Advertising

Meet the Black snowshoers who walked 1,000 kilometres across Canada in 1813: ��˾��ֱ�� expert

Christopher.Sorensen — Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:43:04 +0000

Meet the Black snowshoers who walked 1,000 kilometres across Canada in 1813: ��˾��ֱ�� expert

Christopher.Sorensen Tue, 02/18/2020 - 09:43

Cutline

John Marrion was part of the 104th (New Brunswick) Regiment of Foot. The 104th soldiers once snowshoed over 1,000 kilometres in about 50 days during the War of 1812 (Beaverbrook Collection of War Art/Canadian War Museum/CWM 19810948)

Jacqueline L. Scott

Topic

Our Community

Advertising

Black

Diversity

Graduate Students

Indigenous

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Sport

The Conversation

Snowshoeing in the woods on a sunny winter’s day is my idea of fun. When playing in the snow, winter seems to pass faster.

Over two-thirds of Canadians participate in outdoor recreation, according to Statistics Canada. Some 13 per cent of these nature fans enjoy snowshoeing. Compared to skiing, snowshoeing is low-key, inexpensive and easy to learn. And it can be done anywhere as long as there is snow.

Snowshoe walks and races were once the most popular winter sports in Canada, long before hockey seized that prize. A century ago, snowshoe clubs were scattered all over the country. The most important was the Montréal Snowshoe Club, formed in 1840. It organized professional and amateur races.

Lord Stanley of Preston being “bounced” as a member of the Montréal Snowshoe Club in 1866 (Wm. Notman & Son/McCord Museum /VIEW-2425
)

Some Black men once snowshoed over 1,000 kilometres in about 50 days. The epic trek took them from Fredericton, N.B., to Kingston, Ont. Unlike us, these men were not doing it for outdoor recreation.

The men were part of the 104th New Brunswick Regiment of Foot. The regiment left Fredericton on Feb. 16, 1813, and followed the banks of the frozen Saint John, Madawaska and St. Lawrence rivers until they reached Kingston. They arrived in April.

The 600 or so soldiers of the 104th trekked across the country to bolster Canadian defences against an impending United States invasion. This became known as the War of 1812, even though the conflict was spread out over the next two years.

The Black men in the 104th included Harry Grant, Richard Houldin and Henry McEvoy. They are a minor footnote in the War of 1812 and are usually ignored in accounts of the conflict.

The 104th is an under-recognized military march on par with great marches in history. Here the route is mapped out (Drew Kennickell/The St. John River Society)

Indigenous technology

The erasure of these Black soldiers of the 104th follows the usual pattern of deleting Black people from the mainstream history of Canada, as their presence or absence raises questions about race and empire, and genocide and slavery.

When Black people are acknowledged, it is usually in reference to the Underground Railroad, and the fugitives’ flight from slavery to freedom in the Great White North. The focus on this part of history ignores the 200 years of slavery in Canada, and how living in its wake continues to shape Black lives today.

The 104th long march was possible as the army used Indigenous technology and techniques to survive the winter slog. For example, a pair of men each pushed and pulled a toboggan loaded with their food and gear. The toboggan was a traditional Indigenous mode of winter transport.

The men wore moccasins. These Indigenous shoes are perfect for walking on ice or snow as they are light, warm and waterproof.

Then there were the Indigenous snowshoes. They were essential winter gear as they were the easiest way to move in thick snow – if you were a hunter, soldier or just out for a walk.

With just boots on, with each step, one would sink up to knees or hips in the white stuff. In a different situation, this could be lethal. Cold legs are prone to frostbite and frostbite can end in amputation or death. Snowshoes spread the body’s weight so that one can walk and not sink into the powder, and can travel further with less effort.

Lithograph on wove paper of ‘Snowshoeing Club of Montréal.’ Several men are depicted walking in the snowy woods with snowshoes (Henry Sandham, 1842-1910/Library and Archives Canada, Acc. No. R9266-1432.CC BY-NC)

On a recent snowshoe hike, I passed through a strand of cedar trees, brushing a few twigs as I trudged by. The trees released a perfume that was fresh and invigorating. In my mind, it is the smell of Christmas.

The men of the 104th also liked the cedars. And not just for the scent. They used the branches to make a bed each evening, as they huddled in a makeshift teepee made from saplings and insulated with branches and moss. A blanket and a fire in the middle kept them warm in the sub-zero nights.

