AI gives one approach, at least a one-time stunt, and, who knows, it might catch on as a regular punishment. Take your questions, Wells', etc; and have somebody like Boosenkool write up answers that PP might reasonably give, from what we know. Then post an interview to YouTube with a panel of journalists firing questions, all answered by "Pierre Poil-AI-evre", voice and face faked up with AI. Needless to say, preceded by explanation of the "one question, and we'll chop it up" problem, that it's the only way to get an answer at all.
Make a few answers at least irritating to the principal; a few "I have no response to that" where we really don't know, perhaps - and see if it goads him to reaction. The stunt itself may get on TV and have you tut-tutted by a TV panel that, We Do Not Do That. It would raise the question of what the hell you DO do, then - stand on a windy street being insulted?
Interesting ideas. We've got to do something to protect ourselves from these right-wingers who use psychology against not just us but their own supporters.
Thank you Justin for a great dispatch. I was just bemoaning on Monday why “really great”reporters weren’t at PP’s press conferences. Now I get it. A sad state of affairs. The medium is the message.
There are still fantastic reporters covering the Conservative leader! But I know there are also a lot of reporters who are, like me, just frustrated and burnt out by the state of things in Ottawa, across the board.
Wow! I can only imagine what your second question would be… thanks again for your great, factual and insightful reporting. Keep MAGA south of the border… or is it too late based on your previous report on polarization? Curious on your thoughts…
The funny thing is: In a normal world, where journalists actually had space to ask a variety of questions and pose follow-ups, I probably would've asked about his plan for the port. I actually *do* think that we should be engaging more on those kinds of policy issues. But it's the rationing of these media opportunities that pushes us to hone in on the issues that really get the meat of his political project — like this.
My gut tells me that people really hate this shit. I know from having a lot of conversations with friends and strangers that people are really receptive to Poilievre's messages around housing. But they're really turned off by him doing this conspiracy karaoke. I think it's hard to build a long-term political project based on a huge number of people who hate the character you're playing.
In Canada it is MC GAg and it is most certainly here for an unwelcome portion of time.
Have to agree that pp is not trump and agree he s running up a very big debt to some paranoid powers . I do not see him controlling a mob in any way. They let him carry their Tims. He ll get chewed up and replaced when those powers feel more secure. And I shudder to think who they might pick, with the world on the verge of a fresh war. Who is pulling strings from behind the scenes?
It seems the Prime Minister and the Liberals agree with you about negative ads. I do not see much positive coming out about the governments' many accomplishments, and I say this as a non supporter of the Liberals in happier times. They have to start tooting what they ve done right. It s a lot. They re staying mum. A wily old Communications DG once told me the rule is: Tell em what you re gonna tell em, Tell em, Tell em what you told em.
She accomplished a lot in a no good news portfolio like DIAND back in the 90s.
No one is following that directive today.
I am not taking issue with you because you re one of the voices who tell the truth but isn t it a testimony to the deteriorated media coverage these days that you need to host a private forum to get your messaging out there? The Big Lie is prevailing. Growing. My point is that the truth isnt getting presented much at all, never mind enough to counter the lies. People are infused with lies on facebook, X and every streaming vehicle and whatever else folk use. I play a personal whack a mole turning him off. He just keeps popping back up.
I d love to see a Bob Stanfield or Joe Clark Conservative in charge again. Hell I d vote for a Diefenbaker as my grandmother proudly did if it turned the tide away from neo fascism. O Toole might be on the right track personally, but he couldn t get elected.
I wonder what it will take to turn voters back to sense. I probably won t live that long. But I m very glad your voice is out here, wherever you get seen and heard.
Thank you for your reply. I am grateful you are doing what you re doing and I hope more people get to hear you.
I think we're at the center of a number of problems that just happen to be crashing together right now. It's a tough time for all governments, and the feds are wearing that; the Trudeau government is just not functional or functioning like it used to be; the media is stretched thin *and* its readership has gone off a cliff; a segment of the conservative base has become essentially radicalized in hatred of this government/liberalism; and the 4.5-way electoral split is pushing everyone into more desperate measures.
Some of these problems are going to have to give. Some sooner than others. What we desperately need, in my view, is a few things to focus on, as a kind of ideological north star, that we can all agree on. Joe Biden is trying this, to some success, with some of his big infrastructure bills — it's a program that, I think, will take deeper effect over the next year. Canada just doesn't have that, and it's incumbent on the government to figure out just what the hell that thing is. If they don't, I think the divisions end up getting much more acute.
Brainwashing is a real thing.
Man if you could just watch the glaze across the faces of my innocent and kindly neighbours whenever they hear the name Trudeau....
and BTW I live in Eastern Canada where no national print news exists. Irving owns the bit of local news and the intrepid little Halifax Examiner is struggling to stay afloat on line.
The Cons own the story and they have no shame in the tear downs.
Yes if only we could figure out what to work on together. And get the story together...
Did Levant make the donation or is it tied up in the courts, Hah…
My lawyer tells me the donation went through!
