There is a great title in today's National Post. In my propaganda series I have pointed out the difference between a headline that is merely "attention grabbing" and one that sets an article spinning even before you get a chance to read it.This title is "Quebec separatist army claims victory"
I think almost any Canadian would understand this is somewhat inflammatory, similar to a previous the title I mentioned "Shut up and pay for your windmill". And any non Canadian would be surprised to find out after reading the article, that there was no military action involving the Separatists.
Suppose a small British Colony in Quebec city had been beaten by French forces 250 years ago. Exactly like Canada today but English and French roles reversed. Do you see the point that some English Canadians would not be too thrilled about a reenactment of this historic battle?
If you would like to read an interesting update on the significance of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, you can go to an article in the Ottawa Citizen.
I suppose it's unfair of me to compare an informative article in the Ottawa Citizen to an opinion piece in the National Post, but I would be really happy if the NP just started upping its journalistic standards.
I hope I can use the picture of the reenactment, which belongs to the National Post, as "fair use" since I am including a link to the National Post article here.
The reason I call this blog entry "National Post Watch" is a play on the National Post's "CBC Watch" where they often reported on alleged bias in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's news programs. Kettle calling the pot black? No, more like kettle calling the TV black.
'Suppose a small British Colony in Quebec city had been beaten by French forces 250 years ago.'
ReplyDeleteCan I take it that your sympathies lie with the 'Quebec separatist army'?
I must admit that I've found the Fort Erie reenactments very interesting.
But perhaps that's different ... even though the Americans won the siege at Fort Erie, they eventually lost the War ... or at least we Canadians believe so ;-)
Some military reenactments are OK by me. i.e. Both sides are willing to participate with equal enthusiasm. Like the US civil war reenactments that are so popular.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is time - some reenactments are "too soon" The Civil war of course was more recent than the Plains of Abraham - but the civil war occupation only lasted 10 years. The British occupation of Quebec went on for at least 200 years - of course it depends what you mean by occupation.
Anyhow, I'm sure a reenactment of the Isreali-Arab 1967 war would be too soon, and would probably involve real bullets. A reenactment of the Battle of Hastings would be probably be nice and peaceful.