Green plan spurs online tactics

Yesterday on my local CBC Radio morning show, bloggers Stephen Taylor and Jason Cherniak (Conservative and Liberal, respectively) were described as being "as influential as the mainstream media."  Beyond having their own websites, these bloggers also run large, aggregate sites that assemble a wide variety of blogs of the same political stripes: www.bloggingtories.ca and www.liblogs.ca.

Taylor, true to form,  was busy at his computer last night, putting together a knock-off of the Liberals' Green-Shift website. Taylor's is called www.theshiftygreen.ca and it is laid out exactly like the Liberal one, including the little tabs where you can "meet," "share," "support" and "calculate." If you click on the "calculate" tab, you get an opinion piece from John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, who seemed to be sharing talking points with the Conservatives yesterday when called upon to comment on TV about the Liberals' plan. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised by the allegiance - Jason Kenney, the government's designated spokesperson on the green shift, was the head of the taxpayers' federation in his previous life.

It should also tell us that the Conservatives, wise to the ways of the digital world, have organized a viral attack/response for the Liberals' green shift, complete with spokespersons in interest groups.  Liberals, however, are also doing the same. Cherniak describes the "unprecedented" way the party prepped its spokespersons across the country for the green-shift announcement:

"Yesterday, the Liberal Party held an unprecedented briefing for Liberals across the country. Starting around 6 p.m. EST, there were simultaneous online presentations and conference calls to explain the most important part of the plan to candidates, riding presidents and donors. To the extent that bloggers fit into those categories (and most do), we also received briefings. These briefings even included personalized logins. As a result, the Liberal Party knows who each individual was who joined the conference and who was invited but did not attend. I was quite impressed with this massive effort at real grassroots democracy and I hope the story on how the logistics worked and who was responsible comes out some day."

I'm told that the Liberals deliberately courted potential critics or skeptics for these briefings, too.

What does this all mean for us in the mainstream media? It means we have to range farther than Parliament Hill or prime ministerial scrums for reaction to big policy announcements. The more the message spreads, the more these events look staged and predictable. (Though it's always fun to see a prime minister call something "insane."  Never let it be said that Stephen Harper doesn't like intelligent debate.)

Comments

[Mike]

All that the Conservs' response tells me is that the Libs' green plan has them scared shiftless. After all, the best Baird has to offer is, "Just wait until 2050 and then, by God, you'll see what a 15 per cent reduction in polluted air looks like! Or _maybe_ looks like, since we'll only really do something if China and India do too. And since they're still arguing about whether tobacco use has any link to lung cancer... well, maybe 2050 is a tad optimistic... *snicker* Oh, and by the way: '13 YEARS OF LIBERAL INACTION!!!' Have a great summer. Maybe turn your air conditioning down a half degree or so, kay?"

No wonder they're attacking a plan from someone else that actually opens up -- you know -- some substantive debate.

[Sandi]

This will be a test for our journalists - are we going to have honest discussion or are they going to go on and on and on about Dion's leadership.....yawn, if they do.

Well, he certainly showed leadership - now, let's get on with some intelligent, honest journalism instead of resorting to easy articles about Dion's leadership, because quite frankly, you all say the same thing and it's BORING.

Harper looked frazzled - and so he should be. Face it, there hasn't been an important file that hasn't been totally messed up like amateurs in junior high school. The only person that seems unfraid of the media, can answer questions and handle files is a "Liberal" Harper stole - Emerson.

[Catherine Wilkie]

Good. Journalist are seeking the hard path of truth, rather than the easy foray of accepting the partisan script.

[BarryW]

Ever try to write ANYTHING that does not include a cheap shot at Harper?

[Jonathan Walker]

I don't think it matters what party you support, you gotta love www.theshiftygreen.ca. I also like the NDP site with Mr. Dion's 5th season for an election.

[Vid]

Sandi wrote: "Harper looked frazzled - and so he should be. Face it, there hasn't been an important file that hasn't been totally messed up like amateurs in junior high school. The only person that seems unfraid of the media, can answer questions and handle files is a "Liberal" Harper stole - Emerson."

So when does the discussion start to shift from the "amateurs in junior high school" to the judgement of their principal? To simply call Dion's plan "insane" and telling us we'll all be "screwed" is not very impressive from the Prime Minister of Canada. Those are usually Baird's lines, aren't they?

I want to see Harper accept Dion's challenge of a face-to-face adult debate. No oil spots allowed. What has he got to fear from someone who "isn't a leader"?

[Gabby in QC]

"No wonder they're attacking a plan from someone else that actually opens up -- you know -- some substantive debate."

Where's the "debate" in telling Canadians they're going to be paying more for practically everything, but don't worry, be happy, you'll be getting some tax relief? And nowhere is there a mention of how many megatonnes of GHGs will be reduced with the megatonnes of money the carbon tax will be bringing in.

Look, I agree some of the language used by some parliamentarians (from all parties) is similar to that used in a schoolyard by people with "attitude."
It is only with this new policy that the Liberals have adopted the "high road" trying to ride an Obama-style wave, calling for hope and change and altruism and all those lofty sentiments.

Even a conservative like myself has grown tired of hearing the same accusation "the Liberals didn't get it done!"