‘We were made for this’

Ten years ago, Canada hosted the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games. The Hudson Bay Company, our iconic retailer of Canadiana, made a marketing campaign with the tagline, “We were made for this.”

In the images of the campaign, pioneers and later athletes skiied, hiked and tobogganed in a winter wonderland. Almost all the people visible in the advertisement are white. Thus it made an explicit connection between race, winter and outdoors recreation. It reflected two dominant nationalist mythologies of Canada – as the “the Great White North” and the “great outdoors.”

There are many issues with the advert, but I am interested in how it whitewashed Canadian history and outdoors recreation. What has changed in the past decade?

Snowshoes are cheap to rent at ski resorts and parks and from outdoor recreation stores. Snowshoeing is marketed as a truly Canadian winter sport that is accessible to different age groups, fitness levels and abilities.

It’s a great way for families to spend a winter day outdoors. The marketing photographs are filled with happy white people, in bright neon-coloured jackets, romping in the snow. What is missing from the images are Indigenous, Black and other people of colour. Snow is free, but race plays a role in who is wanted and who gets access to snowshoeing.

John Marrion, depicted here, was part of the 104th (New Brunswick) Regiment of Foot (Beaverbrook Collection of War Art/Canadian War Museum/CWM 19810948-008)

The joy of the outdoors

On my snowshoeing ramble, other people were racing through the woods. They were snowshoe runners, dressed in light running gear. Lots of lycra and colour. They shouted greetings as they sailed by.

Something was drilling in the woods. I followed my ears, swivelled my head, and spotted a hairy woodpecker getting its lunch of grubs out of the bark of a tree. The little patch of red on the back of its head was a bold splash of natural colour in a landscape of white snow and beige trees.

I snowshoed about six kilometres on my minuscule trek that day. And then I was done. Tired, ready for hot chocolate and cake in a warm café.

The Black soliders and and their fellow 104th snowshoers would have taken about two hours to do that distance. They had 1,000 kilometres to snowshoe. One day I plan to recreate their historic feat as part of my project of mapping how race intersects with outdoors recreation, geography and adventure travel.

Jacqueline L. Scott is a PhD student at the University of Toronto.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Gillette's #MeToo-inspired ad represents a cultural shift

noreen.rasbach — Tue, 22 Jan 2019 20:13:35 +0000

Gillette's #MeToo-inspired ad represents a cultural shift

noreen.rasbach Tue, 01/22/2019 - 15:13

Cutline

Does the new #MeToo-inspired Gillette ad for men’s razors represent a cultural shift in ads directed at men? Here’s a still from the new ad (Gillette/Procter & Gamble)

Topic

It’s that time of year when Super Bowl ads become viral sensations, but one of the most talked about commercials of 2019 won’t be shown during the big game. Gillette’s ad called “We believe” refers directly to the #MeToo movement, sexual harassment and bullying, and the commercial has generated lots of buzz because of its use of images of “toxic masculinity.”

The ad depicts the ways that harmful forms of masculinity have become normalized, in relationships and the workplace and through media representations in TV shows, ads and news. It then asks men to be self-reflective about their attitudes and behaviour. Criticism for the ad has been harsh on social media, with some men indicating they would boycott the brand.

The new Gillette ad has made some men angry

The commercial, which so far has only run online and isn’t scheduled to appear on TV, is on track to becoming one of the most disliked ever. Two weeks after Gillette posted it on YouTube, it had more than 27 million views, 1.3 million dislikes and 740,000 likes. In facing its own perhaps complicit past in perpetuating damaging gender stereotypes in its advertising, Gillette has offered a behaviour-change challenge to men. It is a tactic that has instead made male consumers feel attacked, victimized and angry.

But is the ad meant to attract men or women? And in the face of such resistance, does the commercial have any potential to accomplish the social change that Gillette is asking men to make?

Cause marketing as a way to stand out

Gillette acknowledges that advertising plays a role in influencing culture. Indeed, advertising is one of the most prominent forms of social communication. However, advertising’s ultimate goal is always to grow sales and build brand identity and value, not to instigate social transformation.

Gillette’s commercial is an unusual example of the now ubiquitous commodification of social causes. However, it is relatively rare to see a social cause so explicitly embedded in advertising for products directed to men. And this one seems to be disliked by its target audience. This is a real problem for Gillette because it is aiming to refresh its 30-year-old brand.

