Stephen Harper vs. the Media, round infinity plus two - Maclean's | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Media

Stephen Harper vs. the Media, round infinity plus two – Maclean's

Published

4 years ago

 on


Andrew MacDougall is a director at Trafalgar Strategy, and a former Head of Communications to Prime Minister Stephen Harper

An old clip of Stephen Harper slating the Canadian media and its supposed role in his loss in 2015 is once again making the rounds online and, judging by the reaction on Twitter, it’s not only Mr. Harper who hasn’t quite come to grips with his demise. The journalists who covered him haven’t recovered either.

Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star responded to Harper’s tart clip by bemoaning his “grudge-laden soul.” Veteran National Post columnist John Ivison labelled the former prime minister’s take “bollocks,” while Chantal Hébert, star of English and French print and television, shared the clip with the rather tasty comment “when Stephen Harper derails.” And then there was Global News chief political correspondent David Akin, who felt compelled to deliver a vigorous defense of journalism in response to Harper’s cobwebbed comments. And the list went on.

And why all these dirty looks?

While on tour promoting his 2018 book Right Here, Right Now: Politics in the Age of Disruption, Mr. Harper offered a précis of his election loss to Dennis Prager, a darling of the muscular U.S. right-wing Internet ecosystem, whose ‘PragerU’ videos regularly rattle up millions of views. And as the two men discussed conservatism in Canada and the United States, Harper offered up his somewhat loose and rather paranoid interpretation of the media’s role in his 2015 defeat.

Harper first set the scene, explaining that the February 2015 implosion of Sun News Network before the election deprived him of his only natural media support. As a result, there were virtually no centre-right journalists left in any outlet in the country, including only a ‘tiny’ bit of right-wing radio across the land. He then claimed that all three major television networks in (English language) Canada were to the left of the BBC.

READ MORE:  What on earth is Stephen Harper up to?

But it was what followed from Harper that really lit Canadian journalistic fuses.

There were “many reasons” he lost the last election, Harper explained, but one of them was that the media “would not cover my announcements.” They would not cover “any gaffes of my opponents.” They “scrubbed it out” of their coverage, he added. Feeling his oats, Harper then accused the media of “coordinating their coverage” and of not running any ads that depicted Justin Trudeau in an unfavourable light. The media, Harper claimed, censored the Conservative campaign right out of the coverage.

Now, there is a lot of bullspit in this take, a lot of which I also heard during my tour of duty, but there is also more truth than anyone in the Canadian media would like to admit.

First, the crap.

The media absolutely did cover Harper’s announcements. Indeed, that was arguably part of the problem. Anyone remember the extensive coverage of the so-called ‘snitch line’ for barbaric practices made by cabinet ministers Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander? That got a lot of ink. The problem with the 2015 Conservative platform was that there weren’t enough newsworthy announcements to drive the coverage, especially in contrast with Trudeau’s pledges on deficit-spending (whoops!), electoral reform (whoops!), pot and the environment.

Dogged throughout by the spectre of Mike Duffy, the only time the Conservative campaign really cut through was when Harper announced the conclusion of negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership (which Harper then did much to derail by getting sidetracked on niqabs during a subsequent interview with the CBC).

Nor did the media “coordinate their coverage”. There might be a lot of bias and groupthink in the Canadian media—an entirely separate issue—but they come by it honestly, not through collusion. Harper was most likely referring to the limited questions he offered up to reporters, a move that forced reporters to discuss their questions in advance, something they wouldn’t do if they were each guaranteed a go. (This is something, by the way, that still happens under Trudeau, even if it isn’t matched by Harper-like levels of caterwauling from the media.)

Then there are the smaller quibbles. The press, for example, still had conservative voices in 2015, as evidenced by the wall of Conservative endorsements in the last days of the election. And while it’s true the day-to-day grunts in the Parliamentary Press Gallery might not have been sympathetic to Harper, that was likely a function of the by-then nearly 10-year war over access between the two parties, and the general desire to cover something new, i.e. a new government, rather than any censorious urge.

