It’s telling that a website that intentionally closes itself off to all non-U.S. traffic has been named Associated Press’s website of the year.
What does this say about the future of media online?
Category Archives: Opinion
Senator Duffy?
Yeah, his head really is that big
Part of me still can’t quite believe it. Sure, journalists have been appointed to meaningless ceremonial posts by politicians before, but to poach English Canada’s biggest name in political journalism (well, political TV journalism anyway) and just make him a politician (from P.E.I.?) seems strange.
Sure, technically there’s nothing wrong with a journalist becoming a politician. It’s the other way around that’s a problem (except on RDI). But it just feels wrong.
For what it’s worth, the National Post explores the ethical issues in play here. There are questions about how Mike Duffy may have acted toward the Conservatives while mulling this appointment, even if he says he’s not a partisan.
I don’t think Duffy’s journalism was biased, and will probably for the most part stand the test of time. But I still think it was a mistake to accept a senate appointment. Just as it was for Jim Munson or Joan Fraser or any of the other journalists who went to the senate thinking it would raise their profile and whose names have been forgotten by average Canadians.
Then again, this Margaret Wente column alone almost makes the appointment worth it. Not to mention the fact that there’s so little news otherwise this time of year.
Bernard who?
Luc Lavigne photo (with some improvements)
Back when Bill Haugland, a fixture of CFCF’s newscast for almost a half-century and the long-time anchor of Pulse News, retired from the anchor’s chair two years ago, CTV’s Montreal station made a big deal about his departure. There was even a half-hour special about it, which is saying quite a bit in an era where locally-produced English-language television is extremely rare.
One of the things that special included was some classy sendoffs from anchors of competing newscasts. Not only did Global’s Jamie Orchard (who worked at CTV before joining Global) and CBC’s Dennis Trudeau (for a long time his direct competitor) give heartfelt goodbyes, but there were messages from the anchors of TVA and Radio-Canada’s newscasts, the latter from Bernard Derome.
So when Derome, who has been in RadCan’s anchor chair since (insert lame joke here), retired himself last week (albeit for the second time), the anglos returned the favour. CTV’s newscast had an item on Derome’s departure, and The Gazette had a feature piece and an editorial on it (despite what some in the francophone media may think, my paper doesn’t completely ignore what goes on in the other solitude).
It wasn’t the kind of Deromania that’s been flooding RadCan and La Presse recently (note to self: retire in late December when there’s no other news going on so I get more ink), but there was an acknowledgment that one of Quebec’s biggest vedettes was ending a storied career.
As for TVA, RadCan’s biggest (and with the departure of TQS’s news division, only) news competitor … absolutely nothing, according to Le Soleil’s Richard Therrien. A big “fuck you” without saing a word.
It’s sad what the drive for competition can do to strip some people of any sense of class.
It’s something where, frankly, je souhaite que la tendence ne se maintient pas.
The 515 bus can be saved
Spacing Montreal has a post about the “inevitable failure” of the STM’s 515 bus to Old Montreal. It discusses many of the problems I first brought up in June when it first started.
While I agree that the line is wrought with problems (most of them predictable), I still think there should be a bus serving Old Montreal (there’s an argument that Old Montreal is served by two metro stations, but the walk is pretty far, especially for kids – 600m from the Jacques Cartier pier to Champ-de-Mars and over a kilometre from the bottom of McGill St. to Square-Victoria).
Besides, the Spacing article (and the Journal story it’s based on) cite ridership numbers in the summer and fall, which is when people are more likely to walk than take a bus. When the temperature is 30 below and the roads are slippery with ice, bus use is likely to increase in this area.
So I’d like to offer some suggestions to the STM on ways to improve service on this so-far unpopular route:
- Dump the yellow signs. They’re confusing and unnecessary. They give Montreal transit users (not to mention tourists) the idea that they’re temporary or special in some unknown way.
- Drop the route between Berri and Peel. It’s the most underused part of this underused line, and it’s completely unnecessary. This would also have the advantage of simplifying the line, which could then use the usual East/West directions instead of its confusing current circular system.
- Increase service intervals slightly. Putting a bus every 10 minutes does make it more metro-like in that people will just go to a stop and wait for the next bus, but the ridership (even if improved) simply doesn’t warrant it. A 20-minute predictable interval would make more sense.
- Put detailed information at every Old Montreal stop. Schedule, fares, places of interest along the route, points of transfer, etc. should be at every stop for the benefit of tourists. If they can learn about the system as they wait for the bus, they’re more likely to take it.
