As I watched the results roll in to declare the new MP for Calgary-Centre, I couldn't help but feel a little at odds with how I approach elections as compared to others. And frankly, I'm not sure whether to be surprised, saddened or indifferent.
You see, for as long as I've been able to vote, I've voted for the individual candidate. I know that's sort of backwards in party politics, but it's still a firm belief I have. What does each candidate stand for? What does each think about a certain local issue? What will each candidate do for the riding outside of being "the voice"? Yet, in the last few elections (municipal, provincial and federal), I've heard less-and-less about what each stands for. What have I heard more of? It's become more of why I SHOULDN'T vote for the "other guys".
Take the last provincial election in Alberta. During the campaign, we heard much more about why we shouldn't vote for the PC's or the Wildrose. "They've been in power for too long and need to go." "They're bigots." "They're corrupt." "They're unproven." Sound familiar?
I've also been front and centre for the Calgary-Centre byelection. And the same can be said here. "Why would you vote for the Liberals?" "How can you support a candidate who doesn't go to forums?" Especially in this case, you saw a lot of "connecting the dots" between the local candidates and the parties they were representing. Some tried to paint Joan Crockett with the same brush as Rob Anders. Harvey Locke was implicated with the comments of Justin Trudeau and David McGuinty. It was never "this is why our candidate is the best". Even on the doorsteps (yes I live in Calgary-Centre), I had multiple run-ins with volunteers who could answer the reasons as to why I shouldn't vote for other candidates, but when I asked simple questions about where the candidates stood on specific issues, some had a tough time. I wish I could make this up.
Admittedly, this is a bit of an extension of one of my previous posts asking for better from ALL politicians/supporters. I know some didn't like that because it's "what opposition is for". And, yes, I understand it all. But it begs the question: do we actually vote FOR a candidate or AGAINST the others? Is it a matter of picking the "lesser of two evils"? How often do you hear "I'm only voting for X because I don't want Y to get in"?
Doesn't that scare anyone?
I know I ask a lot of questions. But I'm failing to see something in the grand scheme of recent elections and politics in Alberta (and beyond). Why is it so difficult to vote FOR a candidate?
Monday, November 26, 2012
Friday, November 23, 2012
Life With A Microphone
It's been a tumultuous time in Calgary if you have any sort of "clout" in the world, in particular when it comes to sports. Whether you're behind a microphone or simply in the public eye, what you say and how you say it is always under the microscope. In light of the recent controversies surrounding one Calgary radio personality and one Stampeder player's tweets, some have asked me to weigh in on the topic. I won't get into the specifics of each case, but will rather reflect on the last 7+ years that I've been in radio and in the "public eye".
To say that I've never said anything that I've regretted would be an absolute lie. Rewind to my first year in radio. I was a rookie in Lloydminster taking part in the "Relay For Life" at Bud Miller Park. We were broadcasting live and, about an hour into the teams taking their laps, one of the hosts put me on-air. All fine and dandy until he asked me something along the lines of why I hadn't walked yet. Any sane person would have said "just manning the booth here until my teammates tap me in" or something like that. Instead, I said something along the lines of how I didn't feel like it right now. Yup. I was THAT guy. My face turned beat-red and, to this day, still bugs me.
And I haven't really stopped flubbing up. During last winter's World Junior Hockey Championship, I had another unfortunate incident. I was the "game-day host" (guy who gives away prizes and urges people to make noise) for the consolation game. If memory serves me right, it was between Denmark and Latvia. Following one of the promotions, I did what I normally do: invoke people to make noise. First I shouted "make some noise for Denmark!" Then the unthinkable. "Make some noise for..." Blank. My mind went absolutely blank. Looked up at the jerseys. Not helping. Looked up at the Jumbotron. Nope. Country's flag? No clue. I finished up with "let's get loud" and exited with my tail between my legs.
Those are just two examples. It happens. You're in a live setting and in the heat of the moment, things can be said. One of the biggest misconceptions about radio, in particular, is that it's all scripted. Not for most. Some guys are. But those are also the shows that bore you half-to-death. It's not an excuse for what I've said or what will likely say in the future. It's just a fact when you're supposed to be "on" all the time.
