mitZine v12.2

volume 12, issue 2 october 2012

MITZINE.CA

promo u FIMS AFTER HOURS Nymphomaniac Stimulates Conversation About Sex & Film POST-TRUTH POLITICS

your education and the bottom line

Disclaimer: The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. Its contents do not reflect the opinion of the University Students’ Council of the University of Western Ontario (”USC”). The USC assumes no responsibility or liability for any error, inaccuracy, omission or comment contained in this publication or for any use that may be made of such information by the reader.

CONTENTS guest article 4

Promo U // Alison Hearn

MITZINE // OCTOBER ISSUE

INSIDE YOU’LL FIND

feature article 6

Selling Out // Jas Irwin

Western life 8

High Rise or Higher Education? // Trish Carnahan

10

O-Week™ // Kennedy Ryan

11

Students in the Media // Kelly Hobson

FIMS AFTER HOURS 12

The Bootlegs Speak Easy // Emily Fister

arts & entertainment 14

Nymphomaniac Stimulates Conversation About Sex and Film // Christine Tippett

16

Who Wins on Twitter? // Sarah Prince

17

Bring On the Boo Boo // Kevin Hurren

World 18 20 21

Post Truth Politics // Amir Eftekarpour Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions In Perspective // Aaron Zaltzman

Marois Muddles Message // Paul Craig

introducing 22

mitZine STAFF

Meet the FIMSSC

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Jordan Pearson editor@mitzine.ca MANAGING EDITOR Elizabeth Sarjeant editor@mitzine.ca GRAPHICS EDITOR Antonella Espinoza graphics@mitzine.ca WORLD EDITOR Paul Craig writers@mitzine.ca A&E EDITOR Kevin Hurren writers@mitzine.ca WESTERN LIFE EDITOR Emily Fister writers@mitzine.ca WEB EDITOR Sarah Koopmans web@mitzine.ca ASSISTANT WEB EDITOR Dan Perdic web@mitzine.ca PROMOTIONS COORDINATOR Rel Ollivirrie promo@mitzine.ca

JordanPearson

NO MAPS EDITOR’S NOTE

I

n case you didn’t read the cover, the mitZine is an alternative publication, which, roughly translated, means “we don’t have a lot of money.” In a society where money equates to social power in most cases, this leads to a lot of complications. Because although yes, we are an independent media outlet, and yes, we are critical and oftentimes express radical views, we also exist within an economic and social system that necessitates certain action. We write articles critical of capitalism, for example, on computers made by exploited wage slaves in other countries. I’m sure this thing you’re reading isn’t printed on eco-friendly paper and we associate - reluctantly, and for now - with a certain web hosting service whose corporate ethos I find abhorrent because I have a site to host and limited funds to do it with. Isn’t this a contradiction in our own ethos? I would say so, but I would also say it serves as a good example of how these systems completely invade most aspects of our daily lives. The question then becomes how we, as critics of this system, can actually live in it while maintaining a radical stance.

It feels like exploring without a map, and it’s confusing as hell.

The truth of the matter is that we can only try to do our best. To recall what Professor Steele wrote in his article last issue, we’re all trying to force open a space in an oftentimes seemingly closed system for a dissenting voice. Even in the university, corporate systems of efficiency and profit have invaded and colonized what was once a space for learning, discussion, and exploration.

Moreover, FIMS as a faculty that expresses critical and sometimes radical viewpoints exists within a larger structure that sees you and I as economic units.

Even so, as students and critics we can’t stop trying to find ways to critique and change the circumstances we find ourselves in. It’s not easy, and it takes time

have something to say? contribute to the mitzine

and hard work. Writing is, as it has always been, an integral part of radical political discourse. Working out these contradictions in a public forum like the Zine is important for public discourse about policy and social concerns, but it also shouldn’t stop there.

Participate and intervene in the real world outside of academia any way you can. Be aware and act with empathy and intelligence, participate in activist movements in some way - hell, even donate.

All this will be reflected in our decision to change the name of the mitZine. We will always be FIMS’ publication, but it’s time to open the discourse up to the public in a way we’ve never done before. The issues regularly discussed in this publication don’t just belong to FIMS. They’re of concern to everybody at Western, in Canada, and the world. Of course, we encourage you to participate. The mitZine wouldn’t exist without our readers and contributors, so we can’t in good conscience change our name without your input. Information on how to contact us can be found on this page and the back of this issue.

That’s all for now, see you folks in December.

the mitzine is

changing it’s name & we want you to help us decide

We’re always looking for creative and dedicated writers, illustrators, bloggers, and other contributors to join the Zine team. Be heard and get real-world experience.

Send your feedback & suggestions to

contact jordan pearson

editor@mitzine.ca visit us online at

mitzine.ca

editor@mitzine.ca Help decide the future of your alternative student publication

MITZINE // GUEST ARTICLE

PROMO U M

any of us will remember the survey sent out to members of “the Western community” before last year’s re-brand, in which participants were asked how they felt about Western and its competitors in purely emotional terms. “We know universities aren’t people,” the survey stated, “but if they were people how would you feel about them?” Was Western “cool” or “nerdy,” “aggressive” and “masculine” or “feminine” and “caring,” “old-fashioned” or “cuttingedge?”

As we later found out, this survey was part of the work contracted out to Level5 Strategic Brand Advertisers and their partners HotSpex at the cost of $265,000.

In his letter to Senate about the expense, VP external Kevin Goldthorp explained that the survey was a necessary precursor to a 500-million dollar fundraising campaign and would help “tell the Western story better, which will lead to enhanced funds from all sources.” Now, a few years later, all of us can easily see where all the money went – into a refurbished old logo, a “special” shade of purple, and a confusing “new” name.

As it turns out, Goldthorp was right; the story of the “Western University” re-brand does tell a story, but it isn’t unique to Western and it might tell us more than we want to know about the current state of the global university: the practices of university branding, advertising and promotion have taken centre stage as a strategic necessity in an era of academic capitalism and have cost millions of dollars in the process.

While competition between universities has always been

4 // mitZine v12

AlisonHearn around and reputation has always been important to the university’s survival, the centrality of branding and marketing to Canadian university administration is a relatively new state of affairs.

Internal communications and marketing departments have only been in existence for the last decade, but since then these practices have really taken off.

The amount of money spent on marketing and communications by colleges and universities in the US, for example, grew by more than 50% over the last decade.

University branding campaigns now work across media platforms, from newspaper and television ads to promotional videos on YouTube and fan groups on Facebook, and are accompanied by strict rules about “message discipline” for all university communication materials. Boston University, for example, recently issued a 67-page manual specifying the “look, tone and feel” of appropriate university communication, with penalties for those who fail to employ the proper brand identity.

While university branding campaigns replace traditional mottos with pithy slogans, a small sampling of these reveal startling similarities: “A legacy of leading” (University of Idaho), “Redefine the Possible” (York University), “Inspiring Minds (Dalhousie University), “Inspiring Innovation and Discovery” (McMaster University), “Open Minds, Creating Futures” (Ohio Dominican University), “Grasp the forces driving the change” (Stanford University), “Knowledge to Go Places” (Colorado State University), “Investing in Knowledge” (University of

“In the end, the homogenizing and flattening effects of marketing language work against universities’ efforts to be unique and stand out.”

Liverpool), and “Wisdom. Applied.”

