Chretien is once again fighting back after successful brain surgery last week.
Readers of this website will know that I have been unafraid to take on Charlie Smith of the Georgia Straight when I felt it to be appropriate, but at the same time give praise when deserved.
But Smith’s blog post over the weekend takes the cake as one of the most classless pieces of “journalism” I have been exposed to in a very long time.
Why am I so harsh, you may ask? Well, speculating about the political benefit of someone’s death, never mind the fact that the person in question is a former Prime Minister, truly crosses a line as far as I am concerned.
So as you may or may not be aware, former Prime Minister Jean Chretien went in for pretty serious brain surgery last Friday in Montreal. The subdural hematoma was performed to alleviate the build-up of blood between his brain and his skull.
So Smith figured that this was as good as any a subject to talk about the political implications of such a procedure. How? Well check this one out (and be sure to pick your jaw off the floor when done):
“Mr. Chrétien, I am sure, will emerge as he always has from every challenge, by winning,” Harper said.
I’m sure that Harper had the former prime minister’s best interest at heart. But Harper is also smart enough to know that if Chrétien’s health takes a turn for the worse and he dies, it could trigger a wave of nostalgia.
And that could conceivably return the federal Liberals to power.”
I don’t even know what to say about that because I am so very disgusted. To speculate about the political future of the country IF someone dies is just wrong.
As it happens, and coming as no surprise to myself who has always been amazed by Chretien’s spry step, Chretien is cracking jokes and talking politics in his recovery.
Smith is borderline journalist to begin with, who rules over his little political fiefdom at the Straight with a certain sense of smug pride. And so whatever credibility he might have had with me as a commentator whose opinion carries some weight evapourated with this piece of trash (definitely blog worthy, if you know what I mean).
Charlie, you should be ashamed of yourself. I actually would love to hear your explanation on why you thought this to be appropriate, regardless of whether it is relevant to your brainwave or not.
I wonder what will happen to the Georgia Straight’s political coverage if Charlie Smith gets hit by a bus and dies.
I highly doubt that there will be much nostalgia. In fact, I speculate that the quality of the content will definitely improve.
For shame, Charlie.
Harsh, Jonathan!
I don’t give praise to PMSH very often, but his comment was classy.
Charlie Smith’s article has me seeing red! He has no class. Does he really think that Harper’s team is so evil as to consider this scenario?
To speculate about the political future of the country IF someone dies is just wrong.
It happens all the time. What will happen to the monarchy in the countries that have her as the Head of State when the present Queen dies. What would happen if President Obama was shot (I remember the frenzy of speculation when Reagan was shot, especially with Al “I’m in charge” Haig spouting off), what will happen to the Catholic Church when the Pope passes on, what will happen to Cuba sans Castro…North Korea and Kim Il Jung…
Etc.
I’ve seen all of these in Op-Eds.
Pondering the effects of the passing of a political figure is not the same as wishing them dead.
1. Smith is guilty of attempting to read Stephen Harper’s mind, although I’m of the view our current PM makes such calculations. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It might seem cold, but c’est le guerre. Nevertheless, you should probably keep such thoughts to yourself.
2. Smith is guilty of saying there was a “Trudeau Death bounce” in Liberal polling, without supporting it with evidence.
Jonathan,
You asked for an explanation, so I’ll provide it. I merely set out to state the following:
1. The prime minister wished Jean Chretien well. Stephen Harper was sincere.
2. The Liberals did very well in a recent Ekos poll, creating a neck-and-neck race.
3. When Trudeau died, the Liberals happened to benefit from the goodwill for the former prime minister.
4. Chretien called a snap election during this period of goodwill toward the Liberals.
5. If Chretien had died rather than survived, the Liberals would have once again enjoyed support because many people admire how the Liberals handled the economy during the Chretien era.
6. Chretien’s survival, in a curious way, will increase the likelihood of the Conservatives winning the next election.
There was no malice in this column. I do not wish the death of Jean Chretien. I was merely stating the facts as I saw them. I didn’t suggest that Harper had any ulterior motives. Quite the opposite. I stated that he meant well with his statement. I’m mystified by your reaction because I actually think you’re an intelligent person.
If you think it’s reprehensible to consider that some beloved public figures might die one day — and that this could have an impact on politics — then there is nothing I can do about that. You’ve stated your view. I guess you think it’s wrong for the media to speculate on what might happen if the Queen of England dies in the future.
I think you were too harsh on me, Jonathan. But you’ve been too harsh on me in the past. I can live with this. It’s the way you operate. Your epithet “borderline journalist” is one more demonstration of this.
I do my work sincerely in the belief that I can shed light on certain areas that the other media are ignoring. Sometimes, that enrages people. I didn’t enter journalism to win any popularity contests.
Charlie Smith
If Chretien was running it would help the Liberals. Ignatieff is a pollitical stiff, a zombie. Maybe he died already and nobody noticed. Journalists sniping back and forth at each other is journalism?
Apparently my comment from August 9 has not met the standards of the website. Disappointing.