- Improve traffic flow. Certain parts of the route (like near St. Laurent and Notre Dame) are always clogged, slowing service to a crawl. New ways should be considered to improve traffic in the area, including banning all car traffic on De la Commune during the summer if necessary.
Did I miss anything? Should the route be saved?
Ici on tue personne
The Office québécois de la langue française, always looking for fun ways to spend money making anglos feel unwelcome, has started a new campaign to get store owners to place stickers in their windows reassuring people that yes, they speak French. They even got comedian Louis-José Houde to lend his voice to radio ads (because some unfamiliar voice telling you your language is in jeopardy just isn’t good enough).
The campaign is focused mainly on Montreal, but also Gatineau and the Eastern Townships, which are the three places you’re most likely to find anglos in Quebec.
I don’t quite get the point.
By law, all Quebec merchants should serve customers in French. So this sticker would be at best redundant.
The supposed idea is that merchants who don’t show the sticker would not see any francophone customers (or at least no card-carrying members of the St. Jean Baptiste Society). But that would only work once a majority of businesses got the sticker, which won’t happen any time soon no matter how free they are. Indeed, anything that smells of the OQLF would probably be rejected by Montreal businesses who don’t want to rock the boat and make things political for no reason.
Not to mention that searching for stickers would also annoy hard-core francophones who think all businesses should serve people in French (which, again, they’re required by law to do).
Besides, it would be fairly simple to just lie, put up one of those stickers and then promptly ignore it. People do that with alarm system stickers all the time.
So this campaign, which encourages retailers to unnecessarily affirm that they follow the law, and which annoys francophones and anglophones alike, is good for what exactly beyond wasting a bunch of taxpayer money?
CBC’s Being Erica almost sounds good
The CBC, apparently excited by the fact that its show about a neurotic 30-something single white brunette consistently comes in dead last in the ratings with a pathetic 300,000 viewers (about a third of what Air Farce brought in on a regular basis), it’s developing a new show about a neurotic 30-something single white brunette called Being Erica (heavy Flash/automatic video play warning), which premieres Jan. 5.
The CBC’s description of the show is somewhat lacking, but it seems to have something to do with a woman being sent back in time by her therapist to fix all of the things she did wrong in high school and make her life better. Or something. It’s unclear if this is supposed to be really happening in some sci-fi way or if this is just in her mind. Whatever, I’m sure CBC will find some way to make it suck.
What piqued my interest though is this blog they’ve setup to drum up interest for the show (via TV, eh?). It features one-minute video blogs of Erica in her cubicle at work, ranting about this crazy coworker she has who leaves passive-agressive post-its everywhere. It’s like she works in The Office, only she actually has a pulse and doesn’t use awkward silences for conversation.
I actually like the videos. Enough that I almost wish the CBC would ditch the TV show entirely and focus their efforts on this instead. (Imagine if they started really thinking outside the 30-minute-sitcom box, the things they could accomplish.) I’m not sure if it’s just how well Erin Karpluk delivers the rants, or if it’s the writing behind them, but I’m entertained in a way I haven’t been by the CBC in quite a while.
The buzz (which can’t entirely be trusted, since it thinks Sophie was a hit) suggests that the show is very entertaining. More tellingly, it’s also been sold already to ABC’s Soapnet and BBC Worldwide.
That might be enough for me to try to remember where CBC is on my TV dial.
L’Audace d’espérer
Translated copies of Barack Obama's two books - Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope - are on sale
I didn’t realize these books were even translated into French.
What amuses me most, though, is that someone felt it necessary to add messages to the books pointing out that Obama is “le nouveau président des états-unis”. Is there someone out there that doesn’t know he won? And if there is, why would this person be interested in reading these books?
Snow = slow
The first snowfall of the year hit the city this week, and the usual whining came quickly. So quickly that the National Post saw fit to make fun of us (even though nobody called in the army).
- Why didn’t the buses show up?
- Why was there a traffic jam?
- Why wasn’t the snow cleared up?
- Why were the sidewalks icy?
Because the storm was larger than expected, and because the worst of it hit during rush hour, traffic was backed up, and buses and plows couldn’t get through.
Patrick Lagacé asks: Is this normal?
Allow me to answer:
Yes this is normal!
