{"id":3037,"date":"2026-06-08T00:33:49","date_gmt":"2026-06-08T04:33:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alexandrakitty.com\/?p=3037"},"modified":"2026-06-08T00:33:51","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T04:33:51","slug":"the-industry-that-cleans-up-after-power-how-media-rebrand-rage-as-gravitas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alexandrakitty.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/08\/the-industry-that-cleans-up-after-power-how-media-rebrand-rage-as-gravitas\/","title":{"rendered":"The Industry That Cleans Up After Power: How Media Rebrand Rage as Gravitas"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Susan Delacourt’s vile logic rears its ugly head again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This is typical enabler logic. Prime Minister Mark Carney was caught using an unequal power balance to bully underlings, and Delacourt’s response is simply, well, other prime ministers did it; so it’s okay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nothing to see here, kids!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sure. Some husbands slap their wives. They\u2019re under stress, they work hard, they were provoked, and besides: he only does it once in a while. That\u2019s the moral algebra of a \u201cnothing to see here\u201d defence, and it\u2019s exactly the same equation Canadian media are now running for Mark Carney\u2019s temper. We\u2019re told that his volcanic flashes are just evidence of how much he cares, that grown\u2011up leadership comes with the occasional eruption, and that the responsible thing is to look past the bruises on the public record and focus on his plans. It\u2019s abuse minimization with better tailoring.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hooey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we wouldn\u2019t tell a battered spouse \u201cnothing to see here,\u201d we shouldn\u2019t let our press tell a battered public that about its leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article does a neat trick in three moves. First, it shrinks the damage: the prime minister doesn\u2019t rage, he \u201cbristles,\u201d he \u201creacts testily,\u201d his patience \u201cwears thin\u201d with unfair questions. The verbs are small and domestic, the sort of thing you might do in line at the supermarket, not from the dais of power. Second, it changes the subject. We\u2019re told to judge him on his \u201cbig vision\u201d and \u201cserious plans,\u201d not on the \u201chuman\u201d temper that he \u201closes from time to time,\u201d as if self\u2011control were an optional accessory rather than a job requirement. Third, it gifts him motive. His anger isn\u2019t about entitlement or thin skin; it\u2019s recoded as \u201cfrustration with dysfunction,\u201d the righteous impatience of a man who cares too much to stay calm when lesser mortals slow him down. By the end, the outbursts haven\u2019t gone away: they\u2019ve just been refiled from \u201cwarning sign\u201d to \u201ccolourful proof of leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, it’s apologist propaganda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Canadian punditry has spent the last few years distinguishing between \u201cproductive anger\u201d and corrosive rage: anger at real injustice is allowed, even welcomed, as long as it leads to \u201creal solutions\u201d and stays within respectable bounds. But the clean\u2011up pieces quietly invert that standard. When ordinary Canadians are furious about housing, precarity, or violence, their anger is a \u201cproblem\u201d to be managed with civic education and better manners. When a prime minister lashes out at journalists or critics, we are invited to see it as evidence of seriousness: a constructive impatience with the unserious. The content of the anger doesn\u2019t change. Only the class position of the person who gets to express it without consequences does.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We recognize abuse apologism when it happens in a hallway, in a kitchen, behind a closed front door. We should recognize it just as quickly when it\u2019s written in columnist prose about a man who has the power to sign orders, send troops, and decide which lives are expendable. If a neighbour told you not to worry about the shouting next door because \u201che\u2019s under a lot of stress and he really loves her,\u201d you wouldn\u2019t call that nuance. You\u2019d call it complicity. The media\u2019s \u201cnothing to see here\u201d routine around elite tantrums works the same way: it teaches the public to absorb the blows and be grateful for the man who throws them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Susan Delacourt’s vile logic rears its ugly head again. This is typical enabler logic. Prime Minister Mark Carney was caught using an unequal power balance to bully underlings, and Delacourt’s response is simply, well, other prime ministers did it; so it’s okay. Nothing to see here, kids! Sure. Some husbands slap their wives. They\u2019re under […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,460],"tags":[49,51,720,67],"class_list":["post-3037","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-alexandra-kitty","category-the-damage-report","tag-canada","tag-mark-carney","tag-susan-delacourt","tag-toronto-star"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t