Is CNN's Political Coverage Changing for the Better - Or Is It Just Me?

I have been watching the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary campaign coverage and have noticed CNN is changing how it covers things political. The full (or almost full) presentation of stump speeches of candidates in town halls and private living rooms is a refreshing new format. Fewer stand ups by vacuous "reporters" repeating the obvious and trite to fill the 24 hour news cycle is diminished...not gone but they are fewer and farther between.

The New Hampshire debates on Saturday (I saw a Sunday rerun) was full, fun and well formatted for both Democrats and Republicans. The “post-game” pundit armchair quarterbacking that I saw on Sunday was informed and focused and relatively professional…meaning it was not about personality quirks and quips of candidates but about substance and process, content and character.

I think the kind of content and interactivity of the Internet and perhaps even Blogs, if that is not too much of a conceit, is having a real impact on the style, substance and formatting of MSM political coverage – at least at CNN. Is the sound bite and celebrity reporter model so typical of traditional electronic journalism fading – perchance, disappearing?

There is an obvious start in a new and preferred direction, at least from the serious side of the CNN political coverage I have been seeing recently. Soundbite and superficial "journalism" is still the staple in the so-called “news” and also Larry King Live programming. They are still providing facile infotainment rather than effective knowledgeable and insightful political journalism.

Maybe I am way to optimistic but I hope not. This trend along with the return of the indifference and disillusioned voter to the process in these Presidential campaigns can only be good for democracy in America. Maybe some of that intelligent and in depth electronic media approach will spill over into Alberta's and Canada's pending election coverage. Here’s hoping!!!

Facts and Figuring About the Wildrose-Alliance Party

There is a very extensive and insightful analysis of the Wildrose and Alliance Party merger over at The Enlightened Savage. I was planning on doing my own analysis but this blog posting is a great piece of insight and thoughtful provocation. I commended it to you.

As to if the new merged party will be a significant force in electing MLAs in the next provincial election, the answer is no, IF the next election is only a few weeks away. Not time to get it all together. It will be a force however in retaining the far-right and fundamentalists base that bleed off from Klein in the 2004.

Is that faux-Republican political philosophy emblematic of where Albertans see their future and in the best interests of providing good governance in next Alberta? I don't think so but it has its adherents.


The Project Alberta site has been ripe with calls and questions for Dr. Ted Morton to take on the leadership of this merged entity. That is the more interesting question emerging in this new party and in the face of the forthcoming election.

Obama is About to Make History and Become the Next President of the U.S.A.

This link is to the text and the video of Barack Obama’s speech after winning the Iowa Primary last night. The message in the speech is clear from the text but in the video he lifts it off the page.

I have been around long enough to experience the phenomenon of Jack Kennedy winning the U.S. Presidency and Trudeaumania in Canada. Watching the video late last night reminded me of those days. Obama is the real thing.

He is resonating as a youthful hopeful agent of change with a proven capacity to govern. Clinton’s “experience” and the Republican candidates who are all selling “fear and doubt and cynicism” are in stark contract to Obama.

He is breaking down partisan barriers and bringing in new voters, independent voters and young people back to politics. He is not pandering and not sugar coating the challenges and sacrifices that will be coming. But he also speaks to hope, and a sense of destiny and to the aspirations of Americans. I only hope we will get this kind of presence and inspiration from our federal and provincial politicians here in Canada soon.

Last night he captured all of those sentiments when he said “

Years from now, you’ll look back and you’ll say that this was the moment – this was the place – where America remembers what it means to hope.

But we always knew that hope was not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and to work for it, and to fight for it.”

I regularly download great speeches in history to my iPod. I expect this speech, given last night by a young black man running for President of the United States of America, will become one of them in due course.

Influential Citizens Worldwide See Big Business As a Problem.

During the recent Alberta royalty review process and the concurrent Auditor General Report we saw an aggressive energy industry response and a very engaged citizen reaction. What happened was the exposure of the coziness of the relationship between the energy industry and senior government energy types. Albertans were told, in detail, of the past failure, refusal or neglect of the government to promote, preserve and protect the public interest on energy royalties.

The media firestorm that resulted underscored that some energy industry leaders and organizations had been operating under an apparent misapprehension. It seemed from their comments and attitudes that they presumed they were the effective "owners and controllers" of the energy natural resources; not Albertans. It seemed as if industry had been dictating just about all aspect of public policy in the energy sector.

Others in industry quietly but clearly understood and respected the concept and the Constitutional dictates of public ownership of natural resources. They know that an oil and gas or oil sands lease is merely the granting of consent for a social license to operate on public property. They understand that such consent extends to the right to extract and sell the public’s natural resource assets and the concurrent duty to protect and preserve natural capital assets, like the environment, in the process.

Unfortunately those who don’t get it are giving serious grief to the good guys and the governments who act as the agents for the owners, the citizens of Alberta. Government is also the regulators of the assets and protector of the environment and that adds complexity to the relationships. The fact that some corporation are “not getting it” is apparently not unique to Alberta according to a just released Ipsos Reid a worldwide poll on reaction to the power and influence of big business.

