Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks at a Conservative rally at Royal Roads University in Victoria on Wednesday. (Geoff Howe/Canadian Press)
There’s an article in the Vancouver Island Oceanside Star, written by Brad Bird, that alleges the media was barred from questioning the Prime Minister in a recent visit. In truth, the media were apprised of the rules before the Prime Minister even arrived, in a memo delivered by the PMO. Although a visit to the Nanaimo Port Authority at 3pm, and Hatley Castle at Royal Roads University in Victoria at 6pm, were open invites to the media, the memo clearly states that the Shellfish Research station at 1pm was a “photo opportunity only.”
Mr.Bird’s commentary regarding Stephen Harper’s inaccessibility, which he compares unfavourably with former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, isn’t exactly telling the whole story. After all, reporters were invited for the photo-op at Vancouver Island University knowing full well they wouldn’t be allowed to ask any questions. So there isn’t much to get upset about, unless those reporters didn’t know that there were opportunities to question Stephen Harper in Nanaimo or Victoria later that day.
Why the media go to photo-ops are beyond me anyway. The whole name, “photo opportunity”, is an insider marketing term that has somehow become an acceptable mainstream description of photojournalists accepting the terms and conditions of a carefully orchestrated event meant to favour the politician or celebrity at hand. So in a sense, Mr.Bird’s acceptance of the assignment, though it may have been handed down by his superiors, is lazy journalism to begin with.
I do not, however, think one can discount the underlying frustration expressed in his article. After all, it’s no secret that the PMO controls dissemination of information from government to media like none that has gone before. It’s true that the Conservative Prime Minister likes to carefully control the message, and that’s partly because of the rampant yellow journalism stemming from incidents like “Wafergate” and speculation about how much he really loves his kids.
But at the same time, the anti-conservative media bias angle doesn’t entirely wash. Brian Mulroney was a very affable conservative Prime Minister, who enjoyed speaking to the press very much, filling the corridors of the House of Commons with his rich baritone, as he used the media to measure his own relative popularity.
It isn’t surprising that the media tends to be unfriendly with Stephen Harper. Reporters are used to the idea of accessibility to people beyond the reach of the common folk. The very idea of a journalist is to have a representative of society who is able to go out and ask questions from leaders who would otherwise never communicate with the people, and bring back a message of some sort. To relegate journalists to the scheduling whims of the PMO is certain to frustrate the spirit of the occupation.
The conundrum for the press is that it has never faced such a level of control from the senior corridors of power. They are invited to prearranged events designed by the public relations architects of the Conservative Party. It’s obvious that you are not likely to be able to perform the tasks of journalism by attending something of this nature. Nobody ever won a journalism award by attending a Richard Nixon ship dedication.
So what are journalists to do when they are restricted by the amount of accessibility they have to Stephen Harper and the ability to ask him questions? Well, the answer is that they either dig deeper with more investigative research, or focus on interviewing the people close to the Prime Minister.
Or, and I suspect this is the case for many reporters who also serve as columnists, they turn to their pens and craft a negative article that demonstrates the frustrated underpinnings of a job made more difficult than they would like it to be.
HArper manages his image and press time way too much. We’re a democracy and Harper’s approach in undemocratic.
I noted that the Victoria Times Communist twice mentioned that while the assembled (friendly) crowd stood in the rain for the Prime Minister, he stood in a tent to address them. All evil, controlling dictator-like, you know.
miffed – how do you handle an image democratically? Youse guys gotta get some fresh catch phrases!
The other conundrum for the press is that it is, right now, only one of many channels through which the government can get its message out. With the advent of the Internet and social media, Ottawa can now make announcements about program spending, cuts, plans, and so on, without fear of the torquing and filtering that a perceived “hostile media” can foist on the message. It’s not really necessary to shoot the messenger anymore, because the messenger is obsolete.
How come such a smart man and a very good PM cannot grasp that the only thing holding him back from a majority is his refusal to play nice with the media? Its part of the game. It may be wrong and maybe its un-democratic, and, the MSM may be totally at fault here, but, for god’s sakes, how long does it have to stare you in the face before you begin to change it? If Harper really wants a majority he’ll start to take questions every few days and just be himself. Its not rocket science.
Go read Stephen Taylor’s post on this – apparently later in the day he had TWO press conferences where he took questions. Perhaps