I'm Mad as Hell


and I can't do a thing about it

A Royal Pain

Here we are on the eve of what could be one of the most momentous elections in Canadian history, an election with two incredible possible results, either one of which could change the very fabric of the country. And where are our top journalists? They are sitting thousands of miles away in London covering an event that has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with star power and gossip.

As Canada prepares to elect a Tory majority that could swing the country further to the right than it has ever been, or failing that, to make Jack Layton the first social democratic Prime Minister supported in an alliance or even a coalition with the floundering Liberals, Peter Mansbridge, Lisa Laflamme and Dawna Friesen are off covering the royal wedding Of William and Kate.

I suppose I should make my personal beliefs known here. I don’t like the royal family. I despise the monarchy. I don’t believe anyone should have the right to their government backed job by virtue of who their parents are or were. Further I believe the British royals to be an inbred and stupid family who never fail to do the wrong thing or say something stupid. I know, I have heard all the stories about the Queen and how great she is. It’s a crock. This is a woman who never understood the importance of Diana and had to be forced into taking part in her funeral. She is the mother of a man who once professed that he wanted to be a tampon so that he could be that close to his lover. Her daughter is a joke in Britain for everything but her ability to ride horses. Both her children have divorced. Elizabeth is one of the richest women in the world but that doesn’t stop her from squeezing millions and millions of dollars out of the British taxpayers annually…even in a recession, even when the British economy is in terrible trouble.

Okay even without all of that bitterness, I have to wonder what the heck is going on when in the middle of an election campaign every major network in Canada is sending some of their best political and reportorial talent to cover an event for which there is little to say other than nice dress. I think the folks who host the Santa Claus Parade, or the nightly entertainment shows would be the best able to cover the events in London. They know how to comment on the clothing of the bride and her bridesmaids. They revel in the pomp and circumstance of the rich and famous. They marvel at the bejeweled guests. They love to gossip about who was invited and who was left off the invite list. I ask you, is this really a job for Peter Mansbridge?

Just so you know, I produced the coverage of the last royal wedding for CTV, you know, the one with Charles “the tampon” and Diana. Let me tell you from experience, journalism is all but banned from the coverage. Most of the cameras covering the events will be BBC pool cameras. The BBC camera operators will be working under strict rules that ban them from shooting anything other than the official events. There will probably be demonstrations against the royal family, British involvement in wars in the Middle East and even the possibility of ant-poverty groups demonstrating against the massive waste of money that could be put to better use. You will not see these events, no matter how large they get. Even if they interrupt the proceedings, the cameras will look the other way.

The U.S. nets will probably have some of their own cameras on the streets in case there is a real story, but the Canadians are not likely to want to cover anything but the lovely nuptials. The other stories will be saved for later, much later, when The National or CTV News come on the air more than half a day later.

The truth is that a royal wedding is a tourist event in Britain. It’s a way of separating the rubes from their hard earned dollars. The British government, in cahoots with the royals, try to plan at least one event a year, preferably in the tourist season, to draw big crowds of tourists to London and Britain. That’s okay, we would do the same if we had Liz and her family living in Ottawa. The question I have is: how does this wedding festival morph into a journalistic story that takes up half of our daily newspapers, a large percentage of our television news coverage and more importantly, detracts from the real news of the day?

Interestingly I have never met a Canadian journalist who wanted to cover a royal wedding. It is akin to being assigned to cover the Easter Parade. There’s no story. It’s just pretty pictures. The news bosses are less upset about coverage because they believe it will bring in big audiences and help to sell their news packages and news stars. In the past this was a given. The good news today is that recent polls suggest that most Canadians don’t care. A majority say they would rather watch a political debate than a royal wedding. Congratulations Canada, perhaps we are growing up as a free and democratic country. Maybe if enough of us ignore the wedding this time, we won’t be subjected to this crass spectacle the next time one rolls around.


Filed under: Media Commentary, Political Commentary, , , , , ,

12 Responses

  1. Yes- I agree. What an important article about irrelevant pomp and circumstance over intelligent political reportage.

    This is turning out to be one of the most interesting elections fought on the ground by online citizens’ groups.