(Ryerson University). I challenge any student, staff or faculty member to tell me how these slogans actually work to differentiate the products! In the end, the homogenizing and flattening effects of marketing language work against universities’ efforts to be unique and stand out; universities’ subscription to standardized empty marketing hype effectively renders them, at least in terms of image, all the same.

While branding may seem necessary in a world where shrinking public funding forces universities to compete more intensely than ever for student revenue, it has serious consequences for the institution. As branding transforms a heterogeneous and complex place like Western into a glossy image or pithy (and entirely forgettable) slogan, these things are then deployed and exchanged as

commodities in a new “reputational marketplace” - in the form of rankings and ratings produced by magazines such as Maclean’s and US News and World Report. The result is what Chang and Osborn have called a “spectacular economy of education;” students, addressed as consumers, are asked to buy into marketing hype, empty slogans, and pretty pictures. In a clear case of the tail wagging the dog, universities use the priorities and assessment categories established by popular magazines as blueprints for their future, abdicating the task of determining their own values, priorities and goals.

What conclusions can we draw from all of these empty university slogans, all of these similar university “stories”?

The “feelings” survey described above clearly demonstrates the fact that internally generated ideals about academic and research freedom,

self-governance, and intellectual rigor have gone out the window in favor of the pursuit of “promotional capital.”

As public money dries up and the forces of academic capitalism turn education into a product and research into venture capital, your professors are increasingly disempowered, and you, the students, are seen as captive markets to be managed and sold to private interests in the eyes of administrators. When research is viewed as nothing more than a product in a marketplace, academic ethics and principled critical distance from undue influence take a back seat to pumping up the university brand and filling university coffers. Think of how much better off you and your friends would be, if only university administrators had spent all the rebrand money on increased student aid and lowered tuition rates instead of purple-y new hats and hoodies.

mitZine v12 // 5

sellin MITZINE // feature

Jas Irwin

By the time this issue sees the light of day, the current contract dispute between the Ontario public school teachers’ unions and the provincial government may be over. The formerly striking Chicago teachers returned to work in September with a resentful fizzle after a massive buildup and media firestorm. At the time of press, however, Bill 115 (the “Putting Students First Act”) has been passed into law by Ontario’s Minister of Education, Laurel Broten. As such, the teachers have been prevented from striking— prompting a sigh of relief from parents and Chuck E. Cheese employees everywhere. But neither side is happy, and whether current rumbles indicate a brewing storm or a dying volcano remains to be seen.

The Ontario public has gradually become embroiled in a dispute characterized by polarizing “pro-teacher” and “anti-teacher” positions, which is the inevitable outcome of failed negotiations. Public sector professionals have the unfortunate, but necessary, burden of constantly being appraised by a “jury of their peers.” It’s been difficult to open up a newspaper in the last month without seeing op-eds and letters to the editor lamenting how good these greedy teachers have it, with their summers off, job stability and adequate pension. In some hilarious cases, the debate has descended to the point where people are fighting about how difficult or obnoxious children really are, and what compensation is sufficient for being in their presence. But regardless of whether or not you think that teachers are a communist coalition of babysitters or martyred, underappreciated gatekeepers to the future of tomorrow, it doesn’t diminish the importance of this dispute. By reducing public discourse to “I-don’t-care-what-you-say-Mrs. Tatham-was-trying-her-best,” we occupy our energy

6 // mitZine v12

and focus in the wrong direction. We’re staring at an old man singing “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” while a bomb detonates behind us.

The Ontario provincial government has chosen to bypass collective bargaining with the teachers’ unions in order to ensure that their preferred contract is universally adopted. By doing so, they have made any sort of strike action illegal on the part of teachers (the teachers’ chief bargaining chip in negotiations), literally forcing a government-crafted contract on all teachers. Most disturbingly, they have (unlawfully) passed legislation that makes it illegal to challenge their legislation as a violation of civil and human rights. Yet, Bill 115 reads: … 14. (1) The Ontario Labour Relations Board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code.

I sat down with Colleen Canon, the head of the Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers’ Union (OSSTF), to get a more in-depth perspective on what led to this Orwellian impasse. She explained that, before sitting down to formal contract negotiations, usually the teachers’ unions meet with provincial representatives to have a more informal discussion and to gauge the circumstances under which the contract will be realized. This spring, however, the teachers’ unions discovered that the “provincial representatives” were hired corporate bankruptcy lawyers. The presence of these lawyers, Canon explained, indicated that the process was knocked off-kilter from the beginning; they were expert “bottom-line” budget slashers with

Teachers’ bargaining rights and your

ng out education bow to the bottom line

$

little experience in the workings of public education. Ultimately, the education system isn’t a business, regardless of how many new Western logos are feverishly painted onto frosted-glass office doors. Relying too heavily on input-output paradigms can have disastrous results. That was one major component of the Chicago teachers’ strike: they were protesting against the concept of having funding and pay connected to students’ performances on standardized tests (regardless of socioeconomic realities or further context). In conclusion, the same law firm that helped Air Canada manage their disastrous financial woes was brought in immediately to steamroll a table of public teachers. After their alternative cost-cutting measures to the lawyers’ “imperatives” were rejected, the unions prepared themselves for a potential strike. In a panic, the McGuinty administration passed Bill 115.

There’s absolutely nothing unreasonable about the new contract the Minister for Education hopes to impose. It’s a rough economy out there, everyone is taking a hit… and as hits go, their demands are a sucker-punch from a toddler. There’s also nothing unreasonable about the qualms teachers have regarding the

stipulations listed; the new contract is hardest on new teachers and totally abolishes a hard-won policy on respite days. What is unreasonable is that they didn’t get to resolve this disagreement using the standard legal procedure routinely honoured for the past hundred years.

It’s important to note that while this is a tyrannical and oppressive decision, it doesn’t necessarily indicate that the government harbours tyrannical and oppressive ideals. While some people are panicking and waxing melancholic about the dictatorial implications of the bill, the evidence doesn’t seem to indicate any sort of hidden fascist agenda in the McGuinty administration. It seems like less of a clenched-fist move than a pluggedears move—they have an ugly budget problem to deal with, so can everyone please just shut up already. It feels like the legislative equivalent of turning up the stereo when your parents ask you why you failed your calculus midterm: “I’M SORRY I CAN’T HEAR YOU, CHUMBAWUMBA’S PLAYING.” Both are temporary solutions for an unpleasant situation. But the thing about unpleasant situations is that they tend to crop up—during a global recession… or contract disputes… or everyday life. This could set an ugly

precedent for quick-fix government power tripping: somehow by mismanaging your tax money, they grant themselves special powers to mismanage your personal money.

There are times where shortcuts seem obvious and temptingly efficient. But, at the end of the day, the man caught with the dripping knife and the Murdering for Dummies handbook still needs to proceed through an expensive and long-winded trial for due process of law to be complete. Both “innocent until proven guilty” and collective bargaining are necessary foundational tenets of our society, while simultaneously being timeconsuming and infuriating. At the risk of sounding dramatic, it’s more important that children learn their rights as citizens in a democracy than the function of a semi-colon or how to sink a free throw. And at the end of this nonsense, whenever it is, kids will still be in classrooms learning and growing and spelling the word “BOOBIES” on their calculators… so that one day they can grow up, get a job, and fight like hell for the best working conditions they can scrounge—a right that should be afforded to them, always.

mitZine v12 // 7

high rise OR

higher education Trish Carnahan

What is really being offered at university? Promises of the best student experience, resumebuilding activities, and good job prospects push thousands of students into post-secondary schools every year. But what happens when the numbers rise, and a school runs out of room for its new students? It builds.

