What's a big deal these days?

More than a decade ago, after the Somalia commission was shut down by the Chrétien government, former UWO journalism dean Peter Desbarats lamented that the media was losing its capacity for outrage. It was a prescient warning of the political culture that exists today -- one in which we measure an Auditor-General's explosive findings according to whether they have an influence on the election polls or the leaders' debates. 

All the talk around Ottawa at the moment is whether people outside the political bubble will see the Auditor-General's intervention in the same light as her investigations into the Liberal sponsorship scandal, or the RCMP's announcement in the midst of the 2005-06 election campaign. Or are we so turned off, cynical about politics in general that nothing can outrage us anymore? 

"I’m getting the  impression a large slice of the public is so cynical about what goes on in Ottawa that it’s harder and harder to outrage them,” Prof. Nelson Wiseman says in the Hill Times today. 

Meanwhile, Murray Dobbin, exploring a theme that interests me (and which I'm tackling in a book due out next year), suggests that citizens are more interested in shopping than politics.

After years of creating the consumption democracy and lowering expectations of traditional democracy, we have a population that is disengaged from its own community and its history. That means disconnected from a key source its moral core. Politics makes a difference if you are connected to each other. Otherwise, not so much.

 

 I think we should add to this the rule of rotation that seems to govern Canadian prime ministers and their scandal-management strategies. Brian Mulroney treated scandals as a big deal and fired cabinet ministers. Jean Chrétien treated scandals they were no big deal, shrugging and moving on. Paul Martin treated scandals as a huge deal, setting up the Gomery commission and an all-out media blitz. Stephen Harper is following the Chrétien school -- shrug, move on. Note who has been rewarded by history in that chain of prime ministers. 

I guess that takes us back to Peter Desbarats and his profound disappointment in a media that allows, even encourages prime ministers to treat serious ethical criticism like it's lint on a suit. Here's Desbarats, talking about the deafening silence from political reporters when the Somalia commission was shut down: 

 

 

 

"Do they no longer understand that the erosion of freedom in one part of our system is a threat to the free expression that is the life blood of journalism? Many of my colleagues in journalism treated the issue as a political question, a question of political tactics. Would the government win? Was it doing the right things strategically? "The problem with this kind of reporting is that it loses sight of the moral issues involved. Many journalists looked upon it as a 'we against them' conflict  we three commissioners against the government and the military. But the 'we' in this case was not the commission, it was the Canadian people."

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Cathy Payne]

Ms Fraser does not influence voters at all I think. Years ago during sponsorship it may have been the case. Every Liberal voter was at the payoff it seems.

When the RCMP announced its charges about corruption investigations in Income Trust it had to retract the statements as "wrong" about Mr Goodale but the man who made the statements got a promotion to Interpol! No wonder he got a personal visit from Mr Harper after the election. A first in History I heard. So calling money "border security" and spending it on Conservative voter disruption while stiffing the storeowners in actual Toronto who were damaged will probably result in a pay raise for someone.

Calling the money "border security" did allow Mr Baird to offer the State of Michigan a big loan for a new bridge. Never heard if they accepted the money or not.