Good News - an opportunity for opposition, or government

I was visiting with friends who like to know what's what in the world and keep up with current events, even commenting about these things in writing. In other words, they take current events, especially public life, seriously.

Somewhat surprisingly, they told me they had made a clear and deliberate decision to avoid the daily newspaper, especially first thing in the morning, when, wouldnt' you know it, morning daily newspapers come out.

Why? The news was just too darn depressing and no way to start one's day.

Further research reveals that many regular daily news subscribers get the paper every day of the week but Monday!

What's with that? Is it that people have enough trouble starting their work week without starting it on a downer? Why read the paper on the other six days? Maybe Monday's work puts people in the right mood to read the paper?

Okay, that's kind of a depressing thought, mashing up trees and coating them with ink to create a depressing experience.

That leads me to think of newsletters from opposition parties.

Ever notice how these tend to be rantings, railings and angry protests about something silly, stupid or worse the government is, or other parties are, doing? Often these events or facts are reported in the mass news media with the same or similar tone.

Did you notice that only 40% of Albertans voted in the last general election?

Does that mean the political process is too depressing for the other 60% to even bother with? Maybe that's not real apathy, but people responding to a strategy of deliberately driving people away from the political process?

I wonder what the reaction of the people would be to a "Good News" message from political parties, especially opposition parties. What would that look like? I suggest it might be formulated leading with an "Opportunity to Meet a Challenge", followed by some statistical analysis indicating how much of the population or what part of a particular population could be affected by realizing the opportunity, supported by people's personal stories as explanatory anecdotes, then reiterating the Challenge and finally reiterating the Opportunity and explaining how it might meet the Challenge.

Then we have, "The situation is ... ." as opposed to, "Look at what those rotten scoundrels have done now. That's sixteen rotten deeds just today! And it's only noon in Ottawa!". The situational analysis is then followed by "So we see the challenge in the situation to be ... .", and so on.

Have you ever noticed how many people are attracted to an angry "madman" ranting and raving, quite probably about something significant to only him, as he walks down the street?

Maybe opposition parties could learn something from that experience. Are their rantings and ravings perceived as simply hostility that is only about them?
Mike