Every year we get the same crap. People expect that ever block in the city has its own private snow-clearing team waiting for the first flakes to fall. Every year they forget that it takes a couple of days to clear snow off every street in the city.
The people who were unprepared for the first snowfall weren’t working for the city, they’re you. You without your winter tires. You without boots that have traction on ice. You who thought it would be a good idea to take your car downtown when the forecast called for snow. You who didn’t add extra time to your commuting schedule to account for delays caused by heavy snowfall.
I admit I’m a bit spoiled in all this. I take the metro exclusively to work (and during odd hours), so I rarely have to wait in line in the cold for a bus that’s half an hour late.
But even when I lived on the West Island and took an hour and a half to get downtown every day, I still understood that snowstorms cause delays. Why is it so hard for everyone else to understand the concept?
UPDATE (Dec. 14): Stéphane Laporte agrees with me: Winter happens. Get over it.
Does YouTube have more Cancon than CTV and Global?
Google spoke, and naturally everyone listens. Roberto Rocha and the CBC write about its submission to the CRTC about new media regulation. As you might expect, the company prefers a hands-off approach to the Internet.
Google’s argument is that with no government regulation whatsoever concerning content, YouTube still manages to have plenty of Canadian-produced videos, and if measured quantitatively, it has more Canadian content than Canadian TV networks.
Rocha pokes some holes into that argument, mainly by pointing out most videos posted to YouTube are of little public interest. Test videos, family videos, copyright infringement, personal vlogs and just utter crap. There are no professionally-produced scripted dramas produced by Canadians online, and you could probably count on one hand the number of people making a living from posting videos online north of the border.
Quebecor, which has both a broadcasting interest in TVA and an online interest in ISP Videotron, also argues against regulation. To back up its point, it mentions its web portal Canoe:
Quebecor Media believes that the Canadian footprint in the new-media broadcasting environment is significant and continues to expand rapidly. One indication is that the Canoe.ca network is among the top 12 Canadian platforms in terms of unique visits.
OK, hands up those of you who can name 12 “Canadian platforms”. Yeah.
Non-regulation isn’t perfect. It encourages profit-seekers to go after the lowest common denominator. While there’s plenty of “user-generated content”, there’s very little professional production. Even with the almost non-existent barriers to production and distribution, the difference in value between what is produced for television (even cable channels) and what is produced online is still very large. It’s unclear at this point whether that gap will narrow.
But online is also the great equalizer. There are no public airwaves to portion out. There are no limits whatsoever, and so there should be no regulation, just as there is no regulation of newspapers.
Where conventional TV networks sign import deals and use simultaneous substitution law to effectively print money importing U.S. shows, there is no such rule online because there are no international barriers. Sure, some are trying to put up barriers to make our lives difficult, but the majority of content is available to Canadians as much as Americans, no matter which side of the border it comes from.
It hasn’t arrived yet, because many media owners still think that paying for cheap wire content and slapping your brand on it is a good idea, but eventually media outlets will learn that they’ll have to produce original content to get any audience (and advertising money). It’ll be creative ideas, not cross-border dealmaking, that will create wealth for Canadian media companies in the future.
At least, we hope.
In any case, it would be pointless for the CRTC to try to regulate the Internet, simply because it can’t.
Maisonneuve to shut down MediaScout
The guys behind Montreal-based Maisonneuve Magazine announced yesterday that effective Dec. 19, they would be putting the daily newspaper briefing MediaScout on permanent hiatus, a victim of a lack of funding. This just a few weeks after putting out a survey asking people how much they’d be willing to pay for the service. Considering they only pay their writers about $125 a week, it’s kind of surprising they couldn’t come up with funding.
As you can imagine, I’m a big fan of media criticism (in an age of increasing media conglomeration, so few mainstream outlets can have true editorial freedom without pissing off someone in upper corporate management). But MediaScout never did much for me. Its choice of newspapers always seemed arbitrary and limited (Ottawa Citizen but no Montreal Gazette, La Presse but no Journal de Montréal, three papers in Toronto but none in Western Canada). And I never found it brought much new to the table. Summaries of top stories can be seen on everything from Google News to the radio newscast, and sarcastic comments about newspapers can be found on just about any blog.
MediaScout could have been a big independent force for Canadian media criticism and analysis if there had been more investment in it. But paying some university student a few bucks to summarize the morning’s news just always seemed a waste of money to me.
