Isn't this what media reporters are for?

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED:

Blogging Tory Stephen Taylor expresses some sympathy for the Parliamentary Press Gallery which is not exactly enjoying a honeymoon with the Harperites.

In this modern era of 24 hour cable news, reporters are certainly under more pressure to get the report filed quickly (and often live) and get it with full picture, sound and comment.

The Prime Minster's Office, in contrast, is not under the same pressures and really hasn't changed to a significant degree in its need to satiate the media since print reporters that made telephone calls for comment were the primary report filers. Modern media demands the sound bite and live video and these demands are at odds with a body (the PMO) that's strategy has never really changed: control messaging and information flow.

If I found myself in Ottawa as a reporter for the modern news industry I would very rightly be frustrated with Stephen Harper's communications approach that finds itself directly incongruent with the demands of my job. However, I don't believe that I'd be justified in laying blame on the PMO for its strategy.

But Taylor has no warms and fuzzies for Keith Boag's reporting on the new accountability legislation for last night's edition of CBC-TV's The National. That's because Boag made accountability to the reporters the focus of his story.

   1. Keith Boag remarks (or complains) that Stephen Harper made them "jam" into a small room for a press conference. (Perhaps a larger venue such as the lobby outside of the HoC would be more appropriate for large crowds of reporters and their technical crews? However, I hear that reporters would prefer to "jam" themselves in the narrow hallway outside of the Prime Minister's office and cabinet meeting room)

   2. More than 300 clauses in the FAA? Not bad. Too bad the FAA's merits do not strike Boag enough to underscore them first in his report. This report instead begins with his anger towards cabinet accessibility.

   3. "Reporters had dozens of questions about [the FAA]", Boag remarks as he sets up the video which includes an irate reporter complaining, "Are you going to ignore everyone (the queued reporters) in the lineup?" Boag then edits to qualify the reporter by explaining that Harper only allowed one question in each official language. CBC's chief political correspondent continues sarcastically, "Then he left, to champion public accountability, transparency and openness elsewhere."

As painful as this is, I have to say that I agree. This kind of information should have been in a secondary/sidebar piece. The report should have concentrated on the proposed legislation.

UPPITY DATE: I knew I should not have given Taylor carte blanche to trash CBC, as he loves to do. Although I still feel that Boag muddied the waters somewhat by talking about the media -- at a time when the Parliamentary Press Gallery appears to be at war with the PMO -- his story did concentrate on the content of the proposed act. I have a transcript of his report. It's too long to post here but you will find it down way down in the comments, time stamped Apr 15, 2006 7:19:39 PM.

Comments

[Joe Boughner]

I was pleasantly surprised that of the papers I read yesterday (Globe, Star, Post, Citizen, Le Droit, La Presse and Le Devoir), I think the Globe was the only one to offer an entire story to the showdown with reporters (some columnists mentioned it too, I believe, but my Nintendo-generation short-term memory is failing me on specifics).

The fact of the matter is, Canadians don't care about the press' squabble with Harper et al. The way politicians are so carefully handled these days - especially when it comes to major announcements such as this - the only thing that presser would have resulted in was more spin and talking points anyway.

Canadians want to know what the bill contains and how it will effect them. That's where the press should focus their efforts. Pieces like Boag's only serve to further alienate viewers/readers and perpetuate the illusion that reporters are part of the political system, not independent scrutineers.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Joe Boughner,

Beautifully stated Sir! Content is what the people need reported, not opinions, whining, and fluff.

Bills are public documents and excerpting them for meaningful content is a job for the press, if they are literate enough to do it that is.

[Robert McClelland]

Boag did exactly what every Hill reporter should be doing. If Harper wants to try and control the press, then the press should refuse to give Harper and his policies the coverage he does want. Until Harper relents, a strict policy of, "No talking points for you," should be implemented. If Harper thinks he's under no obligation to help out the press, then the press should adopt the attitude that they're under no obligation to help him.

[Antonia]

For once Robert, we disagree.

All I am saying is, that the FAA deserved coverage. Period. Critical or otherwise. But Boag muddied his report by mixing in the (legitimate) media woes in the story.

