what you see in this video is actually a big part of the reason why. this is the accurate analysis of the situation - and it's not isolated behaviour from the ndp, either.
here's the thing: these tricks don't work. since the ndp started with this shit, they've been nose-diving. i wouldn't expect the outcome of this to be any different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn9Up-tjmoM
it's really not unlike the setup around trump's manager being charged with assault, which clearly helped trump when the evidence got out - and anybody with any critical thinking skills could see that nothing actually happened.
to put it another way: trudeau's elbow on brousseau may have been accidental, but brousseau's sucker punch on trudeau was fully conscious and designed with intent.
canadians are actually pretty smart. we'll mostly figure that out.
--
i was thinking about the elbowgate thing as i was eating (and watching a richard wolff lecture) and i think there's another dynamic to this that is being missed and should really be drawn attention to. it's also a theme i went back to repeatedly during the last canadian election, so i have some personal continuity in the commenting. it's another example of the difference between old media and new media, and more evidence that the media, as a whole, has still not clued into the new reality of things.
i've been making the argument that they need to start handing out pink slips. nobody's going to starve to death, here. but, it's really getting beyond ridiculous, beyond surreal and to the point of almost being dangerous. i don't mean to pick on peter mansbridge, for example, but maybe it's time to go home when the son of the guy you started off covering gets elected?
the reality is that the way the media is covering this is like it happened twenty or thirty years ago, before we had this thing called the internet. and, let's be crystal clear: the internet is not a new thing. it's well past the point where the old folks can complain that the world is passing them by. it's to the point where if you're still operating under tv rules, you are simply out of touch and need to take stringent courses in new media or be set out to pasture. i'm sorry, but it's true. these panels you get with people like andrew coyne and chantal hebert are not just useless, but are approaching a point of dangerous anachronism - less because they are out of touch and more because so few people seem to realize it.
twenty years ago, the way people would have seen the encounter would have been framed by a handful of media sources. the corporate media would go to town with it, more out of a desire to boost ratings than anything else. the state run media and a handful of moderate sources would have set the record straight. but, you'd still be reliant on their filtering - their narrative. if they decided they didn't want to show you the video, you wouldn't see the video.
today, the way people are going to experience the exchange is something more like this:
1) they read a headline, or hear somebody talking about it or something.
2) before they even read an article about it, they will immediately go to youtube to find footage of it. in fact, they may even be hoping they get to see the prime minister pile drive some hapless mp, right. they're googling the action.
3) they will either be relieved or disappointed by the anti-climactic video evidence.
4) they're going to mumble that it's just more media bullshit, and put it in the list of reasons you shouldn't trust media.
but, that's not what you're getting from the mainstream media. it is what you're getting from independent media - which is basically the new msm for people under....it's 2016, so under 50, really. you're going to wake up one day around 2025 and realize that old media is really an idiosyncrasy of the baby boomer generation, and will disappear along with them - and their influence. but, the new media hasn't been able to interpret itself as legitimate, yet, so it's still in this phase where it's reacting.
it's not the only situation over the last few years where situations seem outright bizarre and the disconnect seems to be over the question of old and new media. one prominent example was the collapse of jeb bush; i think he just focused too much on old media, and not enough on new media. he had essentially no internet presence before the "please clap" video. and, didn't trump actually steal his domain name? outrageous.
it's the only way i can really make sense of both the msm analysis and the ndp's tactic: they have to be assuming they can control the narrative by controlling access to information. they have to be completely out of touch with reality, and ready to be put out to pasture. otherwise, everybody from the top down, from the left to right, would have to realize that 90% of the people that care at all are going to take the ten seconds it requires to google the event, and conclude they're being maliciously lied to.