The cone of silence

We here in the Star's Ottawa bureau have been doing a lot of thinking lately about the communications operation in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government. If you're one of those people who believes that all this is just the whiny media, you might as well stop reading now.

If you're interested, however, first, there are these two fine articles in today's paper, by our own Richard Brennan.

And then there's the experience of Allan Woods, who accompanied Harper on last week's trip to Bucharest and Poland.

Let's jump right ahead to the end of the trip and the return flight. All the reporters on the plane were offered a 10-minute, off-the-record conversation with Harper — all except the Star's reporter. Participating reporters also received a bottle of vodka as a gift.

(We should note here that the Star bureau, as a rule, is not in the habit of having off-the-record conversations with prime ministers, of any political stripe.)

Why, though, was Woods not offered a sit-down with Harper? Well, as far as we can figure, it's because he had tried to ask the Prime Minister a question — about anti-gay slurs made 16 years ago by Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski.

The Star operates on the quaint notion that reporters are paid to ask politicians questions on the news of the day — and that politicians should not try to control or intimidate the questioners. PMO officials complained that Woods was being "rude" and "inappropriate" for daring to ask the question at the end of a photo opportunity. And so the Star was punished, so to speak, with no invitation to chat with Harper on the way home.

Harper, readers should know, has developed a bit of a habit of travelling abroad, on the taxpayers' dime, and avoiding contact with reporters (whose trip costs are paid by their own news organizations, usually in the realm of several thousand dollars). This has resulted in ridiculous situations, including several occasions when Canadian reporters have had to rely on foreign governments to brief them on meetings our own Prime Minister holds with other international leaders.

This latest trip was no exception. It started out well enough, with Harper even doing a panel discussion in Bucharest.

But then the silence descended. The Prime Minister and his delegation made their way to Poland for a visit to Auschwitz and a session with Lech Walesa. What did Harper have to say about all this? Nothing. All he would permit were photographs.

Do other leaders of major nations do this? Uh, no. Can you imagine George W. Bush trying to avoid the White House media travelling abroad with him — saying no questions, only pictures?

 

Comments

[bob]

Susan,

That is hilarious. Your reporter tries to pull a gotcha over a 16 year old piece of footage?

He deserves to get shut-out.

If you want to play that game, here are two words: Bill Graham.

The gallery is bunch of whiners and you are leading the charge.

Bob

[Wascally Wabbit]

It wouldn't surprise me if your previous commenter "Bobs" obsequiously when President Harper enters the room....
Actually I think Bush-Lite is practicing exactly what he preaches to his caucus through his little "how to handle the media" cards...Say nothing - and they can't "getcha"..
He knows where all the skeletons are - lets see if the Opposition parties can dig them up fast enough and tar this government, not just with the most tight lipped, and most rightwing labels...but the most bigoted too!
That should focus the voters' minds!
Oh - and they might throw in a few alternative policies too - so the voters know they are NOT totally out in left field....

[jad]

"We here in the Star's Ottawa bureau have been doing a lot of thinking lately about the communications operation in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government."

Wow. As a newspaper you are supposed to comment on the communications operation in the government. I would have thought government policy, but what do I know.

"these two fine articles in today's paper, by our own Richard Brennan. "

I think you need to figure out how to do links, as I could only find one, but maybe I'm just keyboard-challenged. Anyway, since he's your boss, I guess we all have to agree they are fine articles.

"All the reporters on the plane were offered a 10-minute, off-the-record conversation with Harper — all except the Star's reporter. (We should note here that the Star bureau, as a rule, is not in the habit of having off-the-record conversations with prime ministers, of any political stripe.) "

So if you're not in the habit of doing off-the-record conversations, what's your problem - did you just really want that cheap bottle of Polish vodka ?

"Well, as far as we can figure, it's because he had tried to ask the Prime Minister a question — about anti-gay slurs made 16 years ago by Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski"

Leaving aside the vodka jokes and the whiny reporter comments, why exactly do you feel it is up to the media to decide that the issue of the day is a 16-year old tape, and not an agreement that affects not only the population of Afghanistan, but also a large percentage fo the Canadian military ?

"Harper, readers should know, has developed a bit of a habit of travelling abroad, on the taxpayers' dime," and this would be to where exactly - the G8 , APEC etc. and where else ?

"and avoiding contact with reporters (whose trip costs are paid by their own news organizations, usually in the realm of several thousand dollars). "

You surely are not trying to say that taxpayers should be on the hook for media trips with the Prime Minister, particularly if he is on some kind of pleasure jaunt ?

"with Harper even doing a panel discussion in Bucharest."

This was a panel in front of an invited audience, hosted by a very well-connected lady from the BBC. The other participants were the President of Afghanistan and the NATO Secretary-General. Prime Minister Harper was nominated by the other leaders at the NATO conference to represent them. Surely this would have been worth another fine article by Richard Brennan ? But apparently not.

"The Prime Minister and his delegation made their way to Poland for a visit to Auschwitz and a session with Lech Walesa. What did Harper have to say about all this?"

From everything I have read by others who have visited the death camps, this is not an experience people particularly want to chatter about. Unlike Mr. Martin, Harper does not feel the need to share his innermost emotions all the time. Why is this so difficult for the media to understand/accept ?

"Can you imagine George W. Bush trying to avoid the White House media travelling abroad with him — saying no questions, only pictures?"

Oh really now, George Bush is being held up as a shining example for Prime Minister Harper to emulate ? This really is scraping the barrel.