Western is in the middle of erecting a new student residence with the same capacity as Saugeen to accommodate growing numbers of frosh. Located on the south side of campus, it boasts easy access to the Rec Centre and neighbours Perth, Essex, and London Halls.

It’s not even finished, yet it’s

8 // mitZine v12

already towering and taking a huge chunk of parking away from Althouse College. The estimated budget: $90 million.

The new residence isn’t the only thing Western is building. The highly-publicized Ivey building is nearly complete. Brescia is looking to expand. All of these developments are popping up to accommodate a projected surge in enrolment. Even Infosource moved in favour of a new-andimproved Purple Store to boost the Western University branding movement.

Are these investments in the

futures of young people? Millions of dollars are being spent on new space to enhance the student experience. But education is also a business, with grads as the product. Every school wants to send out the best new grads to boost their reputation and secure frosh for coming years. Western is just striving to come out on top.

Yes, it’s important to have adequate space for students.

But as students, we are the product, and we need to be stored somewhere for the duration of our stay at Western. Are new buildings just warehouses to store the latest

MITZINE // western life

student model until we can be released to the public? Already, post-secondary education appears to be mandatory, and this is only the beginning of an anticipated 2.5% growth in university enrolment capacity over the next ten years. It’s no wonder schools are running out of space.

In 2010, the University of Guelph had to house students in a hotel across from the school to keep their first-year rez guarantee. The decision seemed rushed and last-minute. It’s debatable whether this was truly in the best interests of the students or in the interests of the school as they try to cash in on more tuition cheques. Considering those students were sequestered from other residences and didn’t have the same services surrounding cafeterias, laundry, and other rez built-ins, they couldn’t possibly have had the same experience as their peers.

Western saw a similar situation with the opening of London Hall as initially a partial, and subsequently full fledged, first-year residence. For the 2010-2011 school year, London Hall frosh were thrown in with the Essex Hall constituency. At the time, there were only three first-year floors, with the rest housing upper-years. London Hall has now designated more floors for first years and is offered as a choice in the residence lottery, which is an improvement from the last-minute vibe of two years ago.

Residence costs are hefty, some at Western costing as high as $12,280. That’s roughly double the cost of living off-campus for a year. It’s a huge expense, especially if you’re put in a half-residence or hotel. It’s good that Western is taking the steps to correct this – by building a new residence, frosh will once again be equally accommodated. But the costs of residence are a major contributor to the debt crisis many students know a bit too well, which leads me to ask: is it worth it?

Debt is already a hot issue – and with people heading to university in increasing numbers, debtwill rise accordingly. Are people digging themselves a deep hole of debt to reapbenefits that may not exist? CBC News recently reported on a poll conducted byBMO that in 2012, 58% of students are $20, 000 in debt. With more new, indebted grads entering the workforce, competition for jobs will continue to be tough. And there’s the harsh reality that more students are worried about paying for school than about finding a job after graduation. Universities are prioritizing physical improvements over expenditures that truly benefit the minds of the students they are seeking to accommodate.

Staff members at Western see the expansion as a positive. Even faculty at Althouse College, who are directly impacted by the new residence, are happy that the university is growing at such an accelerated rate. It means more candidates for professional and graduate programs. With the influx of undergrad students, those post-grad degrees are going to be in even higher demand. What kind of infrastructure will be needed in five to ten years, when today’s frosh are applying to Masters programs or pursuing professional degrees? It seems that universities will keep focusing on adding space, when funds could really be used enhancing the academic programs people really want. The worth of the BA is already being questioned, and greater focus should be placed on these issues rather than on infrastructure to pack in more tuition cheque-carrying students. The devaluation of arts education seems more pertinent than fancy new chairs for a biz lecture. It’s good news for society that so many people want to get educated, but when these inflated numbers of frosh reach convocation, what happens? New grads are receiving the same education as years previous, only with a tougher battle for gainful employment.

mitZine v12 // 9

ILLUSTRATED BY MICHELLE YICK

MITZINE // WESTERN LIFE

Kennedy Ryan

O-Week™ I

magine this: it’s your O-Week, brought to you by Microsoft and Vitamin Water. As the week winds down, that nervous feeling in your stomach subsides and you start to attend classes, you learn about something called “mediation” – that is, an experience managed by corporate forces. Western University (née University of Western Ontario) boasts the biggest orientation program of its kind in Canada.

Everything about O-Week is grand: grand themes, grand spirit, and grand expectations. After dubbing the welcome week “Imaginarium,” you’d expect encouragement for first-year students to fully immerse themselves in the moment and make not only the week, but also their whole undergrad experience, inventive and distinct.

However, one of the most visible presences at O-Week wasn’t imagination, but corporate influence.

For the sake of fitting in with the Talbot Bowl crowd, frosh were instructed to live tweet this and hashtag that as if their fun depended on it and encouraged to document their O-Week using pre-approved marketing strategies from the university. Last school year, “UWO” underwent a public relations facelift when it became “Western University” for branding purposes. A revolutionary first step for university promotion, students became more

10 // mitZine v12

PR agents than wide-eyed freshman.

Official school hashtags were tossed out into the crowd, creating the pressure to stop the world and write a blurb ending with #westernu.

A fourth-year FIMS soph who wishes to remain anonymous says, “The week is planned in such a way that you are experiencing ‘the university’ based on the way the university would like to show itself.” O-Week has been around since the halcyon days of paper registration, but the technology that we use and our relationship to that technology has evolved. “I think the most noticeable change is the widespread use of smart phones to document every waking moment of the week,” the FIMS soph continues.

“I remember my week as a frosh and sending a few texts to friends back at home with my pink flip phone.” Now that the Information Age has become the Instagram Age, documenting a moment for the Internet archives is crucial – especially during the whirlwind of O-Week. Lest we forget the social media and corporate influences that shaped our first freshman experience.

FIMS, a faculty hyper-aware of the society of the spectacle, is known for putting its own unique spin on O-Week programming. However, this year the faculty soph team was asked to cut its own charitable event from the

schedule. “Stache-a-rama,” a charity midway carnival tradition, raises funds for the Western’s two main causes: the Terry Fox Foundation and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (Shinerama).

The consensus on the pre-O-Week organizing board was that frosh felt uncomfortable being asked to donate their limited funds once they had already shelled out for the O-Kit. It was an issue of accessibility. Once all was said and done, members of the soph team were surprised to see that the midway boasted several corporate sponsorships. “We usually fundraise $20,000 from Midway,” an anonymous source on the Charity soph team says. And up until this year, Western has always posted the number one post-secondary charity fundraising figures in Canada. The FIMS soph expressed her bewilderment with the branding. “It’s too much to ask frosh for a few dollars to support cancer and cystic fibrosis research, but it’s not too much to advertise $900 laptops to them.” Despite evident frustration, the soph community was grateful for the sponsors. With free entrance, the midway was more financially accessible for first-year students.

However, the opportunity was missed to connect with students on a deeper level— one that promotes imagining a cure, not a new, easily replaceable PC.

MITZINE // WESTERN LIFE

Kelly Hobson

StudeNts In

the Media T

he decibel reader was thrust through the bars of the gates in an act of defiant victory. It was the Tuesday of Orientation Week 2012, marking only the second night the incoming class of 2016 had been living on campus.

Medway-Sydenham Hall was hosting their annual Dog Tag Party—an outdoor dance with a hired DJ. Despite a permit for the event and all the best efforts of the Orientation Program to prepare the surrounding London community for the week’s activities, two residents from a neighbouring street phoned the London Police Services to file a noise complaint. Providing their own decibel reader to prove the residence was in violation of noise laws, the pair demanded the party be shut down. To the displeasure of Medway Sydenham frosh and sophs, the event came to an abrupt halt.

This incident is not necessarily an indicator of how all London residents feel about students and student events—indeed dozens of other Orientation Week programs went on without complaints from the London community. However, the Decibel Debacle of 2012 is pertinent in that it arrived on the heels of heavy media coverage regarding how Students are perceived by London merchants and residents alike.

By now you’ve likely heard of the new banner outside of Club Rouge that was just recently

Drunk, Reckless & Indifferent?

taken down, and the owner’s unabashed displeasure with the student demographic. In brief, John Scott-Pearse, the owner of Club Rouge, hung a 10-metre banner on the outside of his establishment that reads: “ReOpen for Students?? We’d rather eat glass!!” The ensuing media coverage was plentiful, including several articles in the London Free Press and our own Gazette.

The controversial signage also prompted other merchants to chime in on how they feel about students and the business we bring to the city.

Discussion stemming from the Rouge banner has largely focused on whether or not there are profits to be made from the student population; the primary sources of opinion have been business owners. This presents the issue of the student as a commodity, and begs the question: do residents of London see students for anything more than what they have in their wallets?

It’s been a tumultuous and important year for students and the media. With the Fanshawe Riots in the spring and the Quebec student protests spanning over several months, there has been international coverage of student culture and revolution. Students have long been seen as the catalyst for change, and have often been charged with the task of speaking up for causes small and large. Yet there is also an

ever-present stereotype of the student as drunk, reckless, and indifferent. One need only look to the aforementioned riots and protests to see both of these ideologies represented.

In the midst of the debate over whoʼs going to eat glass, we as students need to be aware of and concerned with how this media coverage may affect our image amongst London residents. If we are portrayed as one unintelligible group—whether it be as a large commodity or an apathetic party machine—the precious diversity of this campus will be lost on the surrounding community. Worse, this media coverage might spawn prejudice from a city that we as students have so much to offer, and that can offer us so much in return.

Who is ultimately responsible for the student image remains to be seen. Maybe we as students should hold each other more accountable for our actions. Perhaps the local London community should embrace student culture regardless of what comes with it. One thing is certain: students need to raise their voice and hold the media accountable for how we are portrayed—decibel reader or not.

fims

AFTER

HOURS B

etween seemingly never-ending essays, exams, clubs, and everything else campus life has to offer, it’s easy to lose sight of or miss completely all of the creative and inspiring things FIMS students are doing. On campus and off, the people you see every day in class are releasing albums, running fashion businesses, publishing zines, and reaching out to the London community and the world at large in some cases. FIMS has a vibrant and active academic culture, but also a creative one. We want to show off all that FIMS has to offer in both respects.

Art has always been an important arena and catalyst for public discussion surrounding ideologies and politics.

Dadaism, rock music, hip hop, surrealism, postmodern art; the examples are nearly endless and the practice of using art as a medium for critique - and self-expression, a kind of dissent in itself - continues today. A culture of the arts and an academic culture are both key elements of a thriving intellectual community. FIMS is nothing if not that, and we want to bring it to the fore.

Emily Fister

The Bootlegs Speak Easy

A

ttention all genre-fusing aficionados of Pitchfork: you may now add “raw arena indie rock” to your vocab.

Born out of their London, Ontario basement in second year, The Bootlegs are a product of misspent youth and a shared love of hook-heavy hits. The song-writing duo behind the project, Andrew Oliver, (vocals/synth) and Brady Burke (guitar/bass), are about to graduate from the underground.

Now in third year MIT, Oliver and Burke are readying to release their debut EP, Speak Easy.

Nostalgia runs wild throughout the 5-song album. First single “Fail to Recall” blends worlds both organic and electronic, both past recklessness and present retrospect. With a riff to rival instantly addictive bands like Phoenix and vocals recorded through a guitar amp, the tune is undeniably lo-fi, yet stadium-ready. Oliver exudes Julian Casablancas’ cool over handclaps, versatile synth lines, and soulful guitar.

These musical layers are The Bootlegs’ strength—somehow, “Fail to Recall” follows a distinct narrative without getting lost in the intricate musical details. The dizzying days of youth swelter in humidity as Oliver croons, “Always miss the state I’m in/This good time road will some day end.”

Halfway between The Strokes and Foster the People, the band may be in its infancy, but the sound is self-assured and strong. Teaming up with Oakville friends Ben Labenski (drums) and Elliot Hepworth (bass), “Speak Easy” wrapped up production in the summer and will be released for free online in mid-October under Oliver and Burke’s label, Mighty Records. Now all that’s left is turning the basement gig into an APK one. “We have various acoustic radio shows and interviews planned,” Oliver and Burke say via e-mail. “CHRW will be sending the album out to other Canadian campus radios.”

The duo’s other collaborative project, Labstract, has been on the radar of a certain influential bearded pop culture icon— Justin Vernon of Bon Iver. The hip hop group (comprised of

rappers Blake Fletcher and Luke Stanley with Oliver’s production) remixed the delicate “Michicant” into a tempochanging, lyric-laden rap earworm. When Vernon’s criticism begins with “Jesus Christ” and ends with “Cheers to the sky!!!!” on Soundcloud, you know you’ve done something right. Both Oliver’s vocals and Burke’s guitar will be featured on the upcoming Labstract album, also released through Mighty Records.

When talk about FIMS comes up, The Bootlegs commend a faculty full of creative and co-operative minds. “We get exposed to a lot of cool music through friends in the [faculty],” they say. “Also, we have a couple FIMS students doing some awesome art and web design for us.” After the album release, here’s hoping the noise from the basement will captivate the London scene… and another indie darling’s hard-to-win heart. mitZine v12 // 13

MITZINE // ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT

Nymphoma Stimulates Conversation about

Sex and Film “Our future selves might look back on this phase in mainstream film production and consider the hesitant audiences close-minded.”

W

e’ve all had those moments: you’re staying in for a relaxing evening of watching a movie with your parents when suddenly things get a little awkward as the actors on screen begin undressing and start hooking up a little too realistically for everyone’s liking. But at least we all know it’s not real, right? Well perhaps not, because scenarios such as these may get much more awkward in the imminent future.

Transformers star Shia LaBeouf has recently signed onto a racy film entitled Nymphomaniac, in which he will be having real sex with his co-star set to be played by Charlotte Gainsbourg. The two-part drama will be directed by the controversial Danish filmmaker Lars

14 // mitZine v12

von Trier, and the film will reportedly chronicle the sexual adventures of a woman from her youth into adulthood.

In talking about the project LaBeouf told MTV, “It’s going to be a wild movie.

There’s a disclaimer at the top of the script that basically says we’re [having sex] for real. Everything that is illegal, we’ll shoot in blurred images. Other than that, everything is happening.”

This will not be Lars von Trier’s first film to incorporate un-simulated sex, as the director’s 2009 movie, Antichrist, featured a scene of two actors having intercourse. However, because of LaBeouf’s celebrity status, Nymphomaniac is likely to receive more press and audience attention than

2009’s Antichrist. For those who want to catch the film in a purer form, the film is being released in both explicit and censored versions.

The Transformers star defended his decision to sign onto Nymphomaniac by explaining to USA Today, “There are rules. I have ethics; I’m not completely out of my mind. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with sex. Sex is beautiful if it’s done right. And I wouldn’t just do it for any reason... Sex is different than love, and there is a separation, and that middle gap is what the movie’s about.” But is this controversial new film crossing the line between artistic nudity into the world of pornography? It is a world that many film enthusiasts may not be so comfortable with.

Christine Tippett

aniac

It’s helpful to look at the evolution of nudity in Hollywood films as a potential blueprint for the path that un-simulated sex scenes in film will take. Nudity is commonplace in movies today, but it has not always been so widespread.

The use of nudity has been involved in motion art as early as the invention of film-making in the 1890s, however multiple risqué films produced in the 1910s and ‘20s eventually provoked widespread objection from various organizations on moral grounds.

This outrage prompted the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to implement the Hays Code in the 1930s in order to raise the moral standards of films by restricting the

material that major studios could include in their films – including nudity.

Over the next few decades, the Code came under repeated questioning as social attitudes about nudity were transforming in society. Ultimately, the Code was abandoned in 1968 in favour of the MPAA film rating system, which brought an official end to the prohibition of nudity in films and elected instead to warn the audiences about the mature content appearing in films.

Similarly, the progression of unsimulated sex in mainstream films may mirror the same path that nudity in films took over the past century – from outrage to acceptance. Our attitudes will begin to change and our views about what is acceptable sexual content

in movies will relax just as our views of sex in general relax. Though groups will always argue that if these types of films begin to permeate Western culture they could have a detrimental effect on society, such as an increase in teen pregnancy, with the amount and nature of staged sex in films today, will a grave shift really occur? Or will this just be another way that social attitudes are evolving over time?

This moment in film could even be seen as a chance to broaden the art landscape of cinema. Our future selves might look back on this phase in mainstream film production and consider the hesitant audiences closed-minded. In fact, maybe we should be celebrating this moment in film. As long as the sex scenes are both filmed and portrayed in a tasteful way, this move could be perceived as directors challenging and pushing the boundaries of film realism.

As students of media and culture, we should recognize that society is sometimes in need of films that upset the norm and challenge mainstream Hollywood productions to become something more. LaBeouf said himself that he is sick of making blockbusters, admitting he felt restrained on the sets of the three Transformers films. Instead, he is opting to focus on good quality, low-budget independent films.

It is uncertain whether Nymphomaniac will be praised or shunned for breaking filmmaking taboos by including footage of real sex. If this does become a recurring trend, various parental and religious groups are likely to create a frenzy surrounding the “inappropriateness” of the film. However, such censorship movements often focus too much on the “taboo” subject and not enough on the movement or art form as a whole.

Whether or not Shia LaBeouf will make nymphomaniacs out of his audience in his new film remains to be seen, but there is no question that as critical students we should praise the pluralism of media in society, not suppress it.

mitZine v12 // 15

MITZINE // ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT

SarahPrince

Who Wins on TWITTER? Late night TV fans and those keen on staying up-todate with YouTube’s most watched videos probably saw Jimmy Kimmel’s “Celebrities Read Mean Tweets” segments highlighting how cruel people can be to celebrities online. Kimmel’s compilations of insults are entertaining primarily because tweets aren’t usually aggregated so comically, especially not with emotional background music.

So what if fans lash out via social media?

Gossip columnists have been publishing rumours since long before social media existed. Let’s not forget some celebrities’ busy schedules, either. Sleep-deprived celebrities don’t have much time to waste watching TMZ, and a similar logic applies to them paying attention to thousands of tweets from strangers. Celebrities can leave that up to the professionals responsible for perfecting clients’ reputations and masterfully using social media monitoring tools in their stead.

The role of ghostwriters managing social media posts for celebrities, adopting celebrities’ voices while striving for authenticity, is no industry secret. Kimmel indirectly alludes to this when he says, “Many celebrities actually do the tweeting themselves,” subtly acknowledging that there are exceptions to this generalization. Still, Kimmel reinforces the illusion that celebrities’ Twitter accounts are authentically written by them. This belief nudges fans to @mention celebrities, hoping for a response. Kimmel claims that unless celebrities have as many followers as Justin Bieber, they’ll read it too.

However, once you’ve acquired over a million

16 // mitZine v12

followers as Kimmel has, you possess a social media following too large to manage singlehandedly.

Communication between fans and celebrities occurs within a para-social relationship, whereby the two-way dialogue that’s supposed to characterize social media ultimately resembles a monologue. For digitally savvy fans who recognize this, the “think before you tweet” mindset becomes less crucial, given the unlikelihood that celebrities will care to learn why @tweetaholic dislikes an A-list actor’s latest film. In fact, Ashton Kutcher, who’s famously an early adopter of Twitter, blogged that Twitter was an “opinion center that encouraged healthy debate,” but now he must rely on a team to handle his account.

Perhaps fans’ knowledge about celebrities active on social media makes publicly sharing mean remarks seem like an appealing way to gain social capital. When fans’ comments resonate with other social media users, strangers applaud them through “likes” or retweets, thus demonstrating how fans can achieve online glory by posting insults.

The entertainment industry’s role in motivating fans to engage through the second screen experience is also noteworthy. If media conglomerates are interested in increasing viewer engagement through social media, then negative feedback is a necessary risk.

More considerate readers who feel compelled to self-filter negative thoughts about celebrities should consider how Jerry Seinfeld feels about Facebook. In an interview with Jay Leno, Seinfeld called Facebook “a young dumb people’s concept.” Do you agree or disagree?

Sound off as you choose on your own social media outlets. Maybe @JerrySeinfeld will even respond, but probably not.

MITZINE // ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT

KevinHurren

bring on the boo boo It took more than just a dollar to make Honey Boo Boo holler, it took her own show. Born Alana Thompson, this six year-old first found her way onto television through TLC’s Toddlers & Tiaras. After gathering quite the following because of her adorable quips, TLC decided to offer this .gif generator her own show: Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. Filmed in her hometown of McIntyre, Georgia, the show chronicles the lives of Honey Boo Boo and the rest of her family. Thus far, the show has a single season with ten episodes. Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas specials have also been confirmed for show. The ten episodes that have aired centre less on Honey Boo Boo’s pageant career and more on the family as a whole, documenting them as they take trips to the water park, local dumpsters, and the “Redneck Games.” The season concluded climatically with the birth of Honey Boo Boo’s niece, Kaitlyn, the daughter of Honey Boo Boo’s older sister Anna. Captivated audiences got to watch the season draw to an end as Honey Boo Boo held the threethumbed Kaitlyn for the first time.

It is unclear whether or not the family knows they are being ridiculed and manipulated by the network. The family, especially Mama, seems determined to do only one thing: keep their family close. This is just one of many positive values Mama and the rest of the family seem to exemplify in each episode. Even amongst the pigs, cheetos, and “vajiggle-jaggle,” the family consistently promotes an accepting environment. Whether it’s issues of weight, teen pregnancy, sexual orientation, or self confidence, the Honey Boo Boo clan live according to a philosophy that says no matter what, you should love yourself.

The show might be a train wreck. Also, it might be one of the many desperate attempts by TLC to expand their audience. At the end of the day, this family’s only real goal is to share their love with the rest of the world. For this reason I say bring on the Boo Boo.

Why are we so captivated by the lives of this Southern family? At first,the initial draw of the show seemed to be the same as what causes rubbernecking on a highway.

Between the flatulence, the dumpster rummaging, and the mud dives, the family was like a car crash and it seemed impossible not to stick our heads out and watch the chaos unfold.

This, in part, has been a large critique of the show.

Unlike other shows on TLC, such as Say Yes To The Dress, Long Island Medium, and 19 Kids & Counting, which glorify the central characters and their (miniscule) accomplishments, the style of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo seems to invite, if not encourage, the audience to mock Honey Boo Boo and the rest of her family.

This isn’t the only instance of the network taking advantage of this family. When the show began, Honey Boo Boo and her kin were reportedly paid between $5,000 and $7,000 an episode. Though this amount of money may have seemed quite large to the family, it’s much lower than the standard payment for reality show characters. For instance, the couple of Jon & Kate Plus 8 reportedly earned $22,500 each episode. mitZine v12 // 17

Amir Eftekharpour

MITZINE // world

post-truth politics and the Problem of False Balance

Political rhetoric has always been characterized by stretching the truth or only partially telling the story to omit embarrassing or tough-to-reconcile facts. Half-truths, ignored facts, and “spin” have become so commonplace in contemporary electioneering that one can barely expect the public to bat an eyelash – let alone show outrage – when politicians accuse one another of lying.

The past two US Presidential campaigns have, however, been waged by politicians willing to play makebelieve with the facts themselves-sometimes dispensing with the truth altogether. Since just before 2004, key politicians have been advancing political rhetoric increasingly at odds with reality: contorting and stretching the truth in ways which would make even a yoga enthusiast blush.

The media, in general, has struggled to evolve to what journalists such as Grist’s David Roberts are calling the age of “Post-Truth” politics, opting instead for the standard practice of “he-said-shesaid” reporting. But before examining the false sense of balance that this traditional method of reporting creates in Post-Truth elections, it’s useful to dial back our Deloreans to 2004, where political rhetoric really began to diverge from reality. Here, on the Right of the political spectrum and in the Oval Office, Post-Truth Politics was born.

The disconnect between rhetoric and reality on the Right became apparent late in 2004, when advisers to then-

18 // mitZine v12

President Bush began disparaging the so-called “realit y-based community” of fact-checkers and empiricists. Bush and his closest advisers increasingly relied on faith and their “guts” – rather than facts and evidence – when making major policy decisions, such as those that drove the direction of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Critics said that those on the far Right were increasingly unable to judge arguments on their merits, and struggled to separate fact from fantasy.

By 2008, many on the Right had had enough, and a civil war of ideas erupted. Influential Republicans such as David Frum weighed in on the myths of the Right, calling on conservatives to question their knee-jerk deference to corporations. Perennial presidential candidate Ron Paul and other libertarians wrote venomous critiques of Bush’s domestic security policies and their effects on individual liberties, and questioned the US military’s expeditions in the Middle East.

Without respect for reasoned debate and review, however, these valid questions and thoughtful challenges languished and fell into nothing. Instead, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News contributors continued to serve as the main conservative soundboards

on TV and radio. Fantastical criticisms linking Obama to an Islamic Grand Jihad, questioning his allegiance to America, or even doubting his US birth and eligibility for office became well-publicised tenets of the Right’s political message. Instead of valuing an effective public discourse, where ideas are tested and evolve accordingly, the Right focused on furthering an opposition-based mythology greatly divorced from reality.

By 2012, the growing lack of debate and discourse on the Right was informing the tone of the presidential primaries, greatly undermining the Republican presidential campaign. Without the infrastructure to listen to, challenge, and test their often questionable ideas (No, Newt, we can’t build a base on the moon in the middle of a recession), candidates such as Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Herman Cain were in the running for far longer than their ideas merited, greatly

ILLUSTRATED BY Olivia Pierratos

damaging the Republican brand and the more serious candidate, Mitt Romney, by association.

The eventual withdrawal of these candidates and Romney’s nomination of respected Congressman and budget expert Paul Ryan for the Vice-Presidency led campaign-watchers to believe that the campaign would quell Post-Truth politics in America.

However, the collective hope for a reasoned, principled dialogue about taxes, the US’ place in the world, Medicare, and the role of government was dashed almost as quickly as it had arisen.

The Romney-Ryan campaign has in fact been characterized by a flagrant disregard for the truth. Where previous campaigns have often stretched the truth, or strategically left out facts, the Romney-Ryan campaign has often relied on explicit lies to advance its cause. For example, Romney is still telling workingclass voters that President Obama has dismantled the law mandating that Americans fulfill a work requirement before receiving welfare benefits. Despite the inaccuracy of that claim (Obama has only transferred discretion on the matter to US states), Romney has been using it to stoke the economic fears and grievances of working-class Americans, who fear parasitic “freeloaders” benefiting from their hard work.

Ryan, previously reputed to be a no-nonsense budget technocrat, has also been accused by the New York Times of taking “factual shortcuts.”

Ryan recently criticized the Obama administration for its proposed cuts to Medicare--the government-sponsored health care initiative in the US--even

though his own budget plan as a Congressman included the exact same cuts. He also labelled the Obama administration as incompetent when dealing with the US deficit, despite the Republican Congress hampering the Democrats’ capacity to act.

The list, unfortunately, goes on.

Week after week, the RomneyRyan campaign adds another brick to the wall between itself and reality. While entire articles could be written on the shocking lack of concern the campaign shows for truth-telling (Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum writes one worth checking out), the bigger issue lies not with the dishonesty of newsmakers such as Romney, but on how that disinformation is repeated by a media just waking up to Post-Truth politics. The balanced, neutral reporting that governed the era before PostTruth politics has led to what The Atlantic Monthly’s James Fallow argues has been a different kind of balance when applied to the new era– a false balance.

False balance is the media practice of giving equal weight to both sides of a story, regardless of an established truth on one side.

Instead of calling out Republican politicians for lying, journalists simply publish their false claims and then balance them with denials from the Democratic side.

Accordingly, mainstream media is guilty of disseminating these false claims, thereby betraying readers who want fact-checking, truth-squadding, and answers from their reporters.

But objective truth-squadding can be difficult, as even reasonable people can disagree on the facts.

For example, some American lawmakers cite the need for

stronger voter identification requirements to guard against voter fraud, while others argue that voter fraud does not exist, and that voter identification laws keep voters without proper ID (primarily minorities, the poor, elderly, and infirm) from voting.

Should these fact disputes and allegations of voter suppression be kept to Opinion-Editorial pages, or should news reporters question the truthfulness of claims when they first report them, and give greater weight to the truthful side? Is it possible for reporters to be completely objective when the facts themselves are in question?

For many critics - and for this writer - it is crucial that reporters at least verify claims before reporting them, even if the resulting article presents two competing sets of facts. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman does not impose his own judgment when he criticizes Romney for claiming that Obama is slashing defence spending (Obama is actually increasing it).

Before concluding, I would like to address a potential concern.