Because many products are functionally effective and similar, the challenge is to differentiate similar products within a category. Enter cause marketing.

Cause marketing campaigns feature a consumer product that represents a partnership between a brand and a social cause. Consumers purchase the product and a portion of sales are donated to the social cause (sometimes the charity is the brand’s own). And a consumer movement is seemingly born.

Procter & Gamble, Gillette’s parent company, took this cause marketing approach in 2015. The #LikeAGirl advertising campaign for Always tampons challenged internalized female stereotypes with the aim of keeping girls’ confidence high during puberty and beyond.

Always #LikeAGirl ad campaign

Reflecting consumers’ aspirations

Gillette’s new campaign is called “The Best Men Can Be,” an update of its tagline from 30 years ago, “The Best a Man Can Get.” It promises to donate $1 million per year for three years to American non-profit organizations dedicated to educating and helping men become their own “personal best.”

A great brand resonates with consumers at particular historical moments. Powerful advertising tells authentic stories to consumers about the function that consumer objects play in their lives, and their own place in the (capitalist) world in which we exist.

By invoking stories or myths about how the world works, and attaching beliefs and values to a product, a brand's identity and values come to life, enacted in daily rituals within a cultural context in which these consumer goods have meaning to consumers.

Procter & Gamble’s #SharetheLoad ad for Ariel laundry detergent by BBDO topped the list of best world ad campaigns for two years in a row (2017-18)

Nike is an example of a brand that repeatedly accomplishes this. Its 2018 Colin Kaepernick ad touches on racial discrimination, the #Takeaknee movement and the transformative power of sport.

The Gillette ad instead enters the banal world of a man and his daily shaving routine. Gillette is not presenting an aspirational lifestyle choice in the same way Nike does.

Instead, the Gillette ad enters a man’s personal space, without his permission, and forces him to face his masculinity head-on. Gillette tells men that “something finally changed” as it flashes a clip of a newscaster speaking of “allegations of sexual harassment.” The ad imposes an inescapable self-reflection into their daily routine saying, “you can’t hide from it” anymore.

Men are now obliged when looking into the mirror to ask themselves, daily, if they are “the best” they can be. Unlike the Kaepernick Nike ad, this is not the aspirational story advertising typically tells us about our place in the world.

“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything"

Instead, Gillette’s commercial calls for men’s painful contemplation about their daily lives, during their daily ritual of shaving. The ad is seemingly about shaving, but it is also about how men treat their wives, partners, friends, kids and colleagues.

This call for self-examination, now attached to the dull, unavoidable and very personal daily ritual of shaving, is making a lot of men uncomfortable. But it is precisely this kind of confrontation and introspection that is needed if any real change can take place. And it is this introspection that the women and men of the #MeToo moment have called for men to do.

Is the ad speaking to men or women?

Gillette’s approach is risky. It is a brand that has relied more on product functionality than creating a compelling brand story for 30 years.

The new Gillette ad is ostensibly speaking to men, using “our” and “we,” but is the ad speaking to men or is it directed towards women? Although men are picky about their razors, women generally do most of the household shopping.

Women are accustomed to associating lifestyle products with “feminist” social issues – breast cancer, positive media representations of female beauty – and they make consumer choices that appear to support these movements, a phenomenon sociologists Robert Goldman, Deborah Heath and Sharon L. Smith called “commodity feminism.”

But men are not used to seeing social causes attached to their favourite products in the same way. Does Gillette’s campaign represent a new starting point for accepting advertising that speaks to men about social issues? The Dove “Real Beauty” campaign in the mid-2000s marked a cultural shift in promotional culture directed at women. Does this Gillette ad represent the parallel for men?

A daily reflection and assessment of one’s attitudes connected to the cultural shift which #MeToo has helped to bring about might be a good start, “because the boys watching today will be the men of tomorrow” and they will inevitably need a close shave.

This story has been corrected. An earlier version suggested the Gillette commercial would be broadcast during the Super Bowl.

Andrea Benoit is an academic review officer at University of Toronto

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

'Do white people dominate the outdoors?' ��˾��ֱ�� expert on race in outdoors advertising

noreen.rasbach — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:22:08 +0000

'Do white people dominate the outdoors?' ��˾��ֱ�� expert on race in outdoors advertising

noreen.rasbach Fri, 10/26/2018 - 09:22

Cutline

There is a long history of "visual apartheid" in the advertising of the outdoors industry – an absence of Indigenous, Black and racialized people (photo by Esther Wiegardt/Unsplash)

Topic

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

The Conversation

"Do white people dominate the outdoors?”

