Talk:2006 Liberal Party of Canada election ads/Archives/2012

Generally

Can it be agreed that these ads were at the very least "unfair"? Certainly the Abortion ad was as Harper promised to do "everything in his power" to stop any debate on this issue (yet this line was removed). Funding from Ultra-Right-Wing groups in the States is ridiclous and illegal for Harper to have done.

I think it should be mentioned somewhere. Reading this article now presents the same unfair view that the Liberals presented during their campaign. This article was originally about the controversary surrounding the military ad... not a list of paranoid left-wing fantasies against Harper...

Military Ad

Did the ad even run for a day in English Canada? I thought it was just posted on the website.Habsfannova 18:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think you're right, andf both of us can't be wrong. ;-) So I've adjusted the article. Good edits, by the way. Ground Zero | t 19:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Worse thing about that it is that once it leaks out, can't retract it. It was played night after night in the news even when the Liberal strategists didn't intend for it to happen.GoldDragon 01:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming this article

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to move this to Political advertising during the 2006 Canadian federal election, or some such? That would allow us to discuss negative campaigning by/against all parties. Or perhaps we could create a separate article for that. Mindmatrix 21:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Other parties negative ads did generate the same response. These ads were on another level.

Not really. They used quotes that Harper said and implied negative things about him. The "US Donors" was pretty rough, but the rest weren't horribly negative...Harper really did say those things. Not near the level of the Chretien ad, or the "NO QUEBEC POLITICIANS" Reform one. Harper has a very right wing past...it's not "Another level" to bring it up.Habsfannova 05:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No way, these are a joke. Way over the top. I think this deserves its own article, it's parodied enough..Oreo man 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case,where the hell is the article about Conservative attack ads, like say, the one which alleged that Paul Martin supported child pornography, or the more recent out-of-context ads against Stephane Dion? 67.70.95.227 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Transcripts

Does anyone have the transcripts for the rest of the ads? Then we don't have to rely on summaries.Habsfannova 03:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I disagree with your rationale for your recent changes

1. Don't assume people known what the Tory counter-ad's aim is about.

2. McKenna's commentary is appropriate since the Harper ads are the highlight of the Grits anti-US rhetoric.

3. CTV Interviewees are appropriate as long as you do no twist them to represent what they are not.

GoldDragon 16:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding instead of blindly reverting.

1. Because you don't know the exact reason for the ads. They may not have been to put Martin as insincere, they might have been shown to show how conflicted the Liberals were, or that they speak from both sides, or that Martin is an authoritarian party leader.

2. "Anti-US" is very POV, and even if that term were true, the "Centerpiece" would be his speech with Clinton. And what was "anti-US" in this ad? There were insinuations that Harper got funding from Americans, and that he liked George Bush a lot. Nothing against the USA.

3. No, they are not. Why not put CTV interviewees on every article? Why not put them after everything Trudeau did, saying what certain interviewees thought? Because it's really irrelevent what the people interviewed on CTV thought.

Habsfan|t 17:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My response.

1. Martin refused to apoligize while some of his MPs were apologizing for the way that they offended soldiers. I believe that the aim of the ads was most likely to paint Martin as insincere, although the other explanations could be possible.

2. Although "anti-US" might be a strong way of putting it, the bottom line is that the Liberal attack ads were essentially playing on the Canadian's percieved anti-American feelings by using the US in such a manner. It is definely not anti-US fundamentalism but nonetheless they are clearly not using Bush in a positive light, so that is pretty anti-US as it gets among otherwise close allies. McKenna was refering to Liberal campaign rhetoric as being gratuitously offensive, and that has to finger these ads in part. Besides, McKenna also offers his take on why the ads might have backfired.

3. Since the ads were targeted at the general public, it would be appropriate for CTV to interview some of them in order to gauge their reaction. In this case, some of the responses give some insight into why the ads may not have worked as intended.

On the other hand, it would be most appropriate to extrapolate this to conclude that all Canadians felt the same way.