As for Twitter and Facebook, I've been pretty lucky to have not said anything too outrageous. I'm willing to bet I've deleted more entries before hitting "post" than I've actually posted. I always question myself as to whether I'd be willing to say what I tweet/status update on-the-air. If it passes that test, then it usually gets posted. The thing is, it's become super-easy for people to take things out of YOUR context. You see, you can't really gauge things like sarcasm in 140 characters. And if someone reads it the wrong way, you're in for a world of uncomfortable. But sometimes you forget that the internet is forever. You write the wrong thing or write in a way that someone doesn't like, and it's not like you're saying it to a group of friends. You're saying it to the world.
It's an interesting challenge to say the least. Can you walk a fine line without ever having part of your foot cross it?
To say that I've never said anything that I've regretted would be an absolute lie. Rewind to my first year in radio. I was a rookie in Lloydminster taking part in the "Relay For Life" at Bud Miller Park. We were broadcasting live and, about an hour into the teams taking their laps, one of the hosts put me on-air. All fine and dandy until he asked me something along the lines of why I hadn't walked yet. Any sane person would have said "just manning the booth here until my teammates tap me in" or something like that. Instead, I said something along the lines of how I didn't feel like it right now. Yup. I was THAT guy. My face turned beat-red and, to this day, still bugs me.
And I haven't really stopped flubbing up. During last winter's World Junior Hockey Championship, I had another unfortunate incident. I was the "game-day host" (guy who gives away prizes and urges people to make noise) for the consolation game. If memory serves me right, it was between Denmark and Latvia. Following one of the promotions, I did what I normally do: invoke people to make noise. First I shouted "make some noise for Denmark!" Then the unthinkable. "Make some noise for..." Blank. My mind went absolutely blank. Looked up at the jerseys. Not helping. Looked up at the Jumbotron. Nope. Country's flag? No clue. I finished up with "let's get loud" and exited with my tail between my legs.
Those are just two examples. It happens. You're in a live setting and in the heat of the moment, things can be said. One of the biggest misconceptions about radio, in particular, is that it's all scripted. Not for most. Some guys are. But those are also the shows that bore you half-to-death. It's not an excuse for what I've said or what will likely say in the future. It's just a fact when you're supposed to be "on" all the time.
As for Twitter and Facebook, I've been pretty lucky to have not said anything too outrageous. I'm willing to bet I've deleted more entries before hitting "post" than I've actually posted. I always question myself as to whether I'd be willing to say what I tweet/status update on-the-air. If it passes that test, then it usually gets posted. The thing is, it's become super-easy for people to take things out of YOUR context. You see, you can't really gauge things like sarcasm in 140 characters. And if someone reads it the wrong way, you're in for a world of uncomfortable. But sometimes you forget that the internet is forever. You write the wrong thing or write in a way that someone doesn't like, and it's not like you're saying it to a group of friends. You're saying it to the world.
It's an interesting challenge to say the least. Can you walk a fine line without ever having part of your foot cross it?
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Can't We All Just Get Along?
I thought it was a simple enough few tweets. The first one started off with "Dear MLAs: we elected you to work together to make Alberta great, not to pick each other apart and fight on Twitter and in the legislature." I went on to say that I wasn't singling out any particular party, just a broad-based statement that seemed to resonate with more than a few people. It was retweeted a bunch of times and generated a few responses who wanted to echo those sentiments.
And yet, it still conjured up a few responses from those not too happy with my supposed "words of wisdom". Responses like: "Do you understand the concept of Official Opposition. The word opposition doesn't mean kum ba yah" and "Maybe that's how you vote, but many of us want an opposition that keeps the PCAA on its toes". There was name-calling and even worse. It won't be repeated here.
