A day after the Prairie Dog duly mocked corporate-ordered endorsements of the Harper Cons (which should be entirely familiar based on past campaigns), we've seen a spate of newspapers falling in line. And I'll argue that there may actually be more reason to be concerned than usual about the impact of those new messages.
Plenty of observers have asked whether anybody really votes based entirely on a newspaper endorsement. And for the vast majority of voters, the answer is "probably not".
But at the end of a campaign where the Cons have received almost nothing but (hard-earned) scathing reviews from all but the most blinkered of commentators, a new set of editorial endorsements might well create a meaningful difference in how people talk about the party - representing yet another example of a perceived change in tone which might swamp the overall assessment of a party. And all just before a large number of people decide how to vote.
Which isn't to say there's much to be gained by calling out the endorsements themselves. But it's well worth making sure that the Cons continue to be defined by all they've done wrong (and plan to continue given the chance) - not by the willingness of the corporate media to put up with it.
Update: Due credit to Justin Ling as well for his take on the pattern.