In the op-ed I wrote for the Sun a few days ago, I noted the prevalence of a tendency in political commentary to a “lazy and jesting cynicism.” And we’re seeing pretty else nothing but that with respect to comment on EcoDensity.
For example, Geoff Olson’s article in the Courier:
I’d prefer to not think of EcoDensity as Sam I Am’s green edicts n’ sham. But I’m skeptical, given this buzzword is the brainchild of the same guy who gave us “Project Civil City,” with its code language of friendly fascism for the city’s down and out.
After framing the various ’sides’ to EcoDensity, he takes the easy out: dismiss the policy as without substance and focus on the political inadequacies of the Mayor. By the end of the column, it’s just plain silly.
What a waste.
Horrible article by Olsen. It is armchair journalism at its worst. No where does he have a single quote from anyone. No research, no back-up, no sense.
Just the usual rants. Adds nothing to the debate except more dead trees.
>>he takes the easy out: dismiss the policy as without substance and focus on the political inadequacies of the Mayor.
I haven’t read the column, yet, so I can’t comment on its laurels or lack thereof.
But I do see a general tendency for commentary in this town, and this province, to get bogged down in the highly political — the usual left versus right distractions.
The problem I see is that the politics serves as a red herring, when we should be debating nuts and bolts policy — in this case EcoDensity policy.
Because once you get beyond the superficial packaging (ie, the name EcoDensity), there’s some very, very good stuff there. Some of which has been a long time coming for the City, and indeed the GVRD.
Mind you, Mayor Sullivan has done himself no favours with some of the EcoDensity public relations hiccups along the way (including the alleged personal trademarking of the term which media seized upon, and perhaps even the name itself, which some see as self-congratulatory or even “greenwashing”.)
But Gordon is right. How are we ever going to have a productive citywide discussion about EcoDensity, or even the Mayor’s Project Civil City, when there’s so much political mud being thrown around?
The awful truth is that those who ‘take sides’ are not really there to listen. There is little you can do to persuade your political adversaries you’re on the good side of any issue. You don’t think commentators in Vancouver’s bi-weeklies butter their bread by actually doing any real investigation, do you? The opinions appear to be pre-formed, so they only have to make the words fit.
Not to burst anyone’s bubble on the Ecodensity name registration, but what the Mayor’s office did was actually prudent. Why would the city launch a huge marketing campaign on a brand they had no control over? You can choose to believe the Mayor sought to profit personally, but an examination of the facts shows that’s nonsense.
From my first glance at Olson’s column, I recognized it was EcoHumour. you know couple “Eco” with something bad and the whole term becomes instantly good! Guess it was just bad EcoHumour though.
Should we be worried EcoProstitution down the road? I keep checking for http://www.vancouver-ecoprostitution.ca/
As for Michael’s comment about “those who ‘take sides’ are not really there to listen”. Hey! since your comments describes ALL politicians does that mean NO Politician is willing to listen to me and my moans?? Wow… I feel deprived.
BTW are you the Michael Klassen who does the mayor’s web site??