Anonymous Liberal strategists

This being 2011, and Happy New Year, it is time for resolutions, turned pages, etc. As this first post of the new year, I thought it a good idea to tackle an old subject: the "anonymous Liberal strategists."  

They are, as regular political readers are aware, ubiquitous, as common as bedbugs or raccoons in urban centres. One appears today in a story from my colleague, Linda Diebel, saying, of the GTA election prospects: "I really think we're going to get our asses kicked."

No other political party in Canada, I'd argue, has as many so-called partisans willing to go off the record to trash their own fortunes/leadership/mood, etc.  All of us in the political reporting world have found these folks useful at various times.   Here's the three-pronged problem I'd like to see us resolve to tackle in 2011:

1. Why are they anonymous?

2. Are they really strategists?

3. Most importantly, are they really Liberals? 

 

This third point has been nagging at me ever since one of the anonymous folks called me before Christmas, and in the process of explaining himself, let slip that he'd prefer that Harper  win the next election.  

That doesn't make this person a Liberal strategist -- it makes him an operative for the Conservatives. (He was a former Bob Rae supporter, but I don't believe Rae is condoning these calls.) I do know the Conservatives appreciate the help they're getting from the "anonymous Liberals." (They also find it amusing, as in laughing-at, not laughing-with, the sources behind these comments. Watch them in Question Period when they applaud Rae every time he stands up.) 

 In all my long years covering this dysfunctional party, I've noticed that there actually are two kinds of Liberal dissenters/malcontents: there are the folks who grudgingly don't like the leader, but work for the Liberal cause, and then there are the folks who would rather see the party fail while their chosen leader is not in charge.  During the Martin-Chretien feud, circa 1999-2003, for instance, generally we knew who the dissenters were, but they tended to suit up for the electoral battles and work for the Liberals to win. And when we reported on the Martinites' discontent, we usually said it was because their guy was getting impatient to take over the reigns from Chretien. Context, in other words. 

 Political junkies will remember that Chretien was only moved to public fury twice: in March, 2000, when he got wind of conversations about the Martin folks contemplating Liberal defeat at the Regal Constellation hotel, and then, spectacularly, in June, 2002, when he  heard about another band of Martinites, gathered in an Italian restaurant,  crowing about Liberal problems in Quebec.  And who can blame Chretien? What kind of Liberals want the party to lose the next election? We couldn't call this gang Conservatives -- they were in fact Liberal MPs -- but I think it was probably fair for Chretien to question their affiliation, and certainly their loyalty. 

So back to the main point here. I think we in the media have to start asking some hard questions of the anonymous, alleged "Liberals" phoning us with tips (such as the one who told CTV that Julian Fantino was set to win the Vaughan by-election by 10,000 votes).  In my experience,  some of these purported Liberals don't hold a party membership card, haven't raised a finger for the cause in some time and, in some cases, are working actively to ensure the Liberals' defeat. Which makes them, well, not Liberals, for all intents and purposes. And we should say so -- if we're going to let them spout their dissent  in the news pages, we should at least identify what axe they're grinding. If there's a reason that they're predicting the demise of their own party -- they want Rae to be leader, they're thinking of crossing the floor,  or they want Stephen Harper to be prime minister for  a few years longer, that's helpful context.

Right now, we know nothing about these anonymous Liberals and why they're working actively with the media to hurt their party's chances in the next campaign.  What's their end game? 

*** Update: I see Warren Kinsella has responded with a generally agreeable blog post of his own. Worth reading. A couple of replies, however: I have no problem with Toronto vs. Ottawa. I work for a Toronto-based paper and the more people writing about politics, the merrier I am. Linda's a respected colleague, as is Tom Walkom and all the folks writing down there about politics. And as for my "other" family, anyone who knows me well is aware that I don't write with their interests in mind. Most often, I think they wish I'd keep my views to myself.  

Comments

[Robert DeWolfe]

Excellent article. Very good observation about these anonymous "strategists" regardless of which party they claim to be from. We have seen an abundance of rather dark and unorthodox strategies in recent years, primarily from the New Conservatives who have demonstrated their willingness to dance on the line regarding Ethical practice. Hell, they've leaped over it at times. So why not in this regard as well? Good eye and good call on this one Susan.

[ck]

Not the first time I've read articles you speak of. I seem to remember one article before the by-elections where one 'anonymous' Liberal source was hoping for Fantino to win in Vaughan.

