What doesn't change

The morning papers are filled with commentary about the Liberals' "thinkers' conference" last weekend -- all from people who didn't attend the event. The most harsh criticism comes from The Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente, who argues that Michael Ignatieff is "cooked" because his party is trying to dream up new social programs and grand, expensive new  national projects. This is more or less the line from some National Post commentators too. 

On Saturday, several of us (those actually in the room) were listening quite closely when Ignatieff made these remarks. 

“I think the really interesting thing that’s coming out of the conference for me  -- and I’m still still trying to formulate it -- is a different vision of government, that is not command and control,” Ignatieff said in an online interview on Saturday afternoon. “We can’t do it from Ottawa. And an activist government doesn’t mean another big, high-ticket federal program. What it means is getting a network of deciders together to face common problems.” 

I'm intrigued about the way a handful of columnists can write that Liberals want a big high-ticket federal program, or a carbon tax, or whatever, in the face of the opposite statement coming from the actual conference.  There may be several ways in which this is interesting, and maybe even a bit disturbing.

• One of my colleagues argued that no one was ever going to understand what Ignatieff was saying about "networked" government and his hopes for a federal government that would "convene" rather than command from the centre. I fear today's papers may prove her correct.
• It's great that technology allows for columnists to report on events that they haven't attended -- I'm assuming all of these commenters followed proceedings on the web or TV.  But it's obviously not a substitute for actually being in the room and listening to the nuance of the discussions and the general tone. There's a problem here, not new to journalism as I've seen it over the past 20 years.  One way of reporting on this meeting was to actually attend, listen, take notes, ask questions of the attendees -- and then write up what happened. Another way is to sit outside and take shots at the event with simplistic pronouncements. We learned back in the constitutional days that the latter kind of reporting/commentary usually prevails. What a dunce I am, actually going to the trouble of travelling to Montreal and sitting through three days of discussions.  I should have stayed home and written about it from afar.
• One Liberal said to me last weekend that the people criticizing the predominance of "old white guys" at the meeting were old white guys themselves.  Similarly, all this stuff about Liberals as tax and spenders comes generally from people who came of age in the 1970s, when the Liberals were  fond of taxing and spending.  The problem is that we haven't seen that kind of Liberalism in more than three decades and that the more recent record -- 1993 to 2005 -- actually flies in the face of that portrayal.  No one who achieved voting age after 1990 -- people who are nearly 40 now, thereabouts -- would have a clue what these folks are talking about, except as ancient history.  At least two of the former prime ministers  who attended the conference are more famous for balancing books than they are for spending, for instance.  
  

All this fear and loathing of Liberals past is sort of like the fretting that a certain (senior)  segment of the population did when the Germanys reunited -- oh no, they're going to start another world war.  The world has moved on. It is possible that political ideas, including those for activist government, have shifted a bit since the 1970s. But that's probably too subtle or difficult to write about in this day and age. Much easier to sweepingly dismiss the whole three days of discussion as a flashback to the past.   

Comments

[Caroline Kalaydjian]

And herein lies the problem, Ms. Delacourt. Fly-by reporting; journalists who are either hampered by budgets or deadlines; too lazy to report and opine as journalists used to; or just don't stack up to what journalism used to represent in years past; scripted politicians who dance around questions, yet never really answer anything; and a public that is either too lazy, doesn't care or can only tune in for first that 3-5 seconds that words, ads or sound bites are sounded.

Its frustrating to try and be informed, and for you to try and inform, in this age of the internet/social media,you tube and reporting that has had to adapt to the here and now. Most of the information out there is nonsensical.

I encourage you and ask you to please keep reporting the hard truths, and encourage the better journalists to do the same. Surely, the todays can't be as good as it gets. Your editors and publishers owe it to the public.

[Mark]

Bravo. I'm never certain which is more bothersome, the media's overwhelming bias or its overwhelming laziness.

[MJH]

We all perceive the "message" from our own political lenses. Liberal commentators favour a positive image of the Liberal message. Conservative commentators see the negative. What's changed over the years?? There is commentator bias!!

[anon]

'I should have stayed home and written about it from afar. '

No, you shouldn't! It's a refreshing departure from what passes as journalism these days to read a journalist who writes about what actually happened and takes the trouble to put it into context.

[MyThought]

Ah, yes, Margaret Wente, an American elitist, from a very wealthy family came to Canada in 1964 to go to private school and is known to have conservative views.

And, c'mon, she does come out with some zany articles.

I think she writes for something to do rather than have to.

[MJH]

What ever happened to the old tradition of objective reporting? Now we have journalists mired in partisan politics supporting either right or left views; very predictable and ultimately boring!!

[Ted]

The media in this town are so lazy. They sit around lamenting about how the politicians are ruining public discourse in this country. They need only to look to themselves.

[Jason]

Call me hopelessly optimistic, but I think there is an understandable and interesting way to express any idea. Saying "they will never understand" is shooting the recipient. Sometimes it's the messenger who deserves to get shot.

I'm glad you're pointing out the fact that other messengers are conveying the wrong message. But I'd be happier if someone could convey the right one. What is Iggy thinking, that he can't quite yet articulate?

[marie]

One of my colleagues argued that no one was ever going to understand what Ignatieff was saying about "networked" government and his hopes for a federal government that would "convene" rather than command from the centre.

It is apparent that the so called journalists never understand the consequences of theor non researched opinions. They are just as bad as the Reform Cons with their propagand articles.

[geo]

“I think the really interesting thing that’s coming out of the conference for me -- and I’m still still trying to formulate it -- is a different vision of government, that is not command and control,” Ignatieff said in an online interview on Saturday afternoon. “We can’t do it from Ottawa. And an activist government doesn’t mean another big, high-ticket federal program. What it means is getting a network of deciders together to face common problems.”-Ignatieff

What a wonderful quote from Ignatieff,unfortunately it really means nothing.

The deciders (those across the country... Liberals who participated and voiced their opinion),those who said they want a carbon tax(and there were lots and lots of them) are going to be very disappointed.

When Mr.Ignatieff hedged on giving support to the carbon tax,he put himself right back into the "command and control" mode of doing business.
What happened to this "new democracy" and the "deciders voice"?
Do you honestly think Mr.Ignatieff will agree to put into the Liberal policy for the next election a vote killer like Carbon tax?
So much for Mr.Ignatieff's "new democracy"....nice ideas,lots of talk.
Reality says it was tried once,never happen again....because he wants to win an election,and that means doing it his way.