They should have been separate stories.

I think -- don't know, but think -- that this is all part of a move by CBC, as per the ''News Study,'' to get away from political process stories like they used to do.

[Jay Currie]

Oh Lord, I'm agreeing with McClelland. The cosy relationship between the PMO and the PPG has long needed to be revised. Frankly most of the PPG is an embarassment having been trained by the Liberal Party to define itself soley in reference to the PMO handouts.

The whole idea of "press availibilities" suggests that the PPG is being wrangled. It should not be.

Now, Keith Boag is certainly an idiot for giving priority to the PPG complaint over the actual news (but we knew that already). What needs to happen is for there to be a wholesale changing of the guard with the PPG. These folks have been spoon fed so long that they have come to believe they are entitled to their entitlements.

There is lots to report on Parliament Hill. Not just PMO press releases and not just "gotcha stories". Real live stories about policy formulation, budget making, who has acess to Cabinet Ministers and who does not, lobbying efforts on behalf of corporations and trade unions, the state of Crown Corporations, actions before the Supreme Court, what's up with National Defence, the diplomatic world, the Bank of Canada - if any of the PPG had the least eneterprise they would not have to sit around complaining about their lack of access to prepackaged events with predictable messages.

[Robert McClelland]

Me: Did Harper just kick you in the butt?

Press: Yes he did.

Me: Why do you put up with that?

Press: Because he lets us pick up his dry cleaning.

[Robert McClelland]

"Frankly most of the PPG is an embarassment having been trained by the Liberal Party to define itself soley in reference to the PMO handouts."

As usual Jay, you've failed to comprehend what I'm saying. So let me spell it out for you.

Our MPs are representatives of the people. And the people have many, many questions they want answered. Now if 32 million Canadians all started bugging our government every day with their questions, it would gridlock the system. So the media acts as our intermediary. They ask the questions we want asked--theoretically of course, though it works out fairly well in practice too.

Harper is trying to circumvent that process via incrementalism which is conservatism's number one guiding principle. So if he's allowed to win this battle, he'll just move on to the next and the next until our media is just as neutered as the American media, and by proxy, the American people now are.

My government owes me answers, Jay. And if they're doing anything to block my representatives from asking questions so I can get those answers, then there's going to be hell to pay. As a libertarian you should understand that.

[PhantomObserver]

Did we, as voters, hire the members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery? No.

Do our MPs ask questions? Yes, through Question Period, caucus and committee meetings, and other relations.

Are there other conduits through which Stephen Harper can get his coverage across? Yes: other members of the media, official websites, blogs, etc.

In other words, this kerfuffle between Harper's press office and the PPG has never been about access. It has always been about the PPG's convenience.

Paul Martin (and to a lesser extent, Jean Chretien) spoiled the PPG by bending over backwards to give them access, even when the subject matter was minor. Now the PPG has found that Harper's not Paul Martin (like that's big news) and that they can't dictate the relationship anymore.

Furthermore, it's obvious the public doesn't care about their complaints, precisely because it's about the PPG's convenience. The rest of us put up with inconveniences all the time; we either tolerate it or find a workaround. Is the PPG too dulled by years of working with the Grits to think of a workaround?

[Antonia]

Hey, I have an idea. Why not let Harper take over CBC and just turn it into a "conduit through which Stephen Harper can get his coverage across."

[PhantomObserver]

Probably because Harper thinks the CBC is better off with HNIC and the Friday Night snoozefest.

Of course, there's always Blogging Tories Television ...

[Jay Currie]

Robert, I was agreeing with you...And, frankly, the only people harper has to answer to are MPs. He can tell the PPG that there will be no press availibilities and be entirely within his rights. (He'd be an idiot to do so; but that is a different question.)

[Bill-Muskoka]

***PO,***

I'm with you on this issue. I call and write my MP and get replies via email, and Post! I have even received letters from Cabinet Ministers from my MP's referral to them.

That is how I decide things, not by childish scrums!

***Robert,***

Actually when you say:

'They ask the questions we want asked--theoretically of course, though it works out fairly well in practice too.'

I have to say BS! I have never had a reporter call me to ask my opinion on anything. They live in their own little world and are clueless in most cases what real issues are.

That, of course, is giving exception to their coffee house clique's questions, their editors, and corporate friends.

BTW, our former MP failed to respond in a manner that addressed my questions. His responses were canned from the PMO. He did not get my vote in the last election.

I demand my MP think and speak as an individual to our district's needs. The new one, also a cabinet minister, remains on trial. So far, his press conferences have been a big improvement is straight talk. Guess what? He is a Conservative. I, on the other hand did not vote for him either. Both left me cold.

I will give credit where it is due and criticism where it is due. They, recall this point, work for me and the people of this district. They do not work for the PM, or their party, at least they will not for long if they think that way!

[Robert McClelland]

"Did we, as voters, hire the members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery?"

No, but we as consumers can influence the members of the PPG if they fail to serve our interests.

"Do our MPs ask questions? Yes, through Question Period, caucus and committee meetings, and other relations."

Snort. Good one. Yes, lets rely on the government to keep the government in check. Next up Phantom Observer tells us of his plan to allow prison inmates to guard each other.

"Are there other conduits through which Stephen Harper can get his coverage across? Yes: other members of the media, official websites, blogs, etc."

True, but here's the thing. Harper needs to get his message out to all the people who didn't vote for him. Preaching to the choir doesn't do that. So it's relatively meaningless for his message to be broadcast on a site that isn't being seen or read by the people who didn't vote for him.

[Hose Phantom Observers's meaningless argument that the press is a pack of spoiled brats and are only making this an issue because their stories aren't being handed to them on silver platters.]

"Furthermore, it's obvious the public doesn't care about their complaints"

What am I, chopped liver?

"Is the PPG too dulled by years of working with the Grits to think of a workaround?"

Why should the issues of transparency and access to government become a game of cat and mouse? What possible good can come of that?

[Dana]

I rather imagine Harper is counting on a combination of exhaustion, apathy and antipathy toward the press to ally with him in reducing press scrutiny of his government.

Working well so far.

Would have worked well for a number of previous governments too. Too bad they didn't think of it. Mulroney could have governed a lot longer if it wasn't for all that negative press. Chretien would surely have preferred that the press not have been around to listen to Fraser.

Only time will tell I suppose.

In any event I don't think anyone in the world will care a whit if Canada finally succumbs to the truth of the post-NAFTA reality and stops pretending that we're independent of DC.

A few Canadians here and there maybe but fuck 'em.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Dana,

GEEZ! Get off the fence and say what you feel! LOL

NAFTA: 'Not Another Friggin' Trade Agreement'!

[JDot]

The world has gone mad, I agree with Mr. Muskoka And Mrs Antonio on this. But you two will never bring me to the Dark side (the left lol).

[CapitalCat]

I probably don't have the right to comment, since my only qualification is that I spent eight years in the PPG back in the 70s and 80s. Nevertheless, I am amused by all the blather about the monolithic nature of my colleages.

When I was there, you couldn't get us to agree on lunch. We had Tories, Grits, NDPers and a couple of Commies. Some of the people later went on to political gigs, for various parties. The situation hasn't changed much in the decades since. When Paul Martin finally succeeded in ousting Chretien, a host of reporters slithered off to the dark side to work for Liberal cabinet ministers. With the recent change in government, a veteran gallery member jumped over to become Peter MacKay's press secretary.

I know the tin-hat brigade likes to amuse itself with visions of how a liberal (or Liberal) media clique conspires to brainwash the populace, but it just ain't so.

[Bill-Muskoka]

JDot,

'The world has gone mad, I agree with Mr. Muskoka And Mrs Antonio on this. But you two will never bring me to the Dark side (the left lol).'

Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated! LMAO!

[Bill-Muskoka]

Todays' breaking news from the Star!

Environmental Minister Rona Ambrose(star of RMR and Maple syrup) clarified that the reason a climate scientist was told to NOT appear is because he, allegedly, claimed to be a government scientist.

Now, that is well within the rights of PMO to decide. If people misrepresent on who's behalf they are speaking then censure is appropriate. Otheriwse, it is political muddling which we have all grown so accustomed to from our southerly neighbors.

'Climate change expert muzzled
Federal scientist told not to speak about his novel Government also axes 15 Kyoto research programs'
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1144965014231&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Now, it seems to me that Susan Delacourt has done a connect the dots that is probably not deserved. She has linked the book 'Hotter Than Hell' to a constriction of free speech, and political innuendo to attack the Harper government.

This to me exemplifies the problem with the media. Instead of simply reporting the news they have to start editorializing and pronogsticating what it means. Buried within the article are the simple facts which are more than sufficient to express the issues at hand.

Likewise, she mentions 15 research prgrams being cancelled, but does not list even one of them, nada, nyet! This is what irritates me about the MSM and especially the PPG. They are nothing more than gossip columnists.

What programs were cancelled Susan? Why were they cancelled Susan? How much did they cost Susan? Who was running them Susan? Yada, yada, yada. 'Factual and useful' should be the motto of the PPG from now on.

All the innuendos regarding Harper and the PMO are unnecessary. At least if your want to be a regarded as a journalist and not merely a scrummer! Write the details that matter to the people. Were any of the cancelled programs wasteful? Were they gimmees by the former government to employ 'friends' like AdScam?

Footnote: Not all scientists are objective, nor scientific, despite their earned title and PhD. Some are simply advocates of a position. We should not worship scientists, respect good science Yes!

I watched Minister of the Environment Ambrose on RMR and, sheesh, she would not hurt a tree. She may be a very good minister actually.

[Diku]

A very thoughtful discussion so far... I'm actually pleased that Boag incorporated his criticism of the PMO's communications strategy (a bit of an oxymoron, perhaps) into the larger story of the so-called accountability legislation. If the two should be separate stories, the criticism of the PMO should lead.

Folks, the Harper PMO has clearly learned from the Bush administration's communications approach (i.e., carefully refine message, greatly restrict access, favour certain reporters/outlets) but has run into one thing they don't have in the U.S. -- reporters that aren't subservient to authority.

Susan Bonner from the CBC noted that Harper didn't host a technical briefing BEFORE his presser, which seemed a departure from tradition. Actually, it's a departure that forces reporters to go into a presser uninformed and with less ability to ask quality questions -- although we're seeing that Harper won't answer questions anyway.

All this serves to promote misinformation in the public realm.

Check out the book "All the President's Spin" and you'll quickly see the parallels. In the meantime, I'll be encouraging the media to make the PMO's non-communications strategy the real story.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Here is what I consider 'creative' writing: LMAO!

Sad news...

Please join me in remembering a great icon of the entertainment community.?

The Pillsbury Doughboy died yesterday of a yeast infection and trauma complications from repeated pokes in the belly.? He was 71.

Doughboy was buried in a lightly greased coffin.

Dozens of celebrities turned out to pay their respects, including Mrs. Butterworth, Hungry Jack, the California Raisins, Betty Crocker, the Hostess Twinkies, and Captain Crunch. The grave site was piled high with flours.

Aunt Jemima delivered the eulogy and lovingly described Doughboy as a man who never knew how much he was kneaded.

Doughboy rose quickly in show business, but his later life was filled with turnovers.? He was not considered a very smart cookie, wasting much of his dough on half-baked schemes.? Despite being a little flaky at times he still was a crusty old man and was considered a positive roll model for millions.

Doughboy is survived by his wife Play Dough, two children, John Dough and Jane Dough, plus they had one in the oven.? He is also survived by his elderly father, Pop Tart.

The funeral was held at 3:50 for about 20 minutes.

If this made you smile for even a brief second, please rise to the occasion and take the time to pass it on and share that smile with someone else who may be having a crumby day and kneads it.

[DJ Allen]

Thanks Bill. Not only did I smile about the PDB but I really laughed out loud. I hope it helps Dana out of her funk.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Diku,

'has run into one thing they don't have in the U.S. -- reporters that aren't subservient to authority.'

I am curious how you come to that belief?

[Antonia]

HERE IS BOAG'S SCRIPT. WAS TAYLOR FAIR TO HIM? WAS I? WAS BOAG FAIR TO THE PMO? YOU JUDGE:

Keith: Peter Accountability was the issue that defeated the Liberals
and brought the Conservatives into power. So you bet they wanted to
make a big deal out of their first piece of legislation today.

(actuality)

The Prime Minister invited reporters to jam themselves into the small
but elegant space known as the Commonwealth Room on Parliament Hill to
hear his big annoucement.

There he introduced them to what he hopes is a new dawn in Canadian
politics.

HARPER: 10:33:40 SIMPLY PUT THESE AND OTHER MEASURES WILL CHANGE THE
WAY BUSINESS IS DONE IN OTTAWA FOREVER AND THEY WILL REPLACE THE CULTURE
OF ENTITLEMENT THAT TOOK ROOT UNDER THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT WITH A
CULTURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY

Or, as the minister responsible translated:

BAIRD:10:35:31 THE DAYS OF KICKBACK SCHEMES AND ENVELOPES WITH CASH ARE
OVER.

It's a wide-ranging bill containing more than three hundred clauses and
reporters had dozens of questions about it.

But the PM allowed only one in each official language. Then he left to
champion public accountability, transparency and openess...elsewhere.

(actuality from Gomery)

The Gomery Inquiry into the sponsorship scandal last year; the
government's bill has everything to do with that.

It doesn't bother with Judge Gomery's own recommendations, but it does
offer a framework for changing the way advertising, sponsorship and
polling contracts are awarded.

And it promises so much MORE than that too.

(actuality...Ralph's budget)

Fed up with the old government repeatedly celebrating with surprise a
sudden surplus of tax revenues, the new government is promising a
Parliamentary Budget Officer to ensure, TRUTH in budgeting.

(actuality...)

And the revolving door that allowed politicians and bureaucrats to pass
easily from government to lobbying government will stop. The new law
will force them to wait five years between those careers.

(actuality)

And still there is more in these pages. The promise of wider access to
information, changes to the ethics commissioners office to include a new
conflict of interest act, greater scope for the auditor general's
office, new restrictive rules for political party financing, the
creation of a director of public prosecutions.

The language the government uses to describe these changes reveals its
deep distrust of the status quo. It's replete with verbs such as reform,
ban, strengthen, clean up, ensure truth.

(actuality)

In the House Liberals crowed that the Conservatives were already snared
in their own trap many times over.

(Brian Murphy: 14:40:05 Mr. Speaker, David Salvatore, now a registered
lobbyist, worked until the month of March for the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration)

( Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):14:31:51 he refuses to
accept that he made a mistake in appointing a lobbyist as Minister of
National Defence.)

(Stephen Owen: 14:34:14 The Prime Minister's former policy chief is a
lobbyist whose client list includes major communications, energy and
investment companies)

The government's defense in every case was that, as of today, it has
set a higher standard for behaviour than ever existed before.

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):14:33:20 Mr.
Speaker, this morning the government tabled the most comprehensive
reforms to regain the public trust that was so egregiously violated by
the Liberal Party in its 13 years in office.

On Camera: Obviously there are few issues for Parliament that are
trickier for MPs than these. After all, the proposed legislation
regulates their own behaviour and the behavior of many of their friends.
So, in lots of ways, it's personal. Peter?

Q: Does any of that mean the government will have a problem making it
law?

A: Unlikely. Whether they like it or not, MPs are not going to make
this piece of legislation their hill to die on. There is no upside for
anyone in politics these days to try to campaign against something
called an accountability act. Even if they think it's excessive, MPs
know these are scrupulous times.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

WOWSERS! You lost me right ont he very first transcripted sentence! LMAO

'Keith: Peter Accountability was the issue that defeated the Liberals and brought the Conservatives into power.'

Were they coming up that SHORT? LMAO!

Sorry, but that was too good to passby.