Part of my job is to go through the paper, looking for references to Calgary Opera. I have to go through pretty much every section, since we do so much. So I see this in the business section:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76763550@N00/299773999/
And for some reason, I just got angry. I think it’s the tone. That, by itself, is nothing new. That playful nature is an attempt to make tepid stock quotes more exciting. Normally I don’t even think about it.
It’s the sort of twisted innocence that really riles me. The playful banter, at the same time directly pointing out the profit of war, seems to only be possible if there is no real understanding of the world beyond those quotes, the cordite smell of a bullet being fired, the taste of blood, or the acid in your stomach, anxiety about being in a war zone. And that’s just including the major conflicts, not the gun-realted crime throughout the world.
This whole post is feeling naive, but I’m stuck with being so. There’s a part of me that is still incredulous that many of the wrong things in this world happen, but I have, over time, developed a shell to assist in ignoring it.
Writing like this, viewpoints like this, somehow crack through this shell of ignorance that I’ve spent all this time building.
Mehmelblog 
It’s the business pages. Business people have no connection with reality.
Seriously? You *both* missed it? It is a rather scathing commentary on the profitability of tools that kill. The writer identifies SNC Lavalin, General Dynamics and the US Government as key participants and all but tags the attendant shareholders as killers themselves for giving their approval.
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic about it, but I certainly didn’t see that element of ‘scathing-ness’. Considering that this blurb is in the section of the paper that reports on stocks going up or down, as far as I can tell, this is playfully encouraging the success of SNC’s stock. Which is what bothered me so much.
If this same blurb were in Adbusters, or pretty much anything liberal or culture-based, I could see your point. But this same tone is applied to if Toys R Us has a good quarter.
Really? How do you interpret this blurb taken verbatim from the November/December issue of Canadian Apparel Magazine’s industry news section?
“Now Everybody Can ‘Carry Concealed’
From South Carolina comes this piece of reassuring news:
For sportsmen, law enforcement personnel– and others who carry concealed– holsters can be a nuisance.
And, unfortunately, most brands of jeans are not designed for carrying handguns, knives or other concealed products. So veteran holster and knife designer Blackie Collins set out to make designer-type jeans that would feel right while concealing a weapon.
Enter Toters. Each pair of Toters has a pocket holstering system designed for left- or right-hand carry along with a full-size second pocket compartment. The pockets are lined with Cordura Plus, a super-strength fabric that will not imprint. There are also two leg pockets positioned for quick, easy access.
This enables users to carry handguns, knives and other items concealed while hunting, playing, sitting, standing, or even just going to school. A companion vest will be released soon with holstering pockets on both sides. Toters jeans and vests ‘are sure to set a new standard in the way people carry concealed.’
It’s a dream come true.
Info: http://www.totersjeans.com”
FYI: the magazine is not a fashion magazine. It is a publication targeting “senior decision-makers in manufacturing, marketing, retailing and more.” Recent articles discuss trademark issues, the merits of off-shore manufacturing and technical considerations of leading edge fabrics for applications in the workplace, sports, and the military.
I took a look at the Canadian Apparel Magazine’s website. I couldn’t find that article, so I didn’t really get a sense of their tone. The mention of school does raise an eyebrow, and could imply a satire rather than a serious review.
But looking over the Globe and Mail text, this can’t claim a satirical tone. All that this text really says is that SNC Lavalin’s stock is doing better based on the purchasings described below. The statement, “Bullets do,” isn’t a critique of the Commerce of War, and neither is “bang bang, you’re rich.” The statement of bullets is a lead-in as to why the stock is soaring, and the last statement is a punchy send-off.
To see this as satire might give the writer or publication more ethical credit then it’s due. It seems like a very kind reading, and implies an intelligence and critique the this section never displays. That sort of ability is more Rex Murphy in the editorial section.
This seems similar to some advertising that you can come across, where the message of the advertisement can seem more crass then the originator may have intended. When humour is the most-often used tactic in this section, it’s application sometimes rings wrongly.
This is what inspired the anger in the first place. I’ve looked at these blurbs for a while, having to read the G&M at work. It’s always the same tone, no matter the subject being described. Jokey lead-in, quick information as to why the stock is doing good or bad, and punchy ‘funny’ closer. That tone, still present when discussing that Commerce of War, is what struck me as particularly wrong.
Fair enough. If you’re saying the message is contextually dependent on the delivery vehicle, I can see what you are saying.