Another great dispatch. I have been thinking as to what could be useful approach to reporting on issues that are dismissed by many political representatives using rhetoric, canned, or nonsensical commentary. Unfortunately my ideas only work in a long form content and so not in the social media ecosystem we have.
Essentially, here is the proposed approach. first state the content of the initiative or proposal. Provide references as appropriate. Seek points of view from different segments of society. Seek expert views and explain why they are experts. Then using a well framed open ended question about the issue ask each political representative the same question and share their actual words. Invite the listener to reflect.
I recognize that this is too long and requires significant effort and associated expense. However I truly believe that most of the problems today defy black and white answers and require reflection by the general population.
I am constantly impressed by your efforts in this direction. Keep up the great work.
I wrote a few weeks back about how fundamentally screwed up our news distribution system is. I think that's the real barrier to doing the kind of journalism you describe. We don't know how to get people to read stuff online, which makes it harder to experiment, take stuff slow, go longer, etc. But I think there's a real demand for the kind of elaborate, detailed, diverse reportage. Unfortunately, on the other side, there is zero appetite by the political class to actually engage in those kind of conversations. The quality of debate and dialog has gone off a cliff.
There was a time when newspapers would pose questions to candidates (even if it was only to state their platform) and publish the answers. Though it wasn't live and we don't know who wrote the answers, it was better than the tiktok i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶action that we get today.
Funny enough, papers still do this. But the responses sent in by politicians may as well be written by ChatGPT.
ChatGPT would probably write better responses! No ego to protect, no base to play to, no ‘say-nothing’, ‘commit-to-nothing’ games. In fact if PP and the GOP kind of cynical attack politics wins the day, I might end up voting for an AI over them.
Unfortunately, I live in a print desert (Thank you, Torstar)
Unrelated but related, currently reading, “Blood” by Dr. Jen Gunter, very interesting work.
Her motivation for writing the book ( 462 pages) was the concerning proliferation of wacky “medical content” on the web re women’s health specifically related to menses. Her “Final Thoughts” ( page 14) explain the Illusory Truth effect- people are predisposed to conflate repetition and accuracy. “It is believed to be related in part to processing fluency which is the ease with which humans can digest a piece of information. If we have heard or read something before, it’s easier to process ( and accept) when we are exposed to,it again”.
Fertile field for MSU ( making stuff up) for our soon to be PM/ PM in waiting.
Cannot imagine him on a world stage and the composure needed to formulate a truly thoughtful and
constructive response to questions asked of him.
Good recommendation! I'll put it on my reading list
And now I know the rest of the story.
I have followed politics and journalists in print, tv & internet decades now.
And I have seen exactly what you said so well to the point I rarely listen to any of the leaders of the their party because as you said, they shy away from the answer and either repeat their stance or belittle the journalist/ reporters.
Thank you for again for the clarity with your incredible writing in this increasingly frustrating state of affairs.
Now my question, is what we can do about it. The far right have managed.
This is line that Trudeau uses a lot
"This Is Not Who We Are As Canadians”
Has run its course.
This whole thing is who we are and thank you again Mr Ling for making sense of all this dangerous kerfuffle.
I love your analysis and your take on the Polievre "circus." I was amused to read another journalist's take on the same media conference and PeePee's comments: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-transgender-danielle-smith-conservative-1.7106503
I was reading that this morning. Aaron is great!
You say.........At a time of dwindling resources, we need to move away from cover politics-as-sport and towards more thoughtful conversations on problems and policy solutions. But it would be foolish to think that if mainstream journalists did better, Poilievre would ease up. ...He has some good policies and solutions( I m paraphrasing because your format won t let me back to find the exact quote).
And Hitler made the trains run on time.
I hate to think of you as disingenuous but Oh Justin Ling, can you be letting journalism off the hook to report the actual danger? Journalism that was gloriously free if multi sided in my young Boomer days and has become owned, decrepit, dim witted, one sided. Published voices don t even start at the middle these days, they just veer right, off to the horizon.
The one thing that is our front line defense against populism and any other isms taking over the hearts and minds of the country? Mustn t put a dainty toe outside the Boundaries of Objectivity? Do journalists today even know where those boundaries are? They ve moved so far right from my day that the CBC actually seems to think it s still a bastion of liberal thought. It must always be on guard to counter with actual far right justification?
You, the smartest guy in the room, and the voice I hear from Youth, is ignoring false equivalence?
Nothing will stop pp s boundless ambition except an informed and voting public. And for that we urgently need big doses of truth where the public eyes and ears are. Old style media has lost that game already and you professional communicators might be the only ones who can help find them before it s too late and bloodshed leads the way.
I greatly fear that battle is lost.
Two things:
I don't think Poilievre is, say, Donald Trump. I think he is what many Republicans want Donald Trump to be: A guy who plays a character, who can win elections, and who can get the agenda done. Some would say "same difference." But I think it's an important distinction — I don't think, for example, that Poilievre is at risk of questioning the integrity of the next election if he loses. But, on the other hand, I think he's become beholden to an increasingly angry and paranoid class of people. How far is he willing to go to keep them happy? Or, perhaps more acutely: Who replaces him, if he fails to keep them happy? (see: John Boehner -> Paul Ryan -> Kevin McCarthy -> Mike Johnson.