This on-line poll was of 22,000 “intelligaged” citizens” in 22 countries are best labelled as “those who show up and make a difference.” A full 68% of them voted in their last elections. Half of them instigate political, economic and social discussions and 37% signed a petition within the last year. Half of them make purchase choices based on a supplier’s ethical, social or environmental reputation. A third of them advised others not to use a specific company for the same reasons.

These are citizens you do not want to ignore or tick off. These are informed, engaged and influential people who can make or break a government - if they want to. The Ipsos Reid poll results about show beliefs and attitudes of these influential and activist citizens. They have to be sobering for the large cap corporations everywhere, including Alberta. Here are the key findings Worldwide and the Canadian comparisons:

Do large corporations have too much influence on decisions of their governments? Worldwide 74% of engaged citizens agreed – in Canada 80% agreed.

Should government be more aggressive in regulating activities of national and multi-national corporations? Worldwide 72% of engaged citizens agreed – in Canada 77% agreed.

Are large corporation more powerful than governments? Worldwide 69% agreed – in Canada 77% agreed.

Should governments have complete access to private information of corporations doing business in their country? Worldwide 58% agreed – in Canada 65% agreed.

As to if corporations are a god or a bad influence on their countries, the worldwide split was 55% believe they are a good influence versus 45% who say they are a bad influence. The regional breakdown here is interesting. In the Asia-Pacific 67% are positive and 33% negative. Latin America is 56% good and 44% bad. The most negative region about corporate influence is North America. Here 56% say corporations are a Bad influence and only 44% see them as Good. Even Europe is not that negative where 51% are negative about corporate influence and 49% are positive about it.

It is the “intelligaged” citizens who are the thought leaders, opinion leaders and trend setters for the rest of society. If they are not happy they can make things change, including who governs their countries. This polls shows that the intelligaged around the world and in Canada in particular, are not happy with the power and influence exerted by big business over their governments. The sub-theme is obvious and that that they must not be very happy with how their governments performing in serving the greater good either.

This means there are going to be turbulent and stressful times for out of touch and unresponsive governments as well as big national and international corporations in the days ahead. Just because it is a cliche to say the only constant is change that should not lull anyone with positions of power, authority and leadership into discounting the truth of the aphorism.

Indeed the times they are a-changin' and it could get ugly for the powers that be especially with a provincial and a federal election in the offing.

Alberta's Wildrose and Alliance Parties Looking At Merger!

Good to see the nascent Wildrose Party and the bucolic Alliance Party talking merger. My sources say early efforts at a merger between Wildrose and the Social Credit Party proved unworkable. There are still the Alberta Party and the Separation Party that may be ripe for merger with this new entity too.

The parties better fast track this effort if they want to be a force in the forth coming Alberta election. Getting the Alliance party members to agree to a merger and accept the bylaws of the Wildrose Party and have Wildrose first in name will take some explaining if it is to be successful a the January 19th AGM of the Alliance.

The Alliance has been around longer, since 2002, and has proven to be able to deliver at least a modicum electoral success with Leader Paul Hinman. The compromise position offered is Mr. Hinman will lead the new merged party. That will at least be until the next election where we will see how well he does in his own seat. His second major challenge as leader will be recruiting credible candidates with such short notice and not much money or time to raise it.

Hinman will be running against Progressive Conservative Broyce Jacobs again. Jacobs held the seat before but lost it to Hinman in 2004 as the Cardston-Taber-Warner seat concentrated its disillusionment with Ralph Klein. Alliance gelled their support and in a tight two-way race Hinman won by 131 votes. The Alberta Liberals and New Democrats have not nominated their cannon fodder candidates in the constituency as yet.

This constituency is one to watch for many reasons but mostly as a test of the Stelmach PCs and the political viability of the far right parties, in coalition or otherwise. The implications for the acceptability and viability of the proposed merged Wildrose Alliance Party are obvious.

Results differ depending if this deep-south constituency sees Stelmach as a continuation of Ralph Klein or is he going to be seen as a new guy with rural roots and a man of integrity, substance and experience. On the other hand they may feel they don’t know enough about Stelmach and could decide continuing as a contrarian constituency and supporting Hinman again can’t hurt them and it will send a serious message to government.

There is a back story in all of this too that involves Dr. Ted Morton and where he will stand and how will he come out in all of this. He is clearly the heir apparent to the Wildrose Alliance leadership if Hinman fails to win his seat. He is also well respected and known in the area. Where will Morton’s loyalties lie, with Stelmach, his Alliance roots or with his own future leadership aspirations? If the case is the latter scenario, which party will Morton align with to fulfil his political leadership ambitions?

Morton can concentrate on winning his own seat as a PC and not work for Stelmach in the deep south. This has the making of best scenario outcomes for Morton If Stelmach does well, Morton will have proven his capability and “loyalty” to the Stelmach PC government and should be secure in a Cabinet post again.

If Stelmach does not do well then consequences differ depending if Hinman wins or loses? If Hinman loses Morton will be facing a far right draft to cross the floor and lead the new party giving it a continuing seat in the Legislature as well. If Hinman wins, there will be pressure for a PC leadership change again and will Morton try to become leader of the PCs again?

Looks like Dr. Ted Morton is positioning well for a favourable personal political outcome no matter what happens in the next election – so long as he wins his own seat. One more indication that Alberta politics are no longer boring.