Coalition of the unions and separatists
Spot the non-union flags at this protest
On Saturday, I went downtown to Protest Central (the Guy Favreau building) to check out the pro-coalition protest. I had wanted to stop by the “Rally for Canada” anti-coalition protest, but that never materialized in this city.
Coming out of the building, I noticed a lot of presence from labour unions. I did some quick number-counting. There were 150 flags with union logos on them. The number of signs, flags and banners without union logos were so few that I have pictures of them all below.
The numbers, and the speeches given during the rally, showed something worrisome: this protest wasn’t about the grass roots standing up for democracy. It was about unions and separatists wanting to push the government more toward the left.
Just how big is this majority?
I’m hearing a lot about this 62% majority that’s being used as a talking point for the Liberal-NDP (Bloc) coalition government in Ottawa. But it’s not entirely clear where the calculation for that number comes from. Perhaps for that reason, I’ve seen numbers like 61% and 66% pop up on signs or in statements.
So I did a bit of number crunching based on the results of the 2008 election. Here’s that comes up:
The figure that really matters is seats in the House of Commons. By that measure, the coalition represents 163 of the total 308 seats, or 52.9%. If we include the two independent members (Bill Casey of Nova Scotia and Quebec’s André Arthur, both of whom are closer to the Tories than any other party) on the coalition side, that figure rises to 53.6%.
If we go by votes for coalition parties vs. total votes in the 2008 election, which would be the most obvious choice, they represent 7,528,737 out of a total 13,834,294 votes, or 54.4%.
If we go by votes for coalition parties vs. total votes for the four major parties in the 2008 election, discounting the parties with no seats (and independents), we get 7,528,737 of 12,737,533 votes, or 59.1%.
If we go by votes for coalition parties plus 937,613 Green Party votes vs. total votes in the 2008 election, we get 8,466,350 of 13,834,294 votes, or 61.1% (the “61% majority” figure comes from here). Green Party leader Elizabeth May has endorsed the coalition, so this one is plausible.
If we go by votes for coalition parties plus 937,613 Green Party votes vs. total votes for the five major parties in the 2008 election plus independents, discounting only the 64,304 whackjobs who voted for the Western Block Party and their ilk, we get 8,466,350 of 13,769,990, or 61.5%.
If we go by votes for coalition parties plus 937,613 Green Party votes vs. total votes for the five major parties in the 2008 election and exclude independents entirely, we get 8,466,350 of 13,675,146 votes, or 61.9%. This is where the “62% majority” comes from (well, either this or the next point), but it completely discounts people who voted for anyone who didn’t vote for candidates outside of the five parties, pretending like their votes didn’t exist.
If we go by votes for coalition parties plus Greens plus independents and unaffiliated candidates vs. total votes in the 2008 election, we get 8,561,194 of 13,834,294 votes, or 61.9%. But this makes the huge (and unsupported) assumption that independents support the coalition.
If we go by votes for all non-Conservative candidates vs. total votes in the 2008 election, we get 8,625,498 of 13,834,294 votes, or 62.3%. But this assumes that all third parties from the Christian Heritage Party to the Marxist-Leninists (respectively the 5th and 6th parties in total votes) support this coalition, which I think is a bit of a stretch. It also assumes that everyone who voted for independent candidates also supports the coalition.
So which of these figures is the correct one? The coalition backers want the highest number, 62%, but the more realistic numbers are 54% or 61%, depending on whether or not you include the Greens.
What do you think? Are there other ratios that make sense here? What calculation makes most sense to you?
CBC Ombudsman clears reporter Erickson
The CBC’s Ombudsman released his report on Friday concerning Krista Erickson, a reporter who was accused of “planting” questions with the opposition to use during Question Period in the House of Commons. The Conservative Party found out about this and complained to the CBC, and CBC management disciplined her by deciding to transfer her from Ottawa to Toronto.
Erickson successfully fought the disciplinary measure and had it reversed in a mediated settlement in June. She has resumed reporting from Ottawa (she never was transferred), and has already filed some political pieces.
The report from Vince Carlin largely clears Erickson of intentional wrongdoing, and places blame on the CBC for having an inexperienced reporter assigned to Parliament Hill.
Among the specific points in the report (PDF):
- The CBC does not have a direct written policy concerning this type of journalistic activity (prompting politicians to ask questions during Question Period, or feeding them information that could embarrass their opposition). The Ottawa bureau did, however, have an unwritten rule that this should be avoided. Carlin blames himself partially for not putting that rule in writing back when he was running the bureau and the CBC drafted its journalistic guidelines. He also notes that the Globe and Mail has a direct, written policy prohibiting this.
