Shiny Things in the Vending Machine

Why would anyone want to be a politician?

I know it seems like a really simple question.  And I know those in political lives right now would answer this in the most Miss America way they possibly could.

"I want to bring positive change to the world."

"I want to serve my community."

"We deserve leadership."

All lovely platitudes.  But it kind of feels like hogwash nowadays, doesn't it?  Sure, there are a few out there who are doing a great job of being public servants.  They represent their constituents well, and they're about as "open book" as you can get.

But it feels like the good apples are being ruined by the bad ones.  And it's making it tougher for the good apples to want to even get in the basket.

Think about it.  Would you be willing to open up your entire life for the world to see?

You would be subjecting your family and friends to an insane amount of scrutiny.  Your husband or wife will be judged for everything they did or do, how they look and how they interact with others.  Your children will be put into an unwarranted spotlight.  As they get older, they will be put under the microscope for every social situation they find themselves in.  Your friends will have to be extra-careful to make sure they don't post anything on social media that could lead to some kind of controversy, even if it's as simple as you having a beer.

Then you get into the partisanship aspect.  You will have your values and beliefs ripped apart.  You could be the most saintly person on the face of the planet, but if you're not of a certain religious background, you will be torn to shreds by some followers of other faiths.  Support same-sex marriage?  Good luck with those who don't support it (they'll wish you a lifetime of damnation).  Question gun control?  They'll think you want to take away their guns (even if all you want is to end school shootings).  Support the oilsands?  The environmentalists will picket outside your home and office in a heartbeat (even though the hypocrisy they show is always so evident).  The insanity is going to come from all sides.  So buckle up, kid!

And don't even get me started on ideas and change.  Have a good idea?  Park it.  Because someone will think you're targeting them, or that you're threatening their way of life.  And make sure your ideas are simple.  Because if people have to think, they will revolt because it feels like you're talking down to them.  They want your ideas in 140 characters or less.  So get practicing.

Many people have asked the question about "where have all the good candidates gone?"  The joke with the American election, for example, has been about how there are 330-million people and these are the two best candidates to run the United States?

Is this an accident?

I have a feeling the answer is no.  Most of the "good" candidates (the ones of sane mind and best intentions) are in hiding.  Why?  Ask yourself the above questions about what you'd be willing to sacrifice.

But ask yourself, as a voter, about what you've come to expect from politicians.  Many people expect the absolute worst.  They think they need to be some combination of morally corrupt, fiscally incompetent and/or reality-deprived.  And if they can't find it on the cover of the book, don't worry, they will go digging for it.  They will find anything, no matter how minuscule, to throw you under the bus.  Why?  There's this nagging feeling that it's "too good to be true", and they don't want to be disappointed later.  It's a different kind of abusive relationship.

Maybe I'm an idealist, but it feels like there was a time when we expected more.  We looked for the good in our candidates.  We looked for people who had a vision, who could get things done and who could work with others.  Even the opposition.

But somewhere along the way, we got lost.  Instead of having visions and working together, opposition politicians scream from the rooftops about how they've been hard done by and how only THEY can fix it.  They campaign on "change" then they enter office and do the exact same thing (or some minor variation) of what they campaigned against.  They don't offer up their own ideas, they simply cry foul.  I once joked that one politician could say "the sky is blue" and opposition politicians would yell back "screw you, the sky is red!"  It happens at all levels, especially in the party system.  They oppose for the sake of opposing because their partisanship tells them to.  Who needs good policy and ideas when you can simply do all you can to discredit your opposition?  It's no wonder it takes forever for ideas to come to fruition.

And it's no wonder people are turned off politics.  They see all the yelling and screaming.  They see all the scandals and discourse.  And they see who they are voting for.  They don't like it.

Maybe we need to hit rock-bottom.  Maybe we need to elect the worst of the worst.  Maybe then we'll start looking for the best in candidates and the best candidates.  Maybe then we'll start seeing some of the best coming forward, all with well-thought out policy ideas and plans.  Maybe they'll even have a shred of moral decency.  Maybe they won't come in with a bunch of vested interests outside of serving the common good.

We should be taking this "democracy" thing seriously.  Instead, we're mocking it.  We've seemingly allowed ourselves to devolve into a giant junior high school council election, where only the well-known kids get voted in.  It doesn't matter if they're promising nothing or they're promising soda machines in every classroom and five recesses a day.  They might be bullies or have an IQ of a stick.  But they're popular.

