Although I don't usually agree with Maclean's magazine, I think I could have wrote Coyne's article myself... that's how strongly I agree with most of what he says. Coyne writes that what people really want to know about an election is "who are these people and what are they going to do to us?" Plain and simple. As both a voter and a journalist, I couldn't agree more. Especially when it comes to polls. By the time you take into account such factors as margins of error and sample pools, they're pretty much useless. Maybe a poll every two weeks would be okay, especially if it's a well-done poll that is actually somewhat accurate and indicative of which direction popular opinion seems to be heading. Wait, is it actually possible to use the words "accurate" and "indicative" in the same sentence as the word "poll"? I'm not sure.
As a young First Nations woman living in Saskatchewan who is both a voter and a journalist, I must say I am always disappointed with the media's election coverage. None of the coverage speaks to the issues I actually care about like resource revenue sharing between the federal and provincial governments and the First Nations or post-secondary funding for First Nations students. Instead, time is wasted on topics like what sort of vegetable is Stephen Harper or (last federal election) what label is Belinda Stronach's outfit/ who's hockey pro husband is she stealing. Who gives a crap? As a voter, I want to know about their policies, opinions about war, ideas for solving Canada's problems etc. As a journalist, I sure as hell wish more of us would start writing about those topics. If I want to know about fluff, I'll turn on ET Canada or just find some other way to mindlessly destroy brain cells.
Or if media coverage continues its recent trends, I'll just flip open any newspaper or turn on any channel...
Maclean's website, if you're interested, is: http://www.macleans.ca/