However, was the debate any better/loftier when Ms. Ambrose was accused by environmental groups and members of the opposition of paying more attention to her hairdo than to her environment plan?

Or when the Conservatives, especially the PM, were accused of being "deniers," with the association that term has acquired? Or the opposition, environmental groups and many in the MSM practically celebrating the fact Canada was awarded "Fossil of the Day" mentions at conferences like Bali and Nairobi, but completely ignoring the fact the same had happened during the Liberals' tenure?

If I may, here's a comment (modified) I posted in another blog a while back.
I believe something has to be done FOR the environment by each individual. However, carbon taxes and cap and trade solutions may not be the panacea the opposition claims it is. The Europeans are having their own problems.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080528.wgreen28/BNStory/International/home (unfortunately, the full article is now available to subscribers only)

Just google "Fuel Tax Protests in Europe" to see what is going on over there, where governments introduced some of those measures. Yet the opposition refers only to the successes in Europe, neglecting to mention the problems.

What some environmentalists fail to mention on the environment issue is that:
1. Canada emits ONLY between 2% and 3% of total world emissions.
2. Canada's surface area is 2.5 times that of Europe (9 984 670 km2 versus 3'930'000 km2), so there's greater dependency on cars & trucks as a mode of transportation here.
3. Thanks to anti-nuclear activists like Elizabeth May's mother, nuclear power in North America has been left aside for other more expensive and not necessarily more productive means of generating power: solar energy and wind power.
Europe has about 148 nuclear power generators which produce close to 80% of its electricity needs, whereas Canada has about 18 (?) nuclear power plants producing about 15% of its electricity.
4. Turning agricultural lands over to the production of corn and other grains to produce biofuels and/or ethanol as advocated by environmentalists and politicians has caused higher prices, and thus food shortages for populations that depend on those staples.
The Conservative government introduced legislation to ensure that fuel contain 5% ethanol, but the opposition wanted it raised to 10%.
It was only after there were reports of a looming food crisis that the opposition modified its stance. I don't know what happened since then.
5. Everybody is supposedly SO alarmed and SO concerned about the environment, yet they are not willing to personally make little changes in their own lives, like re-using, recycling, using public transit if possible, etc., to minimize their own impact on their own environment. They expect government to legislate others into making those changes.
6. The eco-tourists who are going to Antarctica and Mt. Everest and other far-flung places to leave their calling card, their garbage and their carbon footprints behind should perhaps find destinations closer to home.
That includes entertainers who moralize and preach, but make no changes in their own lavish lifestyles.
7. Finally, what the Conservatives have been insisting on all along is that the Kyoto plan was flawed from its inception. Why? Among other things:
• it did not include the major emitters like China, India and the US.
• the then Liberal government ratified Kyoto without a plan for this country.
That Conservative opposition to Kyoto has been reframed by anti-Conservatives as their being "deniers" which is untrue.

[Sandi]

Groan - just as I thought. All the journalists are talking the same, same, same....Dion's leadership instead of research and good analysis of the new Plan.

Yup, our journalists have failed us again.

[Mike]

Note to Gabby in QC: Despite your opening "Where's the debate...?" comment, has it occurred to you that, in posting such a thoroughly reasoned, detailed comment after I had observed that, at long last, we might see some substantive debate, you've pretty well... well, to put it succinctly, "q.e.d".

Thanks for a most thoughtful response.

[Sara-Anne Peterson]

Perhaps Stephen Harper could save some of his childish spleen for the oil companies and speculators who have already driven the price of gas and oil up to unseen heights. He's not trying to finger the opposition for that is he. Or is he trying to insinuate into our minds that any price rise that happens on his watch has been brought about by phantom liberals.

[Vid]

Gabby said: "That Conservative opposition to Kyoto has been reframed by anti-Conservatives as their being "deniers" which is untrue."

As recently, as December, 2006, Stephen Harper was being quoted as using the term "so-called climate change". The Tories cut environmental programs as soon as they got into power (just like Mike Harris) and only back-tracked when they realized that Canadians would turf them for such insensitivity. As well, Harper has always been deeply mistrustful of climate change initiatives - remember the infamous rant about it being a Socialist plot to suck money out of rich nations?

Sorry, there is ample evidence of denial amongst this bunch. Nobody had to "reframe" anything.

[Richard]

Notice how GLOBAL WARMING quietly "shifted" to CLIMATE CHANGE when NONE of the predictions turned out to be true? Why have none of our "so-called" (scare quotes..because, well, it's the STAR) media betters mentioned that all of the other planets are also getting warmer? Why no stories about Greenland once being farmland, the medieval warm period, etc. Until journalists start presenting BOTH sides of a story (and leave out their obvious biases)...they deserve our scorn.

[Peter Puck]

"as influential as the mainstream media."

I like how Susan put the above line in quotes. Its like reality hasn't set in. I've actually never heard of Susan Delacourt but I've read Stephen and Jason's blogs many times. Infact the only reason I came to her site was because it was linked on Stephen's blog.

At least Stephen and Jason make the fact that they are biased public. The concept that journalists like Susan Delacourt are unbiased is laughable.