- Before it was banned, this type of activity was commonplace. Carlin also hints that other networks may still engage in this practice, though that has no bearing on CBC policy.
- Erickson is a good reporter and her motivation was journalistic zeal, not partisan strategy. No one has accused her of being inaccurate in her stories.
- Beat reporters and their subjects have a “symbiotic” relationship which is necessarily informal. A “give and take” of information is normal in this relationship and helps journalists in their job.
- Erickson joined the Ottawa bureau in 2006 having very little political reporting experience. Normally reporters assigned to Parliament Hill have experience covering local or provincial politics, where the subtleties of journalism ethics in dealing with politicians is learned.
- Erickson came forward to her superiors when other journalists suggested that her providing direct questions to the opposition might have been unethical.
In short, Erickson did not violate policy, but she did cross the line. But she didn’t know she crossed the line, and that’s the CBC’s fault for not training her enough.
Erickson, who alerted me to the judgment via email, wouldn’t comment on her reaction to the report, on whether she agreed that this kind of thing should be unethical and whether she agreed that she was unqualified for a job on Parliament Hill. She referred questions to the Canadian Media Guild (the CBC’s union), which said it was “satisfied with the report”.
The Ombudsman’s report is clear, honest and makes a lot of sense (in fact, it sounds a lot like what I wrote in January). Little of it is surprising (except perhaps the part where this exact issue was discussed and decided upon by both the CBC and Globe long ago), and it makes clear that while Erickson made a mistake, her intentions were honourable.
Political activists will, of course, view the report through the filter of their partisanship, which will tell them before they read the report whether they approve or disapprove of it. But it’s hard to argue with the points made in it. And other journalists should take note of those points, to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.
UPDATE (Dec. 9): The National Post’s Jonathan Kay posts thoughts about this as well, calling it a “quasi-exoneration.”
CBC is in the tinkering mood again
Someone at CBC has been doing “market research” again, which means a few good ideas and a lot of really bad ones (The Tea Makers has some more details with the usual marketing and managingese):
- Replacing “Saturday Report” and “Sunday Report” with “The National”: Good. It’s your evening news show, why should it have different names on different days? Sure, it doesn’t have The Mans, but that’s not the end all and be all of CBC Television
- Rebranding CBC Newsworld: Bad. Anyone who hasn’t heard of Newsworld either doesn’t have cable or doesn’t use it to get news. Neither of these things will change with a new name.
- Putting L-shape on-screen graphics on CBC Newsworld: Bad. I mean, there is some room for improvement in the graphics department, but using CP24 as a guide is a bad way to start, and the idea of putting a bunch of graphics on screen like weather reports and news crawlers (does anyone read those things?) will just make it look like CTV Newsnet, in a bad way.
- De-formalizing The National: To make it more like The Hour? Gonna have Mansbridge stop wearing ties and give the news while breakdancing? I doubt people ignore this program because of its formality.
- Reporting rumours: You’re kidding me, right? Quoting directly from the Globe: “Newsworld will not necessarily wait for the definitive word on a story before beginning to report.” If that’s true, it means Newsworld’s journalism standards have taken a major hit.
- 10-minute The National podcast by 6pm: Good. Probably will have a limited audience, but so long as the resources put into it are limited, it makes sense.
- More transparency in news reporting: Absolutely. Journalists (and more importantly their managers) need to get out of the mindset that they should hide where they get their ideas from. Yeah, it sucks when you get scooped. Live with it. Trying to deceive your public will only backfire on you.
- Merging local news with The National: This one wasn’t explained very well, but seemed to involve having a local anchor take over at the end of the show and give some local news. It sounds good in theory, but it also sounds a lot like the CBC News Now or whatever that 6pm project was called that had Ian Hanomansing doing fake handoffs to local news anchors.
- Renaming CBC Radio News as CBC Audio News: Stupid.
- More foreign correspondents: CBC’s getting second thoughts since they don’t have someone stationed in India. But they also just fired a bunch of foreign correspondents. So this probably won’t happen, even though it should.
- More exciting language: Bad. Anchors will be encouraged to keep viewers hooked using CNN-style marketing hype, always saying they’re covering an issue and more information is coming. I’m always surprised when news organizations believe that inserting marketing language into editorial content is OK when all you’re hyping is yourself
- Online-first policy for breaking news: Good. Holding stories so broadcast can get first crack at them is just asking for someone to scoop you on it. Neither medium should wait for the other.