GoldDragon 01:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

1. "other explanations could be possible". Exactly. Other explanations can be possible, so we can't conclusivly list that as the purpose of the ad. Thus, it has to be removed

2. That's for the reader of the article to decide. And no, McKenna's comments don't "have to" finger those ads. It doesn't refer to those ads specifically, thus it should be removed.

3. It is irrelevent. Just saying "Some people" in some interview isn't worthy of being listed. And what ad isn't targeted at the general public? What government policy isn't?

Habsfan|t 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, it seems to me that:

1. GoldDragon's comment ("I believe that the aim of the ad ...") makes it clear that we are talking about POV, not fact, when discussing the ad's aim.

2. The ad may have been anti-US. Or it may have been anti-Bush. Bush is not the US, and criticizing Bush should not be seen autonomatically as anti-Americanism.

3. While it might be alright for a media outlet to use person-on-the-street interviews to illustrate a point, I believe an encyclopedia is a different form of communication and should not use anecdotal evidence in this way.

HistoryBA 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not accusing CTV of having a political bias, but it should also be noted that all television stations usually just show the "Shocked" interviews, the ones that are interesting, instead of being scientific about it and showing random ones.Habsfan|t 15:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Frank McKenna himself used the term anti-US and anti-American to describe it. I don't think there is any point in debating whether anti-Bush equals or does not equal anti-US. McKenna also criticized the overall anti-US campaign rhetoric so it does make reference to the ads. Since proper campaign rhetoric does not include the Clinton speech, is there anything else during the campaign he could have made reference do?

3. The Chretien attack ad uses stuff like "moved some in the audience to tears", so that is appropriate to use several CTV interviews in this case.GoldDragon 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Yes, there could be. And, because he doesn't say it, it does not warrant inclusion. 3. Yes, because it's describing the speech he made, not a screened mass media interview that could be done anywhere. Let's include the Global, CPAC, and CBC interviews as well, along with Newspaper letters to the editor and blog comments.Habsfan|t 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Yes it does. In fact, he didn't have to explicitly reference it. The Clinton speech is debatable on what Martin was trying to do. Its not clear how he would try to use it in a campaign, since he did not link Harper to Bush. On the other hand, the Harper ad is the point of the election where the Liberals injected obvious anti-US campaign rhetoric in an attempt to sway the polls.

Put it this in another way, even if he did not directly reference it, that doesn't warrant exclusion.

3. There isn't room to include ALL the CTV interviews and transcripts alone, the CTV blurb will suffice.

I agree with the contributor 130.113.86.133 since his edits provides balance: "But the ads were undoubtly UNFAIR...yet reading this article now makes it appear that these ads were the gospel."

GoldDragon 03:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How would they be seen as "Gospel"? The ads are simply described. If the ads are "obviously" anti-US, then the reader should be able to ferret that out.

Put it this in another way, even if he did not directly reference it, that doesn't warrant exclusion.

It warrants putting it in a different article, say the regular 2006 election article, not an article that he does not mention at all.

No, the CTV blurb doesn't warrant inclusion, because it isn't notable. So "Some" people thought the ads were beyond belief. Should I mention the letters to the Chronicle Herald that said the Conservatives were whining too much about them? No.Habsfan|t 03:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

I think the McKenna part, out of all of your edits, could be included with a proper introduction:

The ads, along with various other Liberal statements and actions that insinuated Harper being subservient to the United States, prompted embassador Frank McKenna to criticize the campaign [link here]

Sound good?Habsfan|t 01:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A new view

I looked at the last round of edits, and offer these comments:

1. "Several viewers interviewed felt that the Liberal Party was insulting the Canadian people's intelligence for expecting them to believe this style of campaign ad without thinking critically first." I agree that this does not belong. Moron-in-the-street interviews demonstate the television journalist's agenda more often that they demonstrate the public's view. It's like taking a public opinion poll of five people, and then casting away two of the opinions because they don't tell the "story" you want to tell. It's not worth including here any more than the views of people whose letters to the editor were published.
2. I find the parodies to be amusing, and I think that there is room in Wikipedia for amusement. I'd include them.

Regrds, Ground Zero | t 17:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)