David Labistour, CEO of Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC), asked that question. As Canada’s iconic retailer of clothing and equipment for the outdoors, what MEC says matters.

In his post on the company blog, Labistour says: “Historically, the models we’ve used in our catalogues and campaigns and on our website have been predominantly white.” Labistour apologizes for this.

He goes on to say: “As CEO of MEC, I promise that moving forward, we will make sure we’re inspiring and representing the diverse community that already exists in the outdoors.”

There is a long history of visual apartheid in the advertising of the outdoors industry. What I mean by this is the absence of Indigenous, Black and other racialized people in the ads.

“We’ve let our members down”: Collage of MEC catalogues

Do a quick internet search for “outdoors recreation advertising,” and you will find mostly white people in the images. Whether it is canoeing, skiing, bicycling or camping, Black faces are not there.

Harriet Tubman was a wilderness expert

In reality, Black people have a long history of being in the outdoors in Canada. This history has been whitewashed, not just in outdoors advertising but also in conservation, outdoors education and environmental education.

Harriet Tubman is one of my inspirations for researching Black people in the Canadian outdoors. As a historical figure, she is associated with bringing fugitive slaves from the United States to safety in Canada via the Underground Railroad.

Viewed another way, Tubman was also an expert in outdoor survival skills. She made some 20 treks across the border, some in winter, using different routes to avoid the slave catchers. She was successful as her level of wilderness expertise was phenomenal.

Arctic exploration

The outdoors industry likes to suggest an adventurous lifestyle in its advertising. For winter activities they could seek inspiration from Matthew Henson, an Arctic explorer. A colleague of Robert Perry, Henson spent more than 20 years trying to reach the North Pole.

The quest to be the first person on that spot was a holy grail of white explorers for two centuries. Few expect a Black man to share that prize. Henson writes about his adventures in his book A Negro Explorer at the North Pole. Published in 1912, Henson makes it clear that the explorations depended on the expertise of the Inuit and their knowledge of the land.

Canoeing is an iconic summer activity in Canada. And Black people have always been there too. The voyageurs, paddling along the rivers and lakes of the country, in the fur trade with Indigenous people, is part of Canadian outdoors history.

Canoeing is a classic Canadian activity (photo by HB Mertz /Unsplash)

Missing from that picture are the Black voyageurs and fur traders. For instance, there was George Bonga, a Black and Indigenous fur trader in Montreal in the 1800s. On the other side of the country, there was Joseph Lewis, a Black fur trader and explorer in Edmonton in the early 1800s.

Cowboys

Cowboys riding across the prairies, under the great big blue sky, is another mythologized image in the outdoors history of Canada. And once again the myth excludes Black cowboys such as John Ware.

Black cowboys helped to create the ranching industry in the prairies in the 1880s. The Calgary Stampede is part of their legacy. Canada Post honoured John Ware on a stamp in 2012.

(Left) John Ware and his family in Red Deer river, Alberta, c. 1896. (Right) John Ware stamp, 2012 (Glenbow Archives/Canada Post)

Advertising dollars

It makes good business sense for MEC to include Indigenous, Black and racialized people in its advertising. They are becoming the largest segment of the population. The myth of Canada as a white nation is crumbling under the census numbers. If the outdoors industry is to thrive, it must reflect diversity in its advertising.

MEC video explains why they changed their advertising to better reflect their members

MEC has taken a step towards increasing racial diversity in the Canadian outdoors. Let us hope that other organizations such as parks, nature conservancies and environmental groups follow their lead.

However, it is too easy for the first step to be the only step. A commitment to diversity must be internal as well as external, and move beyond simply expanding a customer base, to employing Indigenous, Black and other racialized people and supporting their access to the great Canadian outdoors.

