Canada's Weekly Newsmagazine
I saw my weekly Maclean's in the mail today and was pretty much expecting to see a political cover on it - surely Harper's victory in the leadership race would put him on the cover or at least share it with Martin with the budget last week.
No cover shot of Harper.
Okay, I'll, as usual, start first with the back page. Excellent - a great read of the themes Paul Wells has been presenting on his blog. No Harper reference but that's okay - it was a meaty political piece and I'm sure they'll be more politics inside - perhaps we'll be treated with another Wells column.
Go back to the start of the magazine - strange - nothing in the Table of Contents to indicate a Conservative/Harper story - must be in a column or the editorial.
Wilson-Smith's editorial makes a passing reference of Harper's win when talking about politician's being uncivil towards each other. A couple of more pages in - the Scorecard gives Harper an "arrow up", which is a good thing - a whole square inch.
Alrighty - Mansbridge - he'll spin some ol' time yarn about meeting Harper when he was just a young chap or something like that right? Oops - Peter's talking about how the CBC doesn't cover the news. It's okay - we're only on page 18 - lots of time for Maclean's to step up to the plate.
Page 25 has a picture of a very serious looking Harper - it's a health care article and refers to the Conservatives this way after talking about the Liberals actions in the first page: "And their main adversaries, the Conservatives under newly elected leader Stephen Harper, seem reluctant to risk saying much, conscious of how badly the old Canadian Alliance was beaten up over that issue during the 2000 campaign for allegedly favouring two-tier health care." First thought in my head - How Scary?
There is a few more lines later a couple pages later in the article talking further about the CPC plans and finishes with "With the federal Liberals vague on their policy ideas, and Conservatives guarded about theirs, it seems health might not get tackled squarely in the widely expected May or June election." Makes you think they have something to hide?
Past the ridiculous cover story - the rude age.
Amiel's column a few pages later, page 38, unfortunately talks again about the Middle East - doesn't she write about anything else? At least she deservedly castrates Bill Graham.
Great - a guest essay by Allen Gregg - the political pollster surely will be the guy to talk about Harper's effect on the numbers or something like that - Why don't people vote? Why do people read Maclean's?
Arts gets the last 15 pages or so.
So, Canada's Weekly Newsmagazine disappoints me. Three passing references to Stephen Harper, totaling around 100 words, in 60 pages of the nation's news over the past week.
The rude age indeed!
No cover shot of Harper.
Okay, I'll, as usual, start first with the back page. Excellent - a great read of the themes Paul Wells has been presenting on his blog. No Harper reference but that's okay - it was a meaty political piece and I'm sure they'll be more politics inside - perhaps we'll be treated with another Wells column.
Go back to the start of the magazine - strange - nothing in the Table of Contents to indicate a Conservative/Harper story - must be in a column or the editorial.
Wilson-Smith's editorial makes a passing reference of Harper's win when talking about politician's being uncivil towards each other. A couple of more pages in - the Scorecard gives Harper an "arrow up", which is a good thing - a whole square inch.
Alrighty - Mansbridge - he'll spin some ol' time yarn about meeting Harper when he was just a young chap or something like that right? Oops - Peter's talking about how the CBC doesn't cover the news. It's okay - we're only on page 18 - lots of time for Maclean's to step up to the plate.
Page 25 has a picture of a very serious looking Harper - it's a health care article and refers to the Conservatives this way after talking about the Liberals actions in the first page: "And their main adversaries, the Conservatives under newly elected leader Stephen Harper, seem reluctant to risk saying much, conscious of how badly the old Canadian Alliance was beaten up over that issue during the 2000 campaign for allegedly favouring two-tier health care." First thought in my head - How Scary?
There is a few more lines later a couple pages later in the article talking further about the CPC plans and finishes with "With the federal Liberals vague on their policy ideas, and Conservatives guarded about theirs, it seems health might not get tackled squarely in the widely expected May or June election." Makes you think they have something to hide?
Past the ridiculous cover story - the rude age.
Amiel's column a few pages later, page 38, unfortunately talks again about the Middle East - doesn't she write about anything else? At least she deservedly castrates Bill Graham.
Great - a guest essay by Allen Gregg - the political pollster surely will be the guy to talk about Harper's effect on the numbers or something like that - Why don't people vote? Why do people read Maclean's?
Arts gets the last 15 pages or so.
So, Canada's Weekly Newsmagazine disappoints me. Three passing references to Stephen Harper, totaling around 100 words, in 60 pages of the nation's news over the past week.
The rude age indeed!
