“There are rules to constructing a cabinet: You wouldn’t appoint an education minister with kids in private schools. You wouldn’t give a man with a record of wife-beating responsibility for women’s issues. And you don’t give a roly-poly smoker the prestigious health ministry.”
-Christina Blizzard, ‘Caplan’s no picture of health’, Queen’s Park, Toronto Sun
As a communications intern in a community hospital, there are some people who it is essential that I know. George Smitherman, former Ontario Minister of Health, was one such person. If George said it I heard it, if he wrote it, I read it, and if he was involved in it, I probably knew.
This week the man that I have been media stalking for the past 3 months was promoted from Health to the super Ministry of Energy and Public Infrastructure. Replacing him will be David Caplan. He would be the roly-poly smoker Blizzard was referring to.
If you thought that by the time you became an adult (or did enough positive work) people would stop judging you by your looks, you were wrong.
Such is the plight of Mr Caplan.
One’s ability to perform a task should not be judged by external factors completely unrelated to the task itself. But PR people, know that appearance is a significant part of the package. If not, we wouldn’t hire stylists and make-up artists to prepare the board of directors for their annual report pictures. Marshall McLuhan was right, the medium is the message, and unfortunately for Caplan, that meant that his suitability for the job was judged by factors other than just his good record.
Of course Caplan’s spokesperson responded to criticism by saying that he has quit smoking (even though he was recently caught sneaking a puff in the Opposition members’ lobby) and that visual markers should not be used to judge Caplan’s health. All these may be true, but I suspect that a less defensive tactic would be the best approach.
Ok, so Caplan may not fit our traditional image of health. Nonetheless he is the new Health Minister and it is unlikely that will change. Why not use this as a tool to help him connect with his publics, by showing that he understands the challenges of the healthy lifestyle but that he is committed to making sure every Ontarian has access to quality healthcare? Yes it has the potential to be humiliating, but can it really be worse than the inevitable jabs from opposition parties about the Liberals having an unhealthy Health Minister? Who knows, he might even motivate our population towards healthy change.
I guess that is a decision to be weighed.
This is one of the most shameful waste of space on the internet. Your attack is simple based on his looks?? Granted, smoking is a horrible habit for anyone, whether or not one is a minister of health.
However, your blatant admitted attack on his physical appearance is disgraceful and disgusting. It’s no wonder you needed to quote the Toronto Sun. Crap feeds on Crap and you’ve done an excellent job of reproducing it.
I did not attack the Minister. I merely pointed out an image issue related to his appointment and gave my take to how it could be addressed.
Phil, I really think you should re-read the post, open up your mind a little, really listen/read to what Rhonda is addressing, and then offer an apology.
In the first paragraph she states a quote from Christina Blizzard from the Toronto Sun. If you read closely, Rhonda isn’t using that quote to back up her claims or points of view, she is giving the audience an informed “backgrounder” for subsequent ‘critique’ blog post. She’s simply setting the stage for what she’s about to address. That’s what writers do. We state the position, or the issue, and then discuss the situation amidst the quote, address way the quote was outlined, or make observations about the post.
If you look closely at paragraph six Phil, you’ll see that she states, “One’s ability to perform a task should not be judged by external factors completely unrelated to the task itself.” Did you not see this part? She goes on to state the impact of Public Relations practices in this scenario, and then states further in paragraph six Phil, “unfortunately for Caplan, that meant that his suitability for the job was judged by factors other than just his good record.” Here she’s outlining the reality of the situation, not what ought to be. There’s a BIG difference.
There’s a difference in the use of quotations when Rhonda quotes Marshall McLuhan. She’s not stating a “backgrounder” as she did in the first paragraph, but she’s referring to a well-known phrase coined by McLuhan, illustrating the importance/relevance of understanding your role pertaining to how publics consume messages via the media (McLuhan’s “Understanding Media” is also a significant book on this issue).
Later in paragraph eight, she states that, ‘…yes Caplan may not conform to [society's] image of health,’ but then offers a very reasonable and diplomatic counter argument to the claim stating, “…by showing that he understands the challenges of the healthy lifestyle but that he is committed to making sure every Ontarian has access to quality health care?” A brilliant personal observation, that most people wouldn’t always think about.
In my opinion, I think the post is very well argued, and she points out all sides of the story in a refreshing way. I enjoy Rhonda’s conversational style of writing and the manner in which she states her case. It’s a productive critique of a relevant societal issue, shows an educated opinion and addresses it with diplomacy.
How’s that for a waste of space?
Good work Rhonda! Keep it up.
Staffeen
From a PR point of view, if Caplan is perceived as someone in poor health, then I think he is the ideal representative for the ailing Canadian health care system of today.