Jacqueline L. Scott is a PhD student at the Ontario Institute for Studies In Education at the University of Toronto.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Nike wants to be on the right side of history with Colin Kaepernick ad, says ��˾��ֱ�� expert

noreen.rasbach — Fri, 07 Sep 2018 04:00:00 +0000

Nike wants to be on the right side of history with Colin Kaepernick ad, says ��˾��ֱ�� expert

noreen.rasbach Fri, 09/07/2018 - 00:00

Cutline

A billboard featuring former San Francisco 49ers quaterback Colin Kaepernick is displayed on the roof of the Nike store in San Francisco, Calif. this week (photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Jelena Damjanovic

Topic

Global Lens

Advertising

Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education

Global

Sports

When news broke this week that Colin Kaepernick would become the new face of Nike’s Just Do It campaign, many were taken by surprise. The former San Francisco 49ers quarterback stirred a national debate in the United States by kneeling during the national anthem before games to protest racial injustice and police brutality. The timing of the ad campaign, days before the first game of the NFL season on Thursday, is likely to stoke the controversy over pre-game protests.

Jelena Damjanovic asked Simon Darnell, assistant professor at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, for his take on what it all means for Kaepernick – and Nike. Darnell’s research interests include social movements and activism in sport, as well as sport, race and post-colonialism.

What’s your reaction to Colin Kaepernick becoming the new face of Nike’s Just Do It campaign?

I think this caught everyone by surprise, both supporters and critics of Kaepernick. One of the aspects of athlete activism that has become clear is that athletes who speak out often pay a price for doing so. In Kaepernick’s case, this has meant being ostracized from the NFL. Yet being featured in an advertising campaign by one of the biggest brands on the planet is not exactly punishment. In fact, the ad campaign makes specific reference to what Kaepernick has endured.

So it seems that one of the outcomes of this whole saga is that people (and companies) are starting to realize how difficult it can be for athlete activists to speak out, and they’re actually celebrating such sacrifices (and attempting to connect their brands to them). I think this in itself is an interesting development.

Kaepernick has not been signed by any of the NFL’s 32 teams since the protests spread. Do you expect this decision by Nike will help turn the tide?

I don’t think that this new ad campaign will have much bearing on whether Kaepernick gets another job in the NFL or not. But I think that Kaepernick’s grievance against the league for colluding to keep him out, which is now going to a formal hearing, is a big deal, and one that will continue to keep the question of his unemployment under serious scrutiny. That high-profile NFL officials and owners might have to answer for this formally is fascinating, even though the proceedings will be private.

At the least, the question of how and why Kaepernick hasn’t played in the league since speaking out isn’t going away anytime soon.

By supporting Kaepernick, Nike has entered the political fray many sport brands might have avoided for fear of alienating some customers. What’s your take on this?

I’m not the first to draw these conclusions, but two things seem to be happening here: One is that Nike sees supporters of Kaepernick as a demographic to whom they want to appeal. They’ve likely made the business calculation that they will gain more customers than they will lose by supporting Kaepernick. It’s a reminder that successful brands tend to appeal to specific people or groups, and not necessarily the entire population.

Two is that Nike likely sees, as most people do, that peaceful activists who speak out on issues of justice and in support of oppressed people usually end up being seen favourably in the long term. Activists pay a price in the moment, but history looks well upon them. Nike wants to be on the right side of history here.

The selling of the U.S. election: ��˾��ֱ��'s Jeffrey Dvorkin explains it all

lavende4 — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:20:57 +0000

The selling of the U.S. election: ��˾��ֱ��'s Jeffrey Dvorkin explains it all

lavende4 Wed, 11/02/2016 - 13:20

Cutline

Jeffrey Dvorkin: “It’s been an incredibly different kind of election in regard to advertising, and I think it will change the way political campaigns are done in the future” (photo by Ken Jones)

Don Campbell

Author legacy

Don Campbell

Topic

Campaign advertising (and complaining about it) is a standard during election time and with good reason – TV ads reach a lot of people.

But in a shifting media landscape more people are getting their news from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. In this environment do traditional TV campaign ads still matter? What messages are the campaigns sending people from traditional advertising and from social media?

For more context, writer Don Campbell spoke to Jeffrey Dvorkin, director of the journalism program at ��˾��ֱ�� Scarborough. He is a former vice-president of news for National Public Radio and a former managing editor with CBC Radio.

Dvorkin will be moderating an upcoming discussion about political advertising at the Hot Docs Theatre on Nov. 6. He shared his insights on the history of campaign advertising and how the current presidential candidates have tried to “sell” themselves to voters.

How has Donald Trump been able to get his message out without relying as much on traditional campaign advertising?

This has never really been done before. Donald Trump has relied far less on traditional campaign advertising than previous Republican campaigns while the Democrats have relied on advertising to pretty much the same extent as they have in the past. What’s unique is that Trump has been able to get on TV consistently either by calling talk shows or open line shows or by saying outrageous things that will get covered by TV network news. This tactic was calculated to be the equivalent of as much as $160 million in free advertising throughout his campaign. At the presidential level, the Republicans have spent $40 million less than the Democrats, but Trump has been able to outspend Hillary Clinton simply by getting on the air. Networks have fallen for this tactic on the assumption that Trump will say something outrageous that will be in the news cycle for the next 24 hours, which helps their ratings.

Historically, how have candidates used campaign advertising?

Political advertising has been an important element in the political landscape since the 1960 presidential election between Kennedy and Nixon, and it’s only been increasing every four years since then. This is especially the case for something called down-market advertising. These are campaign ads that run at the local or state level. They have traditionally been a cash cow for local television stations. In fact, many local TV stations make most of their money for the entire year during the political season. What’s happened this year is that the down-market ads for the local House of Representatives and the Senate have not been the moneymakers they once were.

How has the messaging been different between the two campaigns in this election?

Trump has tapped into a real anxiety among voters. He’s been talking about the hollowing out of the white working class, and he’s tapped into it with a message that’s been at times racist and misogynistic. He’s identified problems but hasn’t offered much in terms of solutions in his messaging. It’s easier for Clinton to counter that message in terms of offering clear policies. This has undermined Trump's message because although there are a lot of pissed-off people, there are a lot of people looking for good ideas.

Trump’s message is appealing to an older television-watching audience, and I think that’s because he’s an entertainer, not a policy person. I think the reason his campaign has failed in general is that he’s appealing to a narrow portion of the American electorate that’s in decline anyways. The demographics in America are changing, and he hasn’t adequately tapped into that.

How have social media and other digital advertising been used in this election?

It’s been an incredibly different kind of election in regard to advertising, and I think it will change the way political campaigns are done in the future. Political advertising at the local level has been targeting older voters because they still watch TV, but younger voters don’t watch TV as much. What Trump has done rather cleverly is that recently he’s been posting on Facebook, trying to directly reach supporters. It will be interesting to see how this translates into numbers, and whether that will work better than buying ads for network or local TV.

But social media and digital culture have changed the landscape, no question. The web has allowed politicians to work around traditional media with their advertising. Big advertising agencies that used to handle media campaigns are being bypassed now by people posting things on Facebook and Twitter. Increasingly, that’s where the eyeballs can be found, not looking at newspaper ads or television ads but social media. Politicians have been looking at ways to circumvent the mainstream media and the internet is providing that outlet.

Are there some influential campaign ads from the past that really resonated with voters in terms of the message they tried to convey?

One really important ad was Ronald Reagan’s "Morning in America." It was very positive and crafted in a way to contrast with how many viewed Jimmy Carter, who was perceived as having a depressing and negative approach to politics. It was during the oil crisis so Jimmy Carter was giving speeches from the White House while wearing a cardigan and telling people to turn down the thermostat. Reagan was a more effective communicator. In the ad, he said, that this isn’t what America is about, that we are problem-solvers. He had an advertising agency develop a message that resonated with people who were actually turned off by Carter’s serious and perhaps more realistic message.

More recently, Barack Obama had a very positive message in his advertising. With his "Yes We Can" message, he tapped into something very positive about how America wants to see itself in the world. That’s why it was so effective, especially given the political climate after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the financial crisis. He said, you know what, there’s no problem we can’t solve. It was in many ways a direct Democrat version of "Morning in America."

How would you rate the media’s coverage of this election so far?

Overall, it hasn’t been great. There’s been a trend of focusing on the race itself via the polls, rather than looking at the party or the candidates’ platform. One reason for this is that news outlets are relying more on polling data than ever before. There are fewer field reporters doing the legwork of figuring out what the policies and ideas are. That’s not happening anymore. The economic reality for most news outlets is that they’re lowering the quality of their content, and the obvious example of this is crunching data to provide content for media organizations.

Some are doing a better job like The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, which are doing tremendous research into what the electorate want, what they’re thinking, and to what extent they’re responding to the ideas of Clinton and Trump. Other media, especially TV, is looking for a version of political click bait. Every time Trump opens his mouth he’s providing content, and there’s a ratings bump, but often there’s no context provided for it. This is the part of reality TV that Trump is so good at, but overall it’s a disservice to the American electorate.

Don Campbell is a writer with the University of Toronto Scarborough