The sadness of Peter Kent
I’ve written about Peter Kent before on this blog. Peter is a former colleague of mine from my days at CTV’s W5.
Later on he was a news anchor at CBC when I worked there.
I had a lot of respect for Peter as a journalist.
Now of course, he’s a politician.
Stephen Harper made him the Junior Minister for Foreign Affairs…and I’ve developed some doubts about whether or not Peter has been able to maintain his integrity intact.
Recently, I’ve discovered another blog which has published some interesting analysis of Peter’s political ideology and in turn sheds light on Stephen Harper’s government.
It’s called this-on-that and is well worth a look.
Integrity??? Good gawd- I’ll be blunt. Peter Kent, Mike Duffy, et al, are whores. They have been bought and paid for.
I’ve listened to Kent in his new role- he’s just a shill for the Harper machine- integrity and ethics are not part of the formula.
That these people have an agenda should be obvious to all who aren’t asleep. Much more is planned, it will be spun like never before, and enough will buy in that these people will be in control completely. Harper is about to prorogue parliament again, to stall any criticism of the government till after the Olympics, and the GG will fall in line as she did before. And get this- harper will soon appoint more whores to the senate in order to give them a majority there. Where’s your democracy now?
In the end, we really do get the government we deserve.
The attachment says….
Q: So that’s why you, and the prime minister, and other ministers all end up using the exact same quotes when you answer questions?
A: Yes. So when we’re asked about the Israeli position on settlements, we never criticize Israel publicly. We say those settlements are “unhelpful” in finding a comprehensive peace settlement.
etc.
Pragmatically it makes sense for government ministers to speak/sing from the same song-sheet.
No sense in leaving shades-of-meaning gaps for the opposition to pounce on.
I can see that.
But was the insulting grade-school drivel heaped on Richard Colvin (Taliban dupe) a product of considered thought or does the Minister of Defence get to make his own rubbish up in the moment?
If so, why?
Was PK a journalist who went with his notebook to record facts from primary sources ?
Seems more likely he was a TV ‘journalist’ – regurgitating second-hand , filtered , edited , and selected ‘news’ .
That , when brought into the inner circles of power , he would become an instant apparatchik would be a foregone conclusion.
At a guess , if someone were able to pull a switch on his crib sheets and substitute ‘Mary Had A Little Lamb ‘ he wouldn’t notice until the jeering started .