Meanwhile, the smart kids in the corner of the classroom, with all the good ideas in the world and decent human compasses, are sitting on the sidelines, knowing they stand a snowball's chance in you-know-where of winning this thing.

It's not that the vote is rigged.

It's just that no one is taking them seriously, because the electorate is distracted by shiny things in the vending machine.

Here's The Trouble...

"The right-wing is just a bunch of crazy, bigoted morons!"

"The left-wing is so afraid of offending anyone!"

"We need to clean out police departments because they're filled with corruption!"

"Teachers are lazy!"

"The media is biased!"

Something's been eating at me lately.  I wasn't exactly sure what it was, but it's finally dawned on me, particularly when you see the last five statements read together.

Generalizations need to stop!

Somehow, some way, we've allowed ourselves to make sure we group everything we hate into one finite group without ever needing to question that group.  Let me explain with the first example.

We all know the right-wing in politics is represented by Conservatives (in Canada) or Republicans (in the USA).  Anyone who opposes these viewpoints is automatically labeled in some way (depends on the person), but all in the same way.  So if one Conservative is also a meat eater, than all Conservatives are meat eaters.  And that's not necessarily true.  So why is that we allow the generalizations to be made on a bigger scale, like that if you're a Conservative but also anti-gay, then that must mean that all Conservatives are anti-gay.  That's obviously not true, but yet that painting is still being shown.

Let's move to groups like police, teachers and nurses.  Some people will proclaim that they are "lazy".  But are they?

Not even a little bit.

Look at police and how they're characterized as being ruthless, gun-toting thugs.  Is that true of all?

Absolutely not.

And how about that dastardly media?  As I've pointed out in the past, there is no "the media".  It's not like there are these grand meetings featuring gold name plates and caviar, where reporters and anchors determine what kinds of stories we are going to be feeding to the masses.  "The media" is simply code for those particular outlets that you don't agree with but feel the need to lump together.

Here's the deal: you're letting a bad apple or two ruin your perception of how the group (generally) acts as a whole.

And if you don't believe me on this, then let me throw another one to you: all sports reporters are cheerleaders.  Sounds outlandish doesn't it?  Yet, there are those who are labeled as cheerleaders by some followers.  So in theory, that original statement should hold true.

Here's another one: office workers are lazy.  Of course, that's not true either.  But why is it okay not to say that, when some people think it's okay to call rig workers "buffoons who couldn't get through high school"?

And don't say any of these generalizations aren't made, because they are.  I see it on a regular basis.  Different sides to different debates, battling it out over who can be pound their chest and hold ultimate supremacy over each other.  It's hogwash.  Absolute and utter hogwash.

Because the world isn't black and white.  No matter how hard you try.

There are fiscal conservatives who aren't bigots.

There are social progressives who want their tax money watched carefully.

There are good police officers who serve their communities well.

There are great teachers who are trying to make the world better for kids.

And there are reporters and media outlets out there acting as a public service for information.

I'm willing to bet some of these good people are just dying to get their stories out there.  They hate being characterized in the same light as the idiotic generalizations that follow them around day after day.

I'm not saying there isn't rot in the world and it doesn't need to have the light shine down on it.  But what I am saying is that the rot shouldn't be allowed to infect everything, including our judgment, to allow for generalizations to bury the good happening out there.

Because there is good in the world.  You just need to start looking for it.

"Bad News" vs. "Good News"

I hear it all the time.

"Why can't we have more good in newscasts?"

It's certainly something that's hard to ignore.  We are constantly bombarded with death, destruction, controversy and scandal.  Some people have decided to tune it out, and I don't necessarily blame them.  It's admittedly hard on reporters and others in "the news" to deal with the constant negativity, I can only imagine what it's like for someone outside of that circle to deal with on a daily basis.  The result?  An uptick in the number of "good news" stories being passed around.

It begs a really interesting question in the grand scheme of things: what is a good mix of "bad news" and "good news"?

You see, not everyone likes good news.  In fact, some detest it.  Whenever you see a good news story mixed into the run, you will see some pretty normal reactions.  "This isn't news", "must be a slow news day" or "there are bigger stories you should be reporting on."  It happens EVERY time.  So, as a reporter, you're a little gun-shy to do those kinds of stories.

Follower: "I'm tired of politics. Post some good news!"
Posts good news.
Others: "This isn't news" or "must be a slow news day."
Ugh. #yyc

— Joe McFarland (@JoeMcFarland) October 4, 2016

The other interesting reaction happens when it comes to organizations that don't necessarily get positive stories.  Let's use police as an example.  Every so often, you see the stories about officers doing good things.  A reporter will cover that story, but then get lambasted for playing "public relations" for police, trying to cover up whatever scandal might be out there.  Same goes for politicians.  Heck, even when we do feel good stories about a birth at the Calgary Zoo, some people will complain about how it's covering up the wrongs happening at the Zoo.  It's a no-win proposition.

I've had this conversation with a few different people, both in the industry and out of it, because I've always believed in having a wide-ranging discussion about these kinds of things, in hopes of getting a better-rounded product for my listeners.  The challenge is finding balance.  You can't ignore the bad happening in the world, but you also can't shy away from the good.

Is the old adage of "if it bleeds, it leads" dead?  Does sex still sell?  I remember being told that good news just doesn't work.  No one pays attention to it.  I'm curious, in the day-and-age of the internet, if that is all changing.

I'm also curious about the societal impact of having more "good news"?  Would people be more-inclined to do good things if they knew there was good out there in the world?  Would people feel better about the world if they had better news around them?  Or would they simply sluff it off after a while, saying it's "not really news" or that it's "propaganda for those with something to hide"?  Then, of course, that fuels that "mainstream media" hatred that seems to be making the rounds.

Don't get me wrong.  I still believe in the power of investigative reporting.  Accountability is extremely important and should be viewed as such.  We can't not report on the bad things around our communities and around our world either.

But the question still remains: is there room for some good news in the world as well?

What If We're All Wrong...

Every so often, I get phone calls in the newsroom from people who take issue with how certain stories are written or are perceived to have been written (because let's face it, some people hear what they want to hear).

Sometimes, they are ridiculous phone calls that I try to end in the first couple of minutes.  The accusations can go from fairly tame to downright aggressive.  And that's fine.  Everyone has their right to an opinion and I can handle it.  In all of those cases, I present the facts, as they're laid out, and a reasoned discussion on how and why a story was covered.  I'd say 99% of those who call irritated hang up the phone feeling a little less upset and, at the very least, a little more enlightened.

But once in a while, I get a phone call from a listener who makes me think a little.  Such was the case today with a gentleman who wanted to talk about the state of the economy in Alberta.  He didn't want to pin blame on anyone in particular, but felt like Albertans should all be taking responsibility for where we're at now.

He seemed to be of the mindset that we missed opportunities years ago in trying to diversify our economy.  Whether it was in technology, manufacturing or some other industry, we seemed to miss the boat because we had the blinders on, thinking that we could live off the avails of oil and gas forever.

But on the flipside, he was also unimpressed that we're now seemingly trying to make up for lost time by diving head-first into a number of different "possible" sectors, while throwing our "bread and butter" under the bus.  He compared it to throwing mud against a wall to see what will stick.

Then he brought up the most interesting point of all: what is Alberta going to look like in 50 years?  Will it be all oil and gas?  Will it be solar and wind?  Will we discover some other revenue stream that will keep this province humming along? 

I didn't have the answer to him, but I then asked him if he's heard any vision on that topic from anyone.  And that's the point he wanted to make.  He went on to say that while politicians and political watchers stumble over themselves trying to pin the blame on others, we haven't really heard anything about what a future Alberta could look like, with or without oil and gas.

It was a very interesting conversation, and as I sit here and dissect it, it made me think of a few questions that I think we should be pondering:

#1. Are we afraid of economic diversification, or are we afraid of the potential of walking into an unknown world, away from oil and gas?

#2. What does this mystical creature known as "economic diversification" look like, and how does it pertain to Alberta?

#3. Should we be willing to throw the oil and gas industry out with the bath water while we go searching for this mystical creature, or should we trying to make it fluorish while we go on our expedition?

#4. What if those who think we can shut off the oil and gas taps right away are wrong?

#5. What if those who think nothing should change and we can live off oil and gas forever are wrong?

Personally, one of the challenges we're having with this discussion is that we're trying to have it 140-characters at a time.  It's an issue I think with many different debates, to be honest.  We should be opening up the dialogue and not be afraid to ask some pretty point questions, demanding well-thought out answers.

We owe it to ourselves.