I was confused a little when I looked at the Toronto Star this morning and not just by the recent change in web layout. I was clicking on this story about hockey and about Stephen Harper when it dawned on me that it was a story about hockey by Stephen Harper, the leader of the land. We are told in the byline:
Stephen Harper is prime minister of Canada, and is writing a book about the early history of Canadian hockey.Is there anything to make of this? Is it good? Do we care? Is it unrelated to his position. Certainly, it it were not for his position, the story would not have run let alone been the headline. And the article is certainly not without its socio-political economic message:
Outside Ontario, however, hockey was increasingly falling to the control of more commercially oriented men, including those who ran the competitions for hockey's highest prize, the Stanley Cup. So incensed was the OHA by the creeping professionalism of Cup competition that the league – which had never won the trophy – decided to boycott the competition altogether.So the tiny slice of hockey history chosen for publication today is about a central Canadian elite losing out to a a populist movement from outside Ontario though the introduction of a free market. Hmmm...where have I seen that theme before? Will we also get the full story of how those same free marketeers created a racket out of the game in the following decades that oppressed the skill of the worker for the cause of capitalist greed only broken by the glory of collective bargaining? Will Steve recount the waving that red banner high as well?But ordinary Toronto hockey fans weren't buying the OHA line. They wanted Toronto to compete with the best. Despite the attacks and ridicule of the local hockey czars, and in spite of the team's indifferent performance, they flocked in great numbers that first year to see the locals play against the star players they could before only read about in the newspapers.
And why the Star at all, that bastion of center left liberalism? Why not the National Post or another conservative organ? Very odd.
Comments
Gordo - December 23, 2006 9:52 AM
Ugh, it needs editing. You can hear his robot voice as you read the piece. Anyone but the PM would have had it rejected or edited heavily. Rewrite!
Paul of Kingston - December 23, 2006 10:47 AM
Whoa, talk about your slow news days.
Personally I reject the notion that my identity as a Canadian is governed primarily by hockey and Tim Hortons. Watching "Hockey - A People's History", one might think that the reason we went to war in '39 was becasusis were against hockey. And therefore I reject the usefulness of yet another quasi-academic coffee table read about hockey in Canada.
Ben (The Tiger) - December 23, 2006 2:41 PM
Why <i>The Star</i>?
Harper's a Torontonian. This is the subject of some debate, but my experience growing up here was that The Star had the best sports section of the major papers. (Though The Sun isn't bad either. The Globe, on the other hand, sucked.)
Some things are more important than politics -- one has to reach one's sporting audience.
Matt Fletcher - December 23, 2006 3:55 PM
To defend Harper a little here:
It is my understanding that he was working on the hockey history prior to running for the CPC leadership an prior to becoming prime minister. Gaining top political office should not be a reason to drop one's previous hobbies, interests and projects.
It is quite common for authors to test drive portions of their work that they intend to turn into a book in the press prior to publication to create interest and gain feedback - no reason for Harper not to do the same.
Why The Star? The Star has the largest readership in the country, and as Ben said its sports section is the best. Of course this piece wasn't published in Sports, or even deeper in the paper but on the front page bellow the fold - that is certainly a result of the story having been written by the PM.
I didn't think the piece was that badly written. Gordo provides no examples of why he thinks it is poorly written other than the fact that it was written by Harper. Alan's criticisms of the political slant within the interpretation are at least reasonable - though I personally didn't find Harper was taking a particularly heavy-handed intellectual position - no moreso than any other writer would have.
Alan - December 23, 2006 5:48 PM
Excellent analysis, especially:<blockquote class="smalltext">Gordo provides no examples of why he thinks it is poorly written other than the fact that it was written by Harper.</blockquote>Remind me to include your education in the inventory of Royal Bloggish Society of Knowledge, Matt. What is your focus? I trust it is not 19th and 20th century Russian political history as Ben has already claimed the <i>samovar</i> for his office on the fourth floor.