And, two, I think we've tried browbeating people with hypothetical fears. It certainly didn't working in convincing people in the U.S. in 2016, or in the Brexit vote, etc. I think journalism works best when we engage consistently and constantly on issues that matter to people, while simultaneously noting the attacks on our institutions. It's a weird balancing act. Sometimes it requires giving credit when it's due, even when the messenger is engaging in bad faith. We've got to hope that either people make up their own minds and reject that kind of cynical politics, or that kind of coverage encourages politicians to drop the shtick and focus on stuff that matters. Journalists shouldn't be campaigning, because I think it risks alienating the very people we're trying to talk to. I'd be happy as a peach, e.g., if Poilievre dropped the media-bashing, the anti-trans bullshit, and the messianic messaging and actually focused on housing and cost-of-living stuff. I think there's a huge opening for constructive conservatism here. (I had a good chat with Erin O'Toole about exactly this a few months ago: https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2023/07/17/why-erin-otoole-wants-politics-to-be-less-polarized/)
At this point, I can't imagine taking anyone seriously who "wants politics to be less polarized" but ran for the leadership of the party solely responsible for said polarization. Some of us still remember the transformation that took place when the evangelical Reformers took over with their "bozo eruptions" that were slightly amusing at first, as was the fact that Preston Manning talked just like the American actor Jimmy Stewart for some reason. But the novelty slowly shifted to quiet horror that has only increased, especially when one unfortunately resides in Alberduh.
And I also agree with Bev that it's false equivalence and/or "bothsidesism" for anyone to take Poilievre seriously AT ALL in the context of any kind of actual governance. He's got nothin.'
Remember how he came off when Joe Biden visited? Like the fucking brat of a kid that he is.
Like all the cons now, who didn't used to be called that btw, he's flat-out dangerous, period, along with the entire Convoy Party of Canada.
Not following the logic. Or do I have it wrong? You seem to be saying that he is behaving differently that other politicians, behaving differently from his own predecessors. And yet, still, treating him differently would be "partisan"? Do Liberals also have to disrespect the press to the same degree before you'd act on it?
The article didn't mention the other aspect to this "presserjacking" (My new word, based on "carjacking"; like it?). The politician is casting every journalist as an Enemy of the People, to be deliberately disrespected; PP gained accolades for spitting in a journalist's face, basically, that apple video was kind of gross to watch, for a neat-freak - accolades because those followers cheer when journalists are put-down and sneered at.
You seem to have gone down to that cold, windy presser to hand him free material to be sliced and diced to his own usage, yourself used as a prop-villain. Would you really do that twice? Why would anybody?
I guess what I'm really scratching at is: What does 'differently' mean?
I think there are those who want journalists to go and, essentially, campaign against the guy. That's both not our job, and it's only going to play into exactly what he's accusing us of doing now. There are others (and I think you may be in this camp) who think we should basically boycott the pressers: But, we tried that! We did it with Harper, and it backfired spectacularly.
I think we've got to have some faith in the public. Journalists should keep going and asking about serious policy questions. If Poilievre wants to continue going apoplectic at us, ranting about how we're spreading disinfo, he can do that. It will, as I break down here, energize a certain minority and perhaps win over some converts. But I think that shtick gets old very quickly. I think most people will start to see this circus for what it is — and that will either prompt Poilievre to drop the act, or it'll lead to him being punished by voters.
Oh, and "differently" means "treating you as the opposition, not as a ref". Enough of a change in degree, becomes a change-in-kind.
Newt Gingrich called the opposition "sick", "twisted" and "traitorous" but not the media, directly.
Sarah Palin escalated it to "lamestream media" insults, but those were minor compared to Trump's "Enemy of the People". Poilievre is past Palin's level, and going Trump-adjacent with spitting on people. I just think it's a line, crossed.
Well answered; you're taking the Anthony Fauci/Bonnie Henry approach of just staying on your own game, same message, same demeanor.
I just think that backfired with Trump: elected. The same seems likely with PP. I think Wells has used the approach of listing the questions he'd like to ask, and discussing what answers are even possible, given known positions. It gives one a column.
I think AI gives one approach, at least a one-time stunt, and, who knows, it might catch on as a regular punishment. Take your questions, Wells', etc; and have somebody like Boosenkool write up answers that PP might reasonably give, from what we know. Then post an interview to YouTube with a panel of journalists firing questions, all answered by "Pierre Poil-AI-evre", voice and face faked up with AI. Needless to say, preceded by explanation of the "one question, and we'll chop it up" problem, that it's the only way to get an answer at all.
Make a few answers at least irritating to the principal; a few "I have no response to that" where we really don't know, perhaps - and see if it goads him to reaction. The stunt itself may get on TV and have you tut-tutted by a TV panel that, We Do Not Do That. It would raise the question of what the hell you DO do, then - stand on a windy street being insulted?
Interesting ideas. We've got to do something to protect ourselves from these right-wingers who use psychology against not just us but their own supporters.