This also reminds me of that coalition-merger talk last spring which, to me, smacked of some elaborate rouse to oust Ignatieff and give Bob Rae his last kick at the can.

Now they wait for an election to be rid of him

I just don't get why the simple approach isn't used: have a leadership review and vote accordingly-- before the next election.

[terry quinn]

I believe the Tories are dirty enough to be the sources or to at least be behind most of these sources. The Liberals have always been fractious which is one of the things that have made them so successful. The bickering always stopped at election time and I think this next election will be no different because then they can smell the joy of winning and pull together. Unfortunately that did not happen for Dion whom the Tories did a number on from which he never recovered, either in the public's eye or that of his own party. While people have differing opinions of Iggy he is proving himself to be in control of his caucus and is acting very leader like. He gets great turnouts at rallies and fund raisers.

I note that while the Tories mock certain things about Iggy they have elected not to take him on as they did Dion because Hsrper has more than enough baggage to cover if that game was played and they know Iggy and team are capable of dishing it back. the Liberlas are also stronger as a party since that debacle with Dion

Of course the tories are also trying to act like a responsibile government these days and failing miserably at it unless one is a western hard core conservstive. The suck up to the GTA will only last until the next election.

I am a proud Liberal.
Terry Quinn

[Mike B]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing this post!

I really wish the granting of anonymity was severely curtailed across the political board, but this is a good place to start.

[Justin Case]

The ONLY way Bob Rae ever becomes Liberal leader is if Ignatieff appoints him interim leader. Oviously that would require Ignatieff stepping aside. Ignatieff did not become leader without Chretien's blessing. Part of that deal, I would argue, was that if he didn't "take" in public support, Rae would get a shot. The argument, today, would be: "We did everything we could for you on the bus tour (a fool's errand, of course), nothing personal, Michael, but the people just don't like you..."

Rae can't win in a convention, especially a "one member, one vote" convention, but he's acting like he's already the leader.

It's a done deal: that's the end game.

[Jean]

While the content of this article is not explicitely partisan the tone and discernable disapointment leads this reader to opine that the Writer either prefers The Liberal Party or unofficially supports this Party.

Nothing wrong with that however, should her bias be articulated more clearly to the Reader in the same spirit she requests the unamed strategists to be exposed?

[Oh Boy]

"1. Why are they anonymous?"

Sadly, because anonymous sources give journalists juicy quotes for non-stories. This pleases headline writing editors and allows journalists themselves to fill the news hole without much outward effort (the stories come to them). This first allegation is quickly followed by the "is it true?" follow-up story and the "what does it all mean?" opinion piece. Three stories for free -- and it doesn't even have to be true.

If their allegations cannot be corroborated by multiple sources, then sources should not be granted anonymity. Indeed, they should not be cited as a source at all. If they are unwilling to go on the record, they should not be quoted absent a compelling reason, such as their legal liability. Even then, if their statements run counter to their professed role (in this case, senior party strategist), their own agenda should be vigorously investigated prior to any citation, anonymous or otherwise.

Why has it taken 5 years for the Ottawa Press Gallery to begin asking these questions? Didn't you all learn them in J school?

[Catherine]

What's 'their' end game?

And why does the media forward their cause?

[PoliticalPundit]

Congratulations must go out to Susan Delacourt for offering a critical analysis of what passes for political journalism these days.
All parties, including the Mulroney/Clark/MacKay PC Party, the Reform/Alliance party in the pre-2006 days, and the Liberal Party since 1984, the Bloc Québécois, have their malcontents who pretend to speak on behalf of their party and who curry favour with unsuspecting, very shallow and often lazy journalists.
What Susan Delacourt fails to mention is that every party always has operatives in every other party - people who are strategically planted to spy on their opponents and to generate factionalism among the militants and rank-and-file of the other parties.
This is an important topic that is seldom if ever discussed by journalists. Spying on one's political opponents is a tried and true method of winning and maintaining power.
And Harper is well aware of these methods since the Reform/Alliance was spied upon by its opponents. He understood all-too-well that if the Reform/Alliance/Conservative coalition was to ever gain and hold power it would have to spy on all of its opponents. And, I would venture to say that some of these so-called Liberals are really Blue Grits working for the Harperites.
What I am saying is that journalists worth their salt should always examine carefully the nature of their sources and ask themselves why certain operatives want to remain anonymous.
It is unethical for journalists to build their stories on anonymous sources especially when they don't do their homework on these sources and reveal their agendas. They are simply being manipulated by these operatives, many of whom might just might be spies doing their dirty work.