This article lays the blame for Post-Truth politics squarely on the political Right in the US, specifically targeting the RomneyRyan campaign. While there have been some instances of Democrats making questionable claims (such as Biden questioning Romney’s willingness to capture Osama), Republicans have overwhelmingly been the driving force behind Post-Truth politics.

To claim otherwise or to search for Democratic SNAFUs simply for the sake of traditional journalistic neutrality, would, after all, make this article guilty of false balance.

mitZine v12 // 19

Aaron Zaltzman

MITZINE // world

Iran’s nuclear ambitions

in perspective

A

Saudi diplomat is almost assassinated in Washington.

A bomb explodes at a military base near Tehran. An ambassador is targeted in India. A magnetic bomb destroys a motorcycle. Six tourists die in Bulgaria. A worm is discovered in an entire military computer network.

For years, the combined intelligence services of Israel, Great Britain, and the US have done secret and notso-secret battle with their Iranian counterparts. On the world stage, Western politicians speak endlessly about the stated aim of this shadow war: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly called for a “red line” that will trigger military action should the Iranian nuclear program cross it, while Western leaders have walked a tightrope between diplomacy and threats of war.

Despite the publicity, the fundamental question seems to be hotly debated.

Why do Israel and the United States want to stop Iran’s nuclear program?

In contrast to some of the political rhetoric that’s been thrown around, there is no real fear that Iran will actually use a nuclear weapon against either country. In such an event, a combined American-Israeli military strike, along with probable support from allies, would be enough to destroy the entire country. While Iranian leaders often speak in seemingly irrational ways, this isn’t enough to suggest the regime is willing to engage in what is ultimately a collective suicide bombing. The Iranian regime does act in a repressive manner and it may have a appalling human rights record, but a theocratic dictatorship doesn’t stay in power for over thirty years if its actions aren’t calculated. While I can’t speak for every person in the upper echelons of the Iranian government, the entity as a whole is not seeking to end the world—what they are seeking

20 // mitZine v12

is regional superiority and an end to the presence of both the Americans and Israelis in the Middle East.

An Iranian nuclear power is threatening for two reasons, both resulting from Iran’s involvement with terrorism. For the last three decades the regime has been involved with terror groups at every level--from ideological and material support to active training and organization.

Originally listed as a state sponsor of terror in 1984, Iran has since become the “most active state sponsor of terror in the world” as stated by the United States Department of State. Iran was responsible for the creation and management of the Lebanese organization Hezbollah in the 1980s, which today is arguably the most dangerous global terrorist organization in the world. As a result, the most likely scenario in which an Iranian nuclear weapon would be used against Israel or the United States is if one were covertly supplied to a terrorist organization by the regime.

This is not an impossible scenario. If Iran were intent on deploying a nuclear device against Israel, using a cutout such as Hezbollah would conceivably allow them to accomplish this while avoiding a massive counterattack.

However, the more pertinent reason for wanting to eliminate the possibility of a nuclear Iran is regional superiority.

Since the 1970s, Israel has enjoyed military superiority over all of its neighbouring countries. This reality was a driving factor in achieving the groundbreaking Israeli-Egyptian peace accord in 1979, which has since been the foundation of relative stability in the region. A large part of Israel’s military superiority has been its worst-kept secret: its nuclear arsenal. Hostile Arab countries know that if they were ever to break the lines of the Israel Defense forces (IDF) and penetrate the country’s borders, Israel

has the option of tactical nuclear weapons. However, a nuclear-armed Iran can menace this option—and maybe entirely eliminate it—in the event of a regional war. This would completely undermine what remains of the stability of the Middle East that has prevented a conventional war for the last 39 years.

Even if the situation doesn’t result in a full-blown war, the most important factor of nuclear capability to the Iranians is that it would allow them nearly unlimited freedom to covertly destabilize the Middle East. With its military might buttressed by nuclear weapons, the Iranian regime would be free to do what it does best—use Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolution Guard Corps to rain terror down on Western powers.

Vegetius once said, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Unfortunately, this itself is an optimistic prediction when considering military action against the Iranian nuclear regime.

A strike, even one that effectively destroyed all the Iranian nuclear facilities, would not destroy the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian regime. This doesn’t negate the seriousness of the situation, nor the rationale for stopping Iran’s nuclear dream.

Ultimately, the only thing that would stop the administration would be a change of administration. This means that the length of this secret war will be determined by the prevailing Iranian national sentiment. Until then, the West will have to put faith in the efficacy of crippling sanctions, then rely on its leaders to judge when the red line has been crossed, and what actions to take at that point. Hopefully, sanctions and diplomacy will prove to be enough.

Paul Craig

MITZINE // world

Marois Muddles Message,

Wins Election O

n September 4th, 2012, the quasi-sovereignist Parti Quebecois won the Quebec provincial election with a minority government. It’s only rarely that we in English Canada hear or about Quebec (which is unfortunate, thinks this biased writer), but the thrilling conclusion to a heated election campaign was one such time. Just because we knew who was elected, though, by no means made for congruent commentary about it.

In the several days leading up to and immediately following the election of Pauline Marois - Quebec’s first-ever female premier - a veritable effusion of editorials flooded Opinion sections everywhere - with seemingly every journalist that put pencil to paper drew a different conclusion.

Articles abounded predicting either havoc or the status quo; for every pundit predicting the soon-to-come nation of Quebec spelling the end of Canada, there was another positing the powerlessness of a minority PQ, while yet another rejected both poles in favour of a more hedged bet.

But, “So what?” I hear you asking.

Well, in my last editorial “Have a Voice: Have a Grève,” I described the failure of the English-Canadian media to fairly represent a Quebec issue by viewing the story through its angloscope (which is to say, applying an English-Canadian perspective to a French-Canadian issue). Furthermore, just three pages before this article is another (exceedingly well done, I might add) about how the American media have been reporting more rhetoric than truth during the current American Presidential campaign.

So we know it’s true that the media can- and does - occasionally drop the ball, but sometimes it isn’t the media’s fault that the story they’re telling is badly told.

Sometimes they’re just being accurate.

Pauline Marois, chef of the PQ since 2007, made herself immensely difficult

to interpret. Essentially, as leader of a once-hardline party, she tried to be at once a fanatic and a moderate in proportions that fluctuated depending on her intended audience. The result was that she presented her message differently as the campaign evolved, fluctuating both her tone and delivery incessantly - to the chagrin of journalists everywhere.

For example, as the face of a political party famous for its stated policy of sovereignty, Marois’ intentions to work towards an independent Quebec were often publicly scrutinised.

Initially, Marois appealed broadly to voters, claiming that while she supported a referendum if Quebeckers willed it, it was a peripheral issue. “This election is about picking a government, not deciding the future of Quebec in Canada,” Marois said on August 2nd.

Still a week later, appealing to Englishspeaking voters, she insisted a vote for the PQ was not a vote for sovereignty that Anglophones could “vote yes or no” in the event of a referendum, while she downplayed the possibility of one.

During the August 19 leaders debate, however, Marois - her mettle questioned by other party leaders--vigourously asserted she would hold a referendum “tomorrow morning” if she had her way. Journalists noted that sparking a citizen-initiated referendum required the signatures of only 15% of the province, arousing fear that a minority of citizens and a complicit premier might foist upon the province such a traumatic and divisive ordeal.

Cut to August 24th, and Marois again retreats: even were the signatures to materialise, her party would hold the power of veto, she assured nowambivalent voters.

Throughout her campaign, Marois always allowed for the possibility of a referendum; without ever fully endorsing nor discounting it. While one presentation of her opinion attempted to address concerns about hardline

extremism, the inverse seemed ready to allow a radicalised fraction of the population to set the provincial agenda.

And this wasn’t exactly an isolated scenario: inconsistencies characterised Marois’ campaign.

She wavered while commenting on the student strike, misrepresented her policy on immigrants, even redirected a barb she lanced at potential voters. For five weeks, Marois ran a campaign fraught with conflicts: she was at once divisive and inclusive, hardline and evasive, intolerant and progressive.

Here, then, is a case where the media are not to blame for confusing the issue - where a confused message given in French was reported well and accurately by English-Canadian journalists. Yes, the media flub their responsibilities every so often, but even effective and capable journalism falters in covering the PR circus we call “election campaigns”.

So how did she win, the clever reader wonders, this insipid leader of a contradictory campaign? Well, essentially by default is the analysis of this writer. Of the four parties running, only two and a half actually had a shot at winning: the PQ, the corruptionblighted Parti libèral du Québec, and to too-new-to-quantify Coalition Avenir Québec. Jean Charest’s Liberals were distrusted by an extraordinary majority of Quebeckers. FrançoiWs Legault of the CAQ planned to dismantle an alarming amount of Quebec’s social infrastructure, while the PQ leader, with all her xenophibish tendencies, somehow became the least bad option.

In the end, the PQ won just enough to be the government, but less than they’d need to make controversial decisions.

With any luck, the only policies a minority PQ government will be able to enact will be useful ones, while the other parties use the absence of compelling candidates in Quebec provincial politics as an opportunity to make something of themselves.

mitZine v12 // 21

MITZINE // introduces

meet the fimssc jordan coop president MTP Year 4 // jcoopmen@uwo.ca What I Do for You: Oversee the operations of the FIMSSC, attend USC and FIMS Faculty Council meetings on behalf of FIMS undergraduates, chair the committee for FIMS Undergraduate Student Fund (USF).

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Theodor Adorno: he’d be sure to take me somewhere that plays good music.

kelly mark VP External Major MIT Year 4 // @kelleeehh What I Do for You: I represent your voice on the USC and better connect the FIMS student body with the USC. Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Malcolm Gladwell – his perspective on our subconscious drive is enticing. Also – have you seen his fro?!

Lizzie Sarjeant vp academics Honors Spec. MIT Year 4 // elizabethsarjeant@gmail.com What I Do for You: I make learning fun! Probably. I do this by organizing academic events such as The Forum and more.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Noam Chomsky - he wouldn’t have to manufacture my consent.

Sabrina Zavarise vp communications Honors Spec. MIT Year 4 // @sabzav What I Do for You: I make sure that we get the word out about events.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Judith Butler. Maybe I’d become cooler by osmosis.

Anna Peirce vp events Honors Spec. MIT Year 4 // @annapeirce, apeirce2@uwo.ca What I Do for You: I fill up your social calendar.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Lasswell – He would be John Tuckered so fast…

Aditi Barghava VP events MIT Year 2 // @AditiBhar What I Do for You: I handle council’s finances and make sure we don’t spend all the money in our account.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Marshall McLuhan, ‘cause “Medium is the Massage” totally gets me.

kelley morgan chairperson Honors Spec. MIT Year 2 // @kelleygreen What I Do for You: I am the organization station. I make sure that we don’t let anything slip through the cracks and everyone is on task.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Marshall McLuhan, because I’d love to introduce Twitter and Facebook to him and see his reaction.

Genevieve LaCute head soph MIT Year 4 // glacute@uwo.ca What I Do for You: I provide the resources for first year FIMS students to succeed academically and socially.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Former FIMSSC Productions Coordinator Hadrian Mertins Kirkwood.

kelly hobson faculty liason Honours Spec. MPI Year 4 // khobson3@uwo.ca What I Do for You: I can help you answer any Harry Potter trivia question. Oh, and I also lobby for the interests of FIMS undergraduate students with faculty.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Jurgen Habermas, so we can discuss how Glee fits into the public sphere.

Jess Pirraglia Alumni Relations Commissioner Honors Spec. MIT year 2 // @jesspirraglia What I Do for You: I am your liaison to all FIMS almuni, reassuring you that yes, FIMS grads do get great jobs.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

McLuhan… duh.

Monica Abadir Charity Commissioner Honours Spec. MPI and Honours Spec. Arts Year 2 // @mabadir What I Do for You: My goal is to bind our faculty with a charity in London that represents FIMS students and provide volunteer experience outside Western!

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Marshall McLuhan.

cindy ma grad rep Honors Spec. MIT, Major Political Science, Year 4 // cma59@uwo.ca

Sasha Barkans Production Coordinator MIT Year 4 // www.ordinaryinstant.com, sasha@loveandrum.com What I Do for You: Make promotional material for your stimulus-starved minds.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

I’ve been able to quote David Byrne in more than a couple essays, so him in a heartbeat. Talking Heads!

Steph Schoenhoff Street Team Coordinator MPI Year 2 // sschoen2@uwo.ca

What I Do for You: I represent graduating FIMS students, which means I’ll be organizing Career Day and other events.

What I Do for You: I’ll keep you posted on everything FIMS with posters, videos and more!

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Barthes - he picks up on all the signs.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Marx, because I like facial hair.

Jake Kislinsky mtp rep MTP, Year 3 (Broadcast Journalism // @KolonelStarfire What I Do for You: Provide events and programming catered to all MTP students. I also work towards developing the MTP program as a whole!

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Marshall McLuhan, because for a date we would go to a nice spa (you know, ‘cause the medium is the massage).W

jas irwin mpi rep MIT Year 4 // jirwin32@uwo.ca What I Do for You: Make sure that you know how awesome and unique the MPI program really is!

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

I would go to a Avicii concert with Theodore Adorno and watch lovingly as his eyeballs melt down his face.

jordan pearson mitZine Editor In Chief Honors Spec. MIT Year 3 // @neuwaves What I Do for You: I make sure this thing gets put out five times a year and that you have many avenues for expressing your creativity and views.

Molly McCracken Webmaster Honours Spec. MIT Year 4 // @mcmollz What I Do for You: I maintain FIMSSC.ca and work on our online features like Student Spotlight and Mixtape.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Hans Moravec. A guy who wants humanity to download their lives onto hard drives must be an intriguing conversationalist, right?

Samir Kashyap first year rep MTP Year 1 // @safrOka What I Do for You: I voice your concerns, suggestions, and comments to the rest of the FIMSSC. I’m also that friendly ‘fro you can always approach with questions.

What Is Your favourite Book? Olivia by Ian Falconer

Chris Pandza first year rep MIT Year 1 // cpandza@uwo.ca What I Do for You: If you’re a first-year FIMS student, I work for you! If you have any FIMS-related concerns, drop me a line.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Northrop Frye. We’d have such a good time, he’d change his mind on pastoral mythology.

Which FIMS Theorist Would You Take on a Date?

Jacques Derrida because “play” interests me, and I think it would mean a lot of fun… ;)

mitZine v12 // 23

To contribute email editor@mitzine.ca Visit us at mitzine.ca

email editor@mitzine.ca

to suggest a new name for the mitZine