Now the truth.

The greatly diminished reporting corps in Ottawa is, if not overtly hostile to conservative views, largely unsympathetic to them, owing to a shared experience that is increasingly urban and left-of-centre, especially as the gallery gets younger. And while this might be the broader direction of travel in Canada, it is not everyone’s direction, something the rise of outlets like Rebel Media teaches us.

The decline of the regional press in Ottawa is another contributing factor to the big-city feel of modern Canadian media, something that will only get worse as more outlets go under and the taxpayer-funded CBC’s influence grows. And as views that don’t meet the current orthodoxy go unacknowledged, they turn up in more virulent form in less salubrious places.

And while Harper didn’t make these arguments explicitly, it is clear they influenced his commentary to Prager. There is, as Harper noted, no Canadian equivalent of U.S. talk radio. Being a resident of Britain—although not the one Harper was referencing—I would also agree that all three Canadian television networks are pegged to the left of or, at best, at the BBC’s level.

The rather docile coverage of Trudeau in the age of COVID-19 feels like another proof point. While the BBC and other British outlets, including the right-wing tabloids, are busy kicking the stuffing out of Boris Johnson and his government, it feels like Trudeau is the recipient of a lot of benefit of the doubt. Part of this is surely the provincial responsibility for health in Canada but the failures on borders and other federal issues like public health guidance on masks deserve more outrage and scrutiny than they’ve received.

Returning to Harper’s commentary on 2015, the truth is the television broadcasters did team up to try and block the use of footage from their programmes in political advertising ahead of the election, a move they say was targeted at all parties but clearly aimed at the one with the finances and habit of putting their opponents’ gaffes on a repeat loop on screens across the country. Subsequent to Harper’s comments to Prager, the CBC actually sued the Conservative Party for using its footage in the 2019 election, making a mockery of itself and fair use in the process.

Politicians’ comments aren’t some proprietary Schitt’s Creek, they’re meant to go far and wide. That’s why they’re broadcast. And God knows they’ll be reported as such if taken out of context.

But forget Stephen Harper, especially the one on a book tour looking to sell copies to conservative audiences that still buys books in big numbers. Harper’s not going to change, nor will the press gallery’s opinion of him. Besides, there are enough challenges in the present without digging up any problems from years past.

COVID-19 is, as you read this, kicking the stuffing out of the news and a great many other businesses. A media bailout was already in place for some outlets before the current unpleasantness and more will surely be done before it is over, especially by this government. This might keep the lights on, but it will also have the pernicious effect of opening up more accusations of bias from those whose don’t feel their views are given a fair shake by the current gatekeepers in the press.

And with the sewer of social media continuing to reveal journalist preference and bias on a minute-by-minute basis, the foundations of any future trust are rapidly eroding. Both sides need to smarten up if we’re to avoid disaster.

The current crop of Conservative leadership contenders need to drop any cynicism and lean into the press. The game won’t change if you don’t play and the current lot in power aren’t exactly distinguishing themselves. And while Donald Trump is able to be supported by a network of partisan outlets, the same just isn’t possible in Canada, at least not anytime soon, so there’s no point playing to the bitter crowd.

As for the press, most journalists I know subscribe (faithfully) to the view their job is to hold those in power to account. So how about devoting every waking minute to that task, leaving the commentary and any perceived celebrity to the entertainment industry? If you’re not a columnist I don’t want to hear your opinion about anything political.

It might be to close the barn door after the horses have bolted, but journalists need to, now more than ever, begin applying the rules of journalism to their social media output. Nearly every ‘like’, RT and comment on social media reveals personal views, something straight news reporters should be loath to advertise to the people they cover. If it wouldn’t make it into your copy it shouldn’t make it onto your platforms.

Less time online will also, one hopes, make for a smaller bubble and, ultimately, better journalism. Put differently, why should anyone reading about the world now care about what a guy who used to run one country thought about you a few years ago?

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 20, 2024

By

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version