By all means, I'm open to criticism and good ol' fashioned discussion. But that seems to be lacking when it comes to politics of late (aka civility). I'm not totally sure if it's always been like this or if the relative anonymity of Twitter and other social media have made people more, how do you say, defensive. You need to have a thick skin when it comes to tweeting about politics. Because if someone takes what you say the wrong way, they're not afraid to "voice their opinions" if you know what I mean.
Realistically, am I wrong with what I tweeted? I don't think so. It's non-partisan and aimed completely at all politicians (this goes for all three levels of government). The grand-standing that's done gets to be a bit much for many, judging by what I see in responses. It's not that people don't appreciate opposition or healthy discussion. But I swear, if you watched what happens with the #WRP and #PCAA hashtags on Twitter on a regular basis, you'd think that one party could say the sky is blue and the other would argue that it was red. Am I being facetious? Check it out and be the judge for yourself.
What I find kind of interesting is how starkly different their two feeds can actually be. The PCAA hashtag usually shows a bunch of tweets about how awesome it is to be in a community or about the funding announcement just made. The WRP hashtag can usually find an abundance of vitriol towards the governing Tories and how "41-years is enough". Not that either is a bad thing. What has grown more and more concerning (judging from the responses to my earlier tweet) is that these politicians and supporters are talking AT their constituents and not WITH them. Don't taxpayers want the exact opposite? Just some food for thought for any politicians out there reading this here blog. Don't get me wrong, some are very good at communicating. But others only use Twitter and Facebook as a way to pass along any message that is supporting their cause. Does that really get anything accomplished in the grand scheme of "winning more votes"? (that's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually curious if it works, because it doesn't with me)
Plain and simple, Albertans deserve better from all. Do we not want ALL MLAs working towards the common goal of a better province? Or do we want all the parties sitting in the sandbox, trying to build a magnificent sandcastle, only to find that they're only throwing sand and toys at one another, blaming each other for why it's not getting done?
And yet, it still conjured up a few responses from those not too happy with my supposed "words of wisdom". Responses like: "Do you understand the concept of Official Opposition. The word opposition doesn't mean kum ba yah" and "Maybe that's how you vote, but many of us want an opposition that keeps the PCAA on its toes". There was name-calling and even worse. It won't be repeated here.
By all means, I'm open to criticism and good ol' fashioned discussion. But that seems to be lacking when it comes to politics of late (aka civility). I'm not totally sure if it's always been like this or if the relative anonymity of Twitter and other social media have made people more, how do you say, defensive. You need to have a thick skin when it comes to tweeting about politics. Because if someone takes what you say the wrong way, they're not afraid to "voice their opinions" if you know what I mean.
Realistically, am I wrong with what I tweeted? I don't think so. It's non-partisan and aimed completely at all politicians (this goes for all three levels of government). The grand-standing that's done gets to be a bit much for many, judging by what I see in responses. It's not that people don't appreciate opposition or healthy discussion. But I swear, if you watched what happens with the #WRP and #PCAA hashtags on Twitter on a regular basis, you'd think that one party could say the sky is blue and the other would argue that it was red. Am I being facetious? Check it out and be the judge for yourself.
What I find kind of interesting is how starkly different their two feeds can actually be. The PCAA hashtag usually shows a bunch of tweets about how awesome it is to be in a community or about the funding announcement just made. The WRP hashtag can usually find an abundance of vitriol towards the governing Tories and how "41-years is enough". Not that either is a bad thing. What has grown more and more concerning (judging from the responses to my earlier tweet) is that these politicians and supporters are talking AT their constituents and not WITH them. Don't taxpayers want the exact opposite? Just some food for thought for any politicians out there reading this here blog. Don't get me wrong, some are very good at communicating. But others only use Twitter and Facebook as a way to pass along any message that is supporting their cause. Does that really get anything accomplished in the grand scheme of "winning more votes"? (that's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually curious if it works, because it doesn't with me)
Plain and simple, Albertans deserve better from all. Do we not want ALL MLAs working towards the common goal of a better province? Or do we want all the parties sitting in the sandbox, trying to build a magnificent sandcastle, only to find that they're only throwing sand and toys at one another, blaming each other for why it's not getting done?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)