Another shot at the media and its role in the political process, this time by the Globe and Mail's Adam Radwanski as part of a wider column on why Canadian politics have become so viciously partisan:

A confluence of factors has helped turn our election races into schoolyard tussles. The anything-goes nature of online debate — on blogs and even on parties' official websites — has spilled over into mainstream discourse much the way talk radio infected it south of the border. The media's obsession with "war rooms" has left their occupants trying to outdo one another with gratuitous attacks. And the clutter of five parties competing in a 24-hour news cycle has left them making increasingly shrill noises in the hope of being heard.

It would be interesting to do some analysis on what people actually read during the recently concluded federal election campaign.

Did they read any reportage or commentary that dealt with a substantial public policy issue, or did they just read splashy, staged-event-or-gaffe-of-the-day stuff?

One of the major issues in the campaign was how to price carbon emissions. The Liberals and Greens favoured the idea of a broad carbon tax coupled with income tax cuts. The NDP and Conservatives both opposed that approach. The NDP favour cap-and-trade, while the Tories want to cut emissions by putting ever-increasing intensity targets on major industrial emitters.

Each plan has its strengths and weaknesses as a policy.

The popular line right now is that the Green Shift plan sunk the Liberals' campaign.

Can someone answer these questions for me:

- What did voters actually know about the Green Shift?

- Where did they get their information?

To that end, I'd like to see some analysis of how the media covered the issue (kudos to the Globe for its thorough review of the parties' climate policies)

Here's a clue: If you want to go back to the summer when the plan was first announced, CBC News' Peter Mansbridge kicked off one At Issue panel by saying that he didn't want to talk about the policy, but the politics of the proposal.

As Maclean's Andrew Coyne has noted, journos love talking strategy and whatnot because it makes them feel like a somebody.

And it's easy, because you just have to give your opinion! No real research or understanding is necessary. Just take inspiration from the line of American pundit Fred Barnes: "I can sound authoritative about anything." :)

Further to that point, I'd love to know how many journalists reporting or commenting on the Green Shift actually read the proposal before they spoke authoritatively on it.

However, as much as I like wonkish reporting, events drive news.

The conventions of journalism mean highly skilled politicians can create the news they want. For example, Harper got a headline one day by claiming a carbon tax would lead to a recession.

I suspect to politicians really only care about getting the headline.

But that leads to the shrillness that Radwanski mentioned. Shrillness gets journalists' attention -- readers' too, I suspect.

However, if there's a lot of shrieking about something that no one really understands, then that likely won't lead to very good decisions. Maybe that is when it's time for some dispassionate perspective and analysis.

Even if you write or broadcast such a piece of journalistic work, what happens if very few people choose to read the item when given the alternative of more tabloidy political fodder? That reality makes it difficult to find a way out of this mess.

In the meantime, maybe Canada will reach the point at some future election where fewer than half of us bother to vote. :(