    Our group put together a social media and video campaign to ask for a NDP-Liberal coalition in case of a Harper majority. Coalitions are legal, effective, and common internationally. Join us online at http://canadiansforcoalition.com/ where you can sign our petition asking for a coalition, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Canadians-for-Coalition/108826285865447?sk=wall and Twitter at #coalitionnow

  2. brenda craig says:

    Agreed – although I don’t dislike the Royals.
    And it gets worse. GDP – down .2 percent this morning with 16 out of 21 sectors going negative in the first three months of 2011. Analysts saying this is the beginning of ‘downshift’ in the economy.
    Now that’s something for reporters to cover – isn’t it?

  3. Sharon Danley says:

    I am often in agreement with your blogs, but not this time. Why do we have to have either/or? I appreciate the grace, elegance and higher standard that the monarchy brings to a world sliding on the downside of the mountain of trash tack, ignorance and consumerism at laser speed.

    Of course I would have liked to see a TRUE debate – and more than one. But when the broadcast consortium (conspired with the political leaders) leaves out a national party leader (Elizabeth May), then journalism, or lack there of, has lost my interest.

    Propoganda? I’d rather enjoy the escapism and community building of a Royal Wedding thank you.

    • Billy says:

      “I appreciate the grace, elegance and higher standard that the monarchy brings to a world…”

      You cannot be serious. The tyranny of birthrights will never be graceful, elegant, or of a higher standard. If they are so graceful, elegant and of a higher standard how come they can’t put their own money (which they have an abundance of) towards this wedding instead of leaching off the British taxpayers who are not exactly doing so well.

      Gimme a break.

      • Sharon Danley says:

        Grace and elegance – you betcha. Unlike the way many people respond to posts in rude, attack the person, not address the issue ways. Yes I am serious.

        Give you a break because I have an opinion? Another example of disrespect for opinion.

        As you didn’t comment on the unfairness of the broadcast consortium, should I presume you agreed with that?

    • Justin says:

      Grace & elegance – what are you smoking? The monarchy is another form of propoganda and glorified celebs. The wedding was basically an info commercial for wedding industry.

      • Sharon Danley says:

        Like Billy Justin, you ridicule my right to my opinion and suggest I’m smoking something – therefore something is wrong with me. Once again, an example of disrespect and rudeness for difference of opinion.

        You betcha I enjoyed the “propoganda” of creating community rather than the half-truths of corrupt political journalism.

        And like I said – why do we have to have either/or reporting? We certainly have the technology for both.

    • Max says:

      I’m not going to attack you personally or your right to have an opinion, but I will point out that Google can supply you with a rather lengthy list of tactless, boorish behaviour perpetrated by nearly every member of this graceful, elegant family over the years if you’re interested.

  4. Jason Paris says:

    I have nothing to add. That was fantastic and mirrors my thoughts exactly.

  5. Peter McCluskey says:

    Royal fan, me? Not on your life. But at least the wedding ceremony was two or three hours shorter than the funeral for the Toronto police officer. Explain that!

  6. Merrill Smith says:

    I’m with you on this one Howard. But it’s even worse than you say, CBC Radio also sent over their main morning newsguy, Peter Armstrong, and others. It reminds me of another event – the death of the Queen Mother in 2002. Here are my thoughts on that from a letter I drafted to the Ottawa Citizen, but I never sent:

    “The Ottawa Citizen, the Canadian Alliance, and their right-wing fellow travellers, are usually quick to attack government waste, so where have they been this past week following the death of the Queen Mother.

    “Canadian taxpayers spent countless thousands of dollars so the CBC could send two of its highest paid reporters, Peter Mansbridge and Michael Enright to London to cover the lying-in-state and the funeral. The Corporation has a bureau in London that could have handled this far from earth shattering event at much less cost.

    “Then we spent thousands more to send the Prime Minister and his wife from Africa to London for the funeral, even though our High Commissioner, who lives there, could have ably represented us.

    “She was, by all accounts, a fine woman. A loving mother and a doting grandmother.

    “She was also, however, a woman who held no public office, and in a lifetime that spanned a century, left behind no great works. A woman whose only achievement was to have married above her station and then, backed by the obscene wealth of the royal family, an obsequious nation and sycophantic colonials in Canada and elsewhere, to pretend that she thought the rest of us to be almost as good as her family.

    “If the Brits want to waste their money maintaining this anachronistic institution, that’s their business, but it’s long past time that Canada stopped bowing and scraping before a foreign head of state and her many loathsome relatives.”

    I still feel the same today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: