Taking the Hill

This morning, a whole bunch of Ottawa journalism types got together to discuss how they are going to handle the stand-off between the Parliamentary Press Gallery (PPG) and the Prime Minister's Office. Late this afternoon, this email went out from Brian Laghi, Ottawa bureau chief for the Globe and Mail, to all the bureau chiefs and gallery executive who got together today.

Howdy all:

I've just has a discussion with (Globe editor-in-chief) Ed Greenspon, who says he is trying to set up a meeting with various and sundry newspaper editors tomorrow attending the (National Newspaper Awards). He has asked that we hold off making any decision on what to do with respect to the PMO until he and others get a chance to discuss it. He also hopes to bring in broadcast editors into the discussion in short order. I left the meeting this morning a little unclear on whether we were going to bring the compromise idea to the membership. But I'd suggest that we try to keep this on the backburner, at least until our editors get a chance to weigh in. Ed is attempting to get together with editors as early as tomorrow.

Thanks,

Brian.

What's fascinating -- to me anyway -- is how this conflict is playing out in the blogosphere. The left/progressive types are either using it to bash Prime Minister Stephen Harper and compare him to U.S. President George W. Bush, while the right is mostly saying nobody cares, what do we need the media for, bloggers can do a better job and the media are just a lazy bunch of whiners.

Here's a sampling from different parts of the spectrum.

Doucheblog:

Who said this?

"Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government" ...

"They [won't] ask questions at my press conferences now.

"We'll just get the message out on the road. There's lots of media in the country who do want to ask me questions and hear what the government is doing."

Was it Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Snow?

No, it was the very-accountable Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of my country, who's made government accountability his prime issue. How'd that one turn out? He's now shutting up his own ministers and shutting out the national media.

Far and Wide nails it on how Harper plans to take his message to Hinterlandsville:

Harper's anti-national media strategy will probably backfire for obvious reasons. However, I also think Harper's statements show little respect for local media. Harper states that he will talk over the national media, directly to local outlets to "get his message out". This belief pre-supposes a relatively benign local press, that simply jots down the propaganda and disseminates it to the masses. Translation, Harper prefers the less "sophisticated", or accomplished media to be his faciliator.

Harper's tactic may actually alienate some local media, and backfire in the sense that they will now see it as duty to be more critical, lest they look like government patsies.

Meaghan seconds that emotion.

The fact is, just about every reporter working for a small newspaper or local media outlet is hoping to make a name for themselves, build a portfolio and scratch and climb their way up the media food-chain.

Guess what? That means they are less docile, polite and friendly than large scale media reporters of the PPG. For regular members of the PPG, getting scrum time with the Prime Minister is no big deal. It's not really personal for them. They are there to do a job, and that job entails asking the Prime Minister questions. This dynamic means there is a certain familiarity between the Prime Minister and the PPG. There are questions that everybody knows not to bother asking because it was just asked by somebody else, or it's already been asked to death before.

This is not the case with small-scale media reporters.

Here's an example of what Stephen Harper can expect were he to show up in say Nanaimo or Duncan to meet the local press: He would be met by about a dozen reporters from all the local papers who would hammer him with questions about the softwood deal his government struck with Washington. These questions would not be friendly. And Harper would not be able to get away with snapping tersely "I already answered that - let's move on!", because these reporters would say things like

"You may have answered that question to other people back East, but not to our readers whose lives have been nearly destroyed and damaged by the Softwood situation.''

Indeed, remember that Woodward and Bernstein were once two hungry city reporters, not a member of the elite Beltway press pack.

Red Tory spanks the PM's handlers here.

It’s difficult to see how this latest petulant outburst will benefit Harper and the Conservatives. No doubt it will delight his supporters, many of whom despise the “loony left media” with an almost irrational degree of hatred. I suspect however that many average Canadians will not be fooled by Harper’s new communications strategy of taking his message “directly to the people” and will quickly realize it for what it is: naked propaganda.

Meanwhile, in RightWingia, Small Dead Animals invokes SS tactics.

A reader has asked a very good question - is there a list anywhere of the names of the members of the Ottawa press gallery who walked out on the Harper news conference on Darfur?

I'd appreciate the information, if someone has it to send along or drop into the comments section. The media demands transparency from politicians - Canadians should expect no less from them.

Let's have the names, and those of their employers.

Yes Kate, and then let's publish their home and cell phone numbers too, why don't you?

Stephen Taylor questions the need for having a press gallery.

In this modern world of the 24 hour news cycle, via satellite dissemination, and the ubiquitous bloggers, is the PPG as critical as it once was when it was the only link between the federal government and the electorate?

Right. Why not just publish government statements in newspapers and leave it at that?

Which brings us to this, (not the Stephen) Colbert Report.

The government’s push to get things done leaves the gallery to simply report the news as a fait accompit. It’s hard to justify your salary when you are simply re-typing press releases.

Uh ... isn't that what they're trying to avoid?

But Colbert continues:

The Canadian people get 45 minutes every day to ask the government any question they want through their elected representatives and every four years they get to express their opinion of how the government has served them. There is no constitutional right extended to the media to ask questions to any person. They have the freedom to write their stories but my copy of the constitution seems to be missing the right to shout out questions section.

Yes, well, technically that's true. But they don't want to SHOUT out their questions. They want to line up quietly at microphones and ask them quietly. Unfortunately, the PMO wants to choose the questioners from a list -- which could mean he will only choose those who are friendly to him and his government.

Just how democratic is that?

Comments

[Antonia Z.]

Tonight Harper said that the public does not care about media access.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/25/harper-press.html

Meanwhile, his MPs have been muzzled on the marrying Mounties.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n052589A

[dave k]

I don't think Harper is so naive as to think media members outside of the PPG are likely to be "patsies". In fact it seems ridiculous to even suggest that - who would really believe that reporters outside of Ottawa, in the remote outposts of Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver, etc., are going to be "unsophisticated" and "benign". As if. Maybe, just maybe, Harper has some valid complaints about the culture of the PPG. Paul Wells has an interesting post today on the caliber of reporting coming from the parliamentary press gallery in recent years.
Personally, if there is a problem with the PPG, I would suspect it's less the result of bias than of "groupthink", which is a likely situation anywhere you have a small number of the same people working together day-in and day-out. This probably leads to some of the "ganging up" and "gotcha" tactics we see at times. In fact I believe Paul Martin (or his handlers) complained about this as well.

[Robert McClelland]

"Tonight Harper said that the public does not care about media access."

Somebody should ask Harper why it is then that the public is all talking about this if they don't care about.

As for the boasts from the Blogging Snories that they are all Harper needs to get his message out, somebody should ask them why it is that none of them are blogging about Harper's message. Maybe Stephen Taylor can point us to all those posts on his blog where he's doing that.

[Markc]

That "could" kind of spoils your argument. You might as well have said:

which could mean he will choose only men to ask questions. Just how non-sexist is that?

which could mean he will choose only English speakers to ask questions. Just how accepting of francophones is that?

which could mean he will choose only French speakers to ask questions. Just how accepting of anglophones is that?

etc.etc.etc.

Your argument is circular: the government is undemocratic, therefore the PPG must control who asks questions, in order to preserve democracy.

Thus, your argument carries weight with people who already believe the government is undemocratic, not with those who don't.

Last time I looked, I got to vote for the government, not the PPG.

[Elvid]

I guess I'll have to wait until the next issue of Frank to see who played "Exit thatta way" at the press conference. Don't know why knowing who they are will mean the next step is Dachau.

[Jay Currie]

Nice to see Colbert is up to speed on stuff being discussed here three days ago.

The lefties attempt to paint Harper as a Bush mini-me flounders on the fact of their constitutional ignorance.

The Prime Minister of Canada is indeed obligated to answer questions...in Parliament. Which renders the PPG somewhat redundant. The American President, on the other hand, does not answer to the legislative branch and does no answer questions from the peoples representatives in the Legislature.

This means that in the US, unless the press actively questions the President, no one can. This is not the case in Canada.

Had our lefty friends a tad more international savvy they might make the more correct connection between the Liberal and, sadly, the CPC's attempt to emulate Tony Blair's spin machine with its rather ingenous bypassing of the lobby correspondents. But that would not further the mini-me Bush meme the poor, sad lefties are clinging to in the hopes of doing down Harper.

In the rush to stake positions on whether or not the Harper communications strategy pays due respect to the solons of the PPG, the question of whether or not this is smart politics seems to have been lost. For the moment it seems to be simply because the PPG has done such a lousy job for so long. However, if Harper made nice he might well be able to corrupt the PPG as throughly as the Liberals did which might well be to his longer term political advantage.

[Jay Currie]

I can't help but note that Harper's bypass strategy you link to Antonia was exactly what I predicted he'd do in an earlier thread....Trust me, no on is going to be marching in the streets to protect the self asserted "rights" of the underperforming PPG. However, more than a few News directors might be wondering why they have people in Ottawa given that those people are refusing to report the news.

[Elvid]

Paul Wells has an interesting history of the conflict between the parliamentary press gallery and prime ministers back to St. Laurent. Not too many of them have enjoyed the process and have tried to manipulate it in their favour. The St.. Laurent coments made me laugh out loud..

http://weblogs.macleans.ca/paulwells/archives/week_2006_05_21-2006_05_27.asp#002348

......[Louis] St. Laurent respected the press and media as having as important a job to do as Parliamentarians. But this did not mean that St. Laurent was willing to be 'scrummed.' Reporters would stand patiently in an East Block corridor waiting for cabinet meetings to end. When they approached the prime minister with a question about what had been discussed, he would usually cut them off curtly. 'You have no right whatsoever to examine my mind,' he'd tell them. 'if there will be some action, I will let you know.'"

————

"Whereas Diefenbaker relished the challenge of the corridor debates, Pearson found them impossible.... At the suggestion of press secretary Dick O'Hagan, the journalists were moved into a special conference room. ... Two long and trying years went by before Pearson finally banned this media circus from Parliament's hallways for the duration of his term in office."

[CapitalCat]

Jay Currie's comments get more pathetic with each post.

First, there is no obligation for the Prime Minister or any cabinet minister to show up at Question Period. If they do, there is no obligation for them to answer questions. Beauchesne's rules of order merely state that the opposition has the opportunity to ask questions.

I am amused by all these mouth-breathers who back the PM by using their old shibbolith "the media is left-wing". Even if that were true, which it isn't, I am surprised that these yahoos who scream about rights abuse over smoking legislation and gun control have no hestitation to deny freedom of the press to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

We should also consider the historical record. The PPG has existed for several decades. It has outlasted many governments, Liberal, Tory and Unionist, and it will outlast these bozos too.

[Justin]

Sorry but who owes his election victory - in large part - to the gentle treatment he received from the Canadian press?

I was astounded at the number of newspaper covers during the campaign that featured beaming, smiling picture of Stephen Harper. I soon found myself thinking, "sure, when he smiles I can SEE the muscles in his face aching against such a dormant pose but he loves BABIES darnit!"

I mean, had the press actually wanted to play hard ball with this guy they could have done a special 30-part series called "HARPER'S CANDIDATE'S: JUST WHO IS THE CRAZIEST OF THEM ALL?" Could've made it call-in style too. A national contest Stockwell actually would've actually had a chance of winning.

Anyway Harper should realize that he's got too much to hide to be pissing off the press. A few headlines about his motley crue of MPs and he'll be lucky to get another minority government.

The anti-gay, anti-choice Conservatives had better hope there's no french equivlent for the term 'completely batshit'.

[Jay Currie]

"no hestitation to deny freedom of the press to anyone who doesn't agree with them".

How is saying "my press conference, my rules" denying freedom of the press?

However, as Paul Martin demonstrated during the confidence crisis last May, a Prime Minister who is scared of the House can certainly not show up for days at a time. And the longer he stays away the more inevidable his eventual defeat will be. Similarily, a PM who flat out refuses to answer questions in the House is not going to remain PM very long.

As for the tradition of the PPG - so what. Things change. It is now quite possible for a Prime Minister to run a communications strategy which somewhat or entirely bypasses the PPG. And, no, not by running a blog. Rather by making himself available in other parts of the country and through non-traditional media. For most of the PPG's history MSM was the sole way a Prime Minister could communicate his program. Now it's not.

And I note that right, centerist and "mouthbreathing" (wow what a clever gibe) critiques of the PPG's hissy fit tend to be more concerned with the sheer incompetence of the PPG rather than its alledged left wing bias. An incompetence which is underscored by many of its more intelligent members.

[Ti-Guy]

"Nice to see Colbert is up to speed on stuff being discussed here three days ago."

That's not a very nice thing to say. Colbert tries very hard, you know. Why are you so mean to him?

"The lefties attempt to paint Harper as a Bush mini-me flounders on the fact of their constitutional ignorance."

No, it doesn't. You've invoked this silly constitutional argument already, yet no one I know is arguing the Constitution so far.

"The Prime Minister of Canada is indeed obligated to answer questions...in Parliament. Which renders the PPG somewhat redundant. The American President, on the other hand, does not answer to the legislative branch and does no answer questions from the peoples representatives in the Legislature."

What's the point of this?

"This means that in the US, unless the press actively questions the President, no one can. This is not the case in Canada."

Well, that's boring.

"Had our lefty friends a tad more international savvy..."

How arrogant and untrue. Most lefties I know are pretty wordly.

"...they might make the more correct connection between the Liberal and, sadly, the CPC's attempt to emulate Tony Blair's spin machine with its rather ingenous bypassing of the lobby correspondents."

Huh?

"But that would not further the mini-me Bush meme the poor, sad lefties are clinging to in the hopes of doing down Harper."

You know, your condescention is becoming a little vulgar.

"In the rush to stake positions..."

Ok, I stopped here. Fisking lil' ol' Jay Currie's missives to the world wasn't nearly as fun as thought it would be.

[Todd]

Harper's taking his media show on the road might not backfire after all.

The media outlets outside of the turf staked out by the big ones would tend to be far less magnanimous with their employees, like any other small employer. Employees who get paid less tend to be less uppity, push comes to shove also.

[sooey]

ooh. time to go fleet street on his pasty white arse!

[Bill-Muskoka]

Jay,

When you say: 'The Prime Minister of Canada is indeed obligated to answer questions...in Parliament. Which renders the PPG somewhat redundant. The American President, on the other hand, does not answer to the legislative branch and does not answer questions from the peoples representatives in the Legislature.'

Despite the disagreeance of CaptiolCat, I agree with you. CapitolCat points out the legal aspect, but you point out the reality aspect.

The POTUS has had the media so well heeled in the U.S. for decades that they can only attack the WH Spokeperson. It has led to a standard of denial, evasion, and loss of trust.

Now, as of last night, I am watching to see what happens after Bush, and because he finally owned up to his biggest mistake, a lack of sophistication' I will call him Mr. Bush instead of Dubya, Dumbya, moron, and a few other names I will not post here.

The biggest, and most frustrating issue to me is a leader's attitude. If Harper wants respect he must learn to show it. I see no difference whatsoever between him and the PPG, or between how we as individuals get along as human beings.

I have personally dealt with the MSM and have had my statements, made in the most sincere and earnest, honest manner, totally spun into a completely opposite meaning to suit their agenda. That is what too many have experienced.

So, the bottom line to me is Harper needs to learn real leadership. That means involving himself with the media on a personal basis as a human being.

I seriously doubt that he will make the grade based on his own display of inability to even extend warmth to his own children. A parent does not shake their young child's hand, they hug and embrace them.

So, this battle will be argued to death, and until both Harper and the PPG start treating each other as plain human beings it will continue. Today authoritarian rule is laughed at by most people becayse we know freedom.

Let's face it...if Mr. Bush can overcome his faults, then Harper can as well. If he has the content of character and courage to do so.

Likewise, as a footnote, I am now seriously watching news events to see if Mr. Bush's revelation last night is a shield for his own petard.

The recent events of Bush meeting Howard, Howard meeting Harper, and now Blair with Bush tell me something is afoot.

There is just too much coincidence in too shprt a time period. Has someone discovered a collusionary pact between them? Just a thought to ponder. They are all suffering in their respective arenas.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Justin,

You are right. Martin helped him a lot as well with those ridiculous attack ads. Jon Stewart tallied those up perfectly BTW.

It left me saying..'Hmm these clowns want to be my Leader? Do I see leadership in either of them? NO! I only saw two guys seeking power for the sake of power itself, and them not caring about my country, the needs of the people, or anything of real value. They were both treating the people like cheap street whores trying to buy our support. That was a VERY BAD move for them both. I still remember they were using MY MONEY to bribe me.

Likewise, on the local riding level, I saw two candidates neither of whom were truly interested in our riding's needs. The incumbent had proven he was a puppet of the PMO, and the dropin (parachuted) candidate only being a party puppet as well.

I demand far more of someone who wants to be my leader...its called real leadership ability, not mere politics.

[Todd]

Beg pardon.

That should have been "What Liberal Media?" not "What Liberal Bias?"

[sooey]

you know, todd - the liberal media what sho'nuff be shuckin' an' jivin' 't ain't wantin' no dumbass pinko gubmint.

[Bill-Muskoka]

sooey,

You just get back from down South? LMAO!

[sooey]

well... i think if the toronto star is the liberal media we need another adjective in the middle. how 'bout "coporate"...

[sooey]

or for you keen spellers out there "corporate".

[Bill-Muskoka]

sooey,

WOoooooooHEE! I sure am glad you posted that corrected because it was so very close to 'copulate', eh? LMAO!

[Mark-Alan Whittle]

This whole PPG snooty nosed stinker is pretty funny stuff, in it's own right AZ. What a blast radius, I'm impressed. I see Robert's has regressed to name-calling again. Empty vessels like Robert are hard to fill, when they are full of holes like McClelland's sieve-like anti-conservative arguments.

At least Jay Currie understands the dynamics involved, before he flies off on the wings of 'what if" assumptions that are far off the beam.

Funny how many ink stained scribes have discovered their 'moral imperatives' now that Stephens at the helm, instead of that quintessential ditherer, Paul Martin.

That venal Liberal elite made their jobs oh, so easy. They (the msm) loved re-writing his (Dithers) platitudinous press releases, twenty dollar words and all. He was full of crap most of the time, wasn't he?

With Stephen, it's, "Just the facts, please", and thank-you. Sign up here to ask questions. That way Susan will ensure all msm get the same opportunities. Nobody will get to double-dip, hog the microphone, or shout down the apprentice journalist, just trying to get their wings unfurled.

They should do no less for Harper, but won't. Institutional arrogance run amok.

It sure it takes some getting used to new boots, but forcing the issue only steels Harpers resolve. Get out the linseed oil, it's time for a little PPG boot-strapping.

Harper's a master at regional communications, that's why the Conservative Party of Canada is flush with cash, individual donations on a grand scale. This machine is well cultivated already, a mature, attentive audience awaits, now that our whistles been whetted.

Political Vertical Marketing 101, up close and personal.

So using the 'tools' at hand to inform voters of Canada's future course and direction is a natural fit, like a good pair of work-boots compared to that warm, comfy fir you 'guys' got used to wearing on your shoulders.

Harpers words are few because actions speak so much louder. Going direct to the common man makes it a win, win for building a majority, one voter at a time, like the big banks are doing.

Stock up on Root-Beer folks, it's going to be a long, hot summer. Say hi to Stephen for me when he drops by your place for a hot-dog and an ice, cold beer, an A&W Root Beer. For 'The Boss".

[Bill-Muskoka]

Mark-Alan Whittle,

You said:

'instead of that quintessential ditherer, Paul Martin.'

Well, while I think you are right on most your points, I would say that watching PM Harper on Global National tonight he instantly reminded me of Mr. Dithers. There were more um's, uh-huh's, than words said by him. He is not a good impromtu speaker

So, Dithers comes in both flavours it seems! LOL.

[Jon]

Mr. Harper is not a dynamic speaker, BillM, and, as you have noted, speaking off the cuff is not his forte. He does, however, give an honest and complete answer that actually relates to the question that was asked. To compare that in any way to the deliberate obfuscation PMPM is ridiculous.