- Extending afternoon local radio: Great. It always amazed me that CBC Radio One’s local office essentially shut down at 6pm and that even the weather reports aired after that were pre-recorded. The new plan would have 6:30 and 7pm local newscasts.
- Live afternoon TV news breaks: Why not? The private networks do it. If your choice during a commercial break is between an in-house commercial pulled from a drawer and a live news update with a local anchor, go for the latter.
Coalition myths
While the two would-be prime ministers address the nation with their talking points, and talk radio is flooded with angry phone calls, it seems obvious that many Canadians (and politicians) are basing arguments on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of parliamentary democracy. In that spirit, here are some myths being thrown about and reality checks for each:
Canadians voted for a Conservative government and Prime Minister Harper: Canadians did no such thing. Despite the impression given during election campaigns, the prime minister (and hence his government) is not chosen by the voters (you may have noticed that the words “prime minister” were not on your ballots, nor were “Stephen Harper” unless you voted in Calgary Southwest). Instead, the prime minister is chosen by the 308 members of Parliament elected by the voters. A majority of those 308 members have decided that Harper should not be the prime minister.
The coalition wants to overturn the results of the election: I don’t see where that’s the case. There are no floor-crossings involved here (and even if there were, both the Liberals and Conservatives have benefitted from such crossings and ignored hypocritical calls from the opposition that the member resign and face a by-election to ratify the change in party). The election resulted in a minority government, which means that any measure needs support of more than one party to be approved.
The Liberals were forced to act to save Canadian jobs: Oh please. This is clearly a power grab. The Liberals saw their opportunity, but it was just a matter of time before this happened. A minority situation where three of the four parties are left-of-centre and the remaining right-wing party is the one in charge just wasn’t sustainable. The economy argument is a smokescreen.
Dion is so desperate to become prime minister he’s trying to get in by the back door: While I’m sure part of Dion is gleeful about the idea, and he’s definitely better at this kind of political maneuvring than he is getting popular support from Canadians, he isn’t reversing his decision to step down as Liberal leader. The leadership campaign will go on as planned and if the government lasts that long, the winner will become the prime minister.
Making a deal with separatists threatens this country directly: If this were true (and it’s not), the Conservatives are just as guilty. Many of its laws, including matters of confidence, were supported by the Bloc Québécois in exchange for matters the two could agree on like transferring more money to the provinces. Dion’s federalist bona fides are not in question. Besides, the argument is being made on the other side that the Bloc has sold its soul to the federalists by agreeing not to take down a coalition government for a year.
The Liberals have a better plan to fix the economy: Nobody’s going to fix this economic crisis. The United States is in a recession and debt markets are in turmoil. There’s nothing a prime minister can do to fix that. They can make a small impact: the Tories want to reduce taxes and the Liberals/NDP want to increase spending, both of which will put this country back into deficit and increase the national debt. The best solution would probably be something in between, but there is no centre option here as long as the Liberals are in bed with the NDP.
The coalition will bring the stability and progressive policies needed to weather the economic crisis. Wow, I need to get some of what you’re smoking. The coalition will bring partisan gridlock to Parliament Hill in no time flat. Another election will quickly follow, in which Canadians will either punish Harper for his arrogance or (perhaps more likely) punish the Liberals for a transparent power grab.
This crisis shows why we need a majority government: Whether this crisis is good or bad for Canada depends on which side you’re on. Majority governments are by nature more stable, because they’re run by a benevolent dictator. They also have a habit of being more fiscally responsible by being able to cut spending and make tough decisions. But minority coalitions are more democratic and involve more compromise and negotiation. And when one party attempts to do something unpopular, it can be overridden by the other three parties.
If the government loses a confidence vote, an election must be called: That’s not necessary. The King/Byng affair demonstrated that. The governor-general has the option to allow another group to become the government if she feels they would have the confidence of the House.
We must protest to ensure we get the right government: While both sides are appealing to public opinion, it’s highly unlikely that any of the four parties will listen to the public which has already divided so transparently along party lines. The Liberals and NDP have already made up their minds about forming a coalition. The Bloc has already agreed not to let it fall for a year and a half. And the Conservatives are going to fight to the last breath to keep Stephen Harper in power.
Any other misconceptions you feel need to be corrected?
Oh hell, I’ll just let Rex Murphy summarize: