Note to reader: Do click on the Flickr slide show, left, before you begin reading. I believe it will enhance your reading experience! 🙂
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as everyone must surely know by now, is a big hockey fan. In that respect, he's just like millions of Canadians. But there's a big difference between Harper the hockey fan and the rest of us hockey fans. Generally speaking, we don't show up at the game with our videographer and photographer in tow with the idea of demonstrating that our love of the national game is one of the qualifications for the jobs we do.
Hockey has been a constant and frequent theme since his election as prime minister in 2006. I don't recall hockey having such a prominent role prior to 2006, in the 2004 election campaign or in his leadership campaigns or his fight to unite the right.
Presumably, hockey is a frequent theme because, in this country at least, hockey is a unifying force. From Chicoutimi to Calgary, Canadians can talk about hockey the way Canadians can talk about the weather. But unlike the weather, key hockey events — that gold medal game or a Stanley Cup final — are one of the few common shared experiences of the country. More than 25 million Canadians watched that gold medal game! That's a remarkable number in a country of 34 million people.
So if you're a politician, what's not to like about having your personal brand associated with hockey?
Still, for Harper, is it too much of what, for Conservatives, must seem like a good thing? Is the hockey connection overshadowing, by accident or design, Harper's connection to other important issues. Here's a quick stat:
The word "hockey" appears on 447 different pages at the prime minister's official Web site, pm.gc.ca, according to Google. The word "poverty" shows up on 504 pages. "Climate Change" shows up on 381 pages.
The Toronto Star's Susan Delacourt argues that Harper's image managers turn to hockey to avoid other substantive issues.
II suspect, however, that the PMO brand managers have long ago figured that it will be impossible to "over-brand" Harper as a hockey lover. And so I suspect that the official Flickr Photostream from the prime minister's office will continue to be stuffed with a ton of hockey-related pics (that's a Flickr slide-show above assembled from pics at Flickr which have a hockey connection.)
Tags: hockey, stephen harper, conservatives, prime minister
“But there's a big difference between Harper the hockey fan and the rest of us hockey fans. Generally speaking, we don't show up at the game with our videographer and photographer in tow with the idea of demonstrating that our love of the national game is one of the qualifications for the jobs we do.”
Sorry to have to say this, but this is a very silly statement.
For pete's sake … whether you media guys want to admit it or not, whether you've accepted the results of two elections or not … this guy is the Prime Minister of the country. Of course he's going to be filmed and photographed whenever he makes a public appearance, especially when there are crowds of people around.
If you and/or Susan Delacourt ever become PM, dollars to donuts you'll be photographed and filmed too, showing you at work and at leisure.
In the meantime, the media continues to focus on the things that really matter. Look at the # of Google hits for the following:
• 159,000 Harper misses photo-ops.
• 160,000 Flaherty's hairstyle.
• 232,000 Harper not going to Beijing.
• 2,100,000 Harper wafer.
And as far as equal treatment and/or weight given to the same procedure:
• 26,800 for Chretien prorogues parliament.
• 373,000 for Harper prorogues parliament.
That last comparison is just apples to oranges, though. First, Chretien was back in a much earlier era of the internet; blogs weren't really a thing, and there wasn't the massive outpouring of opinion and such (or even on-line newspaper content). So of course there'd be less talk.
(Also, as has been explained ad nauseum, there are huge differences in the cause, method, and result of those prorogations.)
How about this comparison then,
McGuinty Prorogues Parliament
I'll grant you the difference on the “earlier era of the internet” argument. I don't intend digging through newspaper archives to compare the actual number of stories dedicated to Chretien's prorogation versus Harper's. Memory tells me, though, that Chretien's was a 48-hour story, if that, whereas Harper's is still being raised ad nauseam.
As to the “cause, method, and result of those prorogations” of course each one is different and used by the PM of the day for his own purpose. But as The Star's National Affairs Columnist Thomas Walkom wrote in his Jan. 6 column:
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/746441–vent-outrage-at-your-local-mp
“… Curiously, even though his motive was seen to be as self-serving as Harper's, Chrétien's action caused much less uproar. …” — confirming the media-driven interest in this latest prorogation.
Curiously whatever powers reside in the office of the Prime Minister miraculously become suspect when the occupant is a Conservative.
Even Harper's keen interest in hockey becomes a controversial subject, whereas Chretien's passion for golf and his occasional rounds with Bill Clinton were deemed as added colour to a story.