[hollinm]

There is no question Ms. Delacourt has a pipeline into the Liberal party and its caucus. She knows first hand and in fact I think one of her relatives works for the party.
Notwithstanding that she knows that the annoymous sources are hurting the party but to suggest that reporters are using Conservatives pretending to be Liberals is perposterous. The fact is the Liberal party is not happy these days. They hate being in opposition and they certainly don't much like their leader. The fact that during the worse economic crisis the country has faced the Libs have been unable to capture the mood of the public and leap frog over the Conservatives.
In fact the opposite is true. As Canadians get "to know" Ignatieff his leadership numbers keep going down.
The Libs know with thiese kind of numbers the likelihood of Canadians having an epiphany during a federal campaign and somehow begin to like Ignatieff is remote. .

[Ray Heard]

I agree. That's why I go public to express my concern. Example: when I called for Dion's head, Liberal MPs who slammed publicly me privately applauded in emails. But, the real problem is the party lacks new ideas -- new vision. The ones with ideas, McKenna, Tom Axworthy, Grafstein, Peter Newman (not a Liberal but an astute observer for 50 years) were not even invited to speak at the so-called "thinkers" conference. The Party is is stuck in the Trudeau-ite past. It seems bent on self-sectruction on the dismal scale of the british Liberals after Lloyd George. Ray Heard

[Jason Cherniak]

I hope you can convince your colleagues of this! I would add to the list of axes the possibility that the person was passed over for a job or fired.

[Kriilin Namek]

I doubt most of these are even real people, just a construct reporters use to sex up an article, or push their own belief system, whether they're left, right, or diagonal. I think all politics reporters should disclose their political leanings so we can account for personal bias in their articles.

[D. Maria Paul]

What! you mean we should all tow the party line, no matter what, like rats behind the pied piper? It's a business, if you want supporters - the monotary support - for that business, the service you give the supporters have to be rewarding and deserving. For the last recent years we are experiencing little satisfaction in our support efforts - an occasional tap on the head for our contributions in the way of a thank you note and a request for more. That is why many of us are disgruntled and pulling back. Politics are changing, the views of the electorate are changing. We need a party that stands on values and conviction. Until we see that, the Liberals will be lagging at the "Financial Support Bank"!

[Anonymous]

It's all Harper's fault!!!

[Ontario Voter]

Susan: Excellent point about the credibility of "anonymous sources". Harper, in my opinion, is likely the most ethically challenged PM in recent history. Hypocritical too (never unelected Senators --- yeah, right). Thus if these "anonymous Liberals" turn out to be actually Conservative operators, it would not be surprising to, I suspect, many who follow recent politics. While on the same subject, Linda Diebel does not appear to be the only one at Toronto Star. Remember this gem from Persicilli: http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/734749? Too bad no one called him out on that.

[Dennis_F]

Ms. Delacourt, your article is inconsistent. On the one hand, you accuse Liberal dissenters of not being Liberal at all. On the other hand, you clearly cite examples where they are Liberals, except they have some axe to grind with the current leadership. Well, that doesn't disqualify them from being Liberals, does it?

But it's nice to see the federal Liberals have a journalist in their corner who will lecture us all on what it means to be a good Liberal.

[F Lloyd]

Yeah well it was just a matter of time in reading this article, before it came to a Harper/Conservative conspiracy, eh? If they are not really Liberals, then they must be Conservatives, right? What about the NDP - do they not have lots of reasons to want the Liberal train wreck to continue?

[john g]

Susan,

As consumers of news, we understand and expect that when you and your colleagues identify people as "Liberal" strategists or sources, that you've at least done some modicum of homework or have some knowledge of the person to verify that is the case. You are the Ottawa media; you are supposed to know who these people are. Are you telling us here that is not the case? That you'll take calls from anyone and their dog claiming to be a "Liberal" strategist and take them at their word?

[MJH]

Political journalists constantly refer to "reliable sources' which become their bread and butter. We have no way of knowing if these sources are made up or are real!! Until the MSM stops using such references we will be inundated with partisan "anonymous sources".

[Rav]

I agree with this guy:

"While the content of this article is not explicitely partisan the tone and discernable disapointment leads this reader to opine that the Writer either prefers The Liberal Party or unofficially supports this Party.

Nothing wrong with that however, should her bias be articulated more clearly to the Reader in the same spirit she requests the unamed strategists to be exposed?"

[Aongasha]

Linda
First, I hate to be picky but read this phrase again please, 'take over the reigns from Chretien. Context, in other words,' Reigns' as in a King? This is a common mistake I usually note amongst young journalists and the more youthful part of the population. It's the result of a decreasingly dysfunctional education system. The word is 'reins' as in taking the reins of a horse. We all make spelling mistakes of course, but this is just too common in the media to let pass.
Secondly, I agree with those who question your Liberal partisanship. Why so worried about the slights to their leader and not those of other parties?

[Rose21]

I am not so sure "anonymous" comments are a bad thing. It may be the only way to get a sense of what the real sentiment is out there. Suggesting that one would prefer that Harper win the next election might reflect a strategy for strengthening the Liberal party over the long term. Liberals have never really renewed themselves -- and it is hard to do so in a context of perpetually having to juggle the prospect of an immanent election (as is the case with a minority government). I think a lot of people are made miserable by the minority situation and a clear win (not likely) or even a loss for the Liberals would allow Liberals to move towards readying a new generation for leadership, potentially reduce divisiveness and be beneficial over the longer term.

[Megannety]

Maybe we can invite them out for beer and popcorn and see if they are real.

[jon drake]

Susan purports to write on politics. But the only politics she really covers and knows anything about are Liberal politics. This fits pefectly with the Liberal view of the world where everything else ceases to exist outside their own tent. Susan's article is a wonderful attempt to suggest dissenters inside her party are not Liberals but closet conservatives. Of course, to an outsider, Liberals without either a platform or a compelling narrative make it rather obvious they aren't capable of governing the country, so what does it matter?

[David]

Anonymous sources are not necessarily inaccurate. Nor is it true that named sources are always so.

There can be no doubt that anonymous sources usually have an M.O. It is also true that reporters do as well. The balance between reliability and readability (in the case of newspapers anyways) is the journalists craft.

Your last paragraph is odd.You suggest "we" know nothing about who these people are. Really? Is it "we" who doesn't know or just you?.

Finally you ask "What's their end game? "
I would suggest that finding out is what reporters do.

[ricopar]

Politics is a pretty incestuous business in Canada. Are the journalists who quote these anonymous sources really so dumb that the they don't know the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative operative?

[Ronald]

Terry:

Is this your idea of a sick joke?
If so, congratulations, you have achieved your goal.
LOL

[Stan]

Too funny!
The liberal media want the liberal party to hide more information.

[albertaclipper]

Or maybe you have "journalists" such as Cohen and Spector who write the stories because they dreamed it up the night before. Most journalists are so afraid of bloggers nowadays that they will write an op ed on the slimmest (or should I say slimiest) of details. So, I guess my point is that the blame is squarely at the feet of the media and not those "anonymous Liberal strategists".

[albertaclipper]

Liberal MP Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Ont.), who won the last election with a margin of only 4.63 per cent, said he is ready, and blames the apparent vulnerability of Liberal ridings in Toronto on the unique circumstance on the 2008 election under former Leader Stephane Dion

“Don’t forget, who was the Liberal leader in the last election?” said Mr. Szabo. “And Green Shift.?"
***************************************************************************888888
Hey Susan. I found one of your "anonymous Liberal strategists."

[Jason Cherniak]

I think it's hillarious that so many commenters accuse Ms. Delacourt of being a closet Liberal, when this post is immediately above her explanation of why people should stop accusing the Harpers of having split up! I've learned over time that all the good journalists can be quite non-partisan while simultaneously giving an honest opinion that corresponds with or opposes the opinion of a political party.

Partisanship is about trying to help one party beat another. It is not about honestly agreeing with one party or another on occassion.

(Of course, if that agreement is during an eleciton and leads to a Senate appointment there is probably more to the story.)

[Ron]

Just because he prefers Harper win does not make him an "operative" of Conservatives any more than your consistent pro-Liberal bias makes you an operative of the Liberal Party - oh wait, maybe you have a point.... Anyway, it could simply mean he detests Ignatieff as much as most Canadians and is simply expressing what many Liberals feel - lets have the election, take yet another loss and get rid of the dead weight - perhaps this "strategist" was simply hoping Rae would replace Ignatieff and fortunes would improve. Your call for media to examine only Liberal anonymous sources speaks volumes - why not ALL anonymous sources? No honest, respectable journalist would ever go near an anonymous source and then cover up for that source unless life or limb were involved - Canadian media types do it all the time - much easier than actually checking facts and doing you job.

[Jim M]

"The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." John 14:10

[Dan Cummings]

Media relations is played in different ways for different purposes, and veteran journalists know this.

Journalists use party sources for deep background. And foreground. They have coffee with them, beers with them, and curry favour. It's why senior reporters (such as Susan Delacourt) are national treasures, with incredible institutional memories and an understanding of context so they can tell us what's important and ignore what isn't. Their personal challenge is to remain a neutral observer in a company town where people know everybody.

Parties are mysterious enough that it's hard for almost anybody to know who has influence on what or whom. But there are ways of evaluating what they know. Fact-checking without names mentioned. But sometimes deadlines don't make that possible. Similarly, some people look far down the road as they curry favour and plant seeds, hoping their leadership choice keeps moving up. Others, see only tomorrow and do their jobs.

Now, why would a "Liberal" say Fantino would win by 10,000 votes? Easy, wins by anything less than 10,000 and it undercuts the win. Oldest trick in the book. The Liberal in question likely had access to the internal polling (or to someone who did) and did what he/she did to hurt Fantino. Unlikely it was an anti-Ignatieff operative.

Speaking of Mr. Ignatieff, as time goes on and he hits age 64 in just a few months, his age will become an issue. No doubt there are young Liberals across the country torn between preparing for and anticipating an election or a leadership race. As Conservatives circa 1976-1983 and Liberals circa 1995-2006 will tell you, backroom leadership races cripple a party's ability to compete.

And that's one reason the Liberals could be advised to hold a leadership this Spring (so it's over with before the Fall election in Ontario -- home of most Liberal operatives) but that would put the Liberals out of 2011 electoral contention and, of course, would require a big walk in the snow-style decision by Ignatieff, very shortly. The leaks on this front will likely be fast and furious, either way, and I'm glad we have reporters such as Ms. Delacourt to weigh them and sort their relevance.

[Richard Pollock]

One way for journalists to serve the public interest would be to refuse to quote anonymous sources. Not only would this compel more sources to reveal themselves; it would also make for less lazy journalism. At the end of the day it is not the "anonymous source" who prints this crap. It is the "nationally renowned" journalist.

Delacourt's piece is no lesson in political ethics. Freud would see it as unwitting disclosure of journalistic integrity. Good for you Susan. You are on the right path. I look forward to your next offering.

Richard Pollock

[Ray Green]

Why do the media report anything as anonymous at all? It is supposed to be a basic principle that sources are identified, except in very rare circumstances. Unethical, lazy, and sloppy journalism. We should demand better.

[Margaret]

Excellent article. So glad Susan is taking on the problems in the Liberal Party. She is straightforward and honest. I just do not get these Dion / Rae supporters. They'd rather see Harper in power than have Ignatieff win. I think it's called biting your nose off to spite your face.
(It's taking the "reins" of power, btw -- riding terminology, reins control horses. Kings reign.)

[Cathy Payne]

I think some of those forces who try to wind a story are just people who can't make a good argument why their outcome is better.
When Liberals had all the problems mentionned here it never affected me in my wallet. Screwed up people who could still make the trains come on time. Now we get elections where the winner brings a guy along to call voters of the other side "pinko commies".
Are Liberals even built to respond to that? I do like that Mr Igantieff can speak in uncanned situations. It shows trust in the population.

[Frank Docherty]

Anonymous Liberal Strategists are gardening, planting distractions. Ottawa needs real news ( http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/technology/article/915149--u-s-looks-to-ontario-for-bomb-detecting-isotope ) to be forgotten - not figured out. Ottawa doesn't want Canadians to know it only takes 4 grams of tritium to make 1 Hydrogen Bomb with an election just around the corner. ( http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v06n1p26a.htm ) Finding the real story in a story is easier than you think, but in this case, the "bomb-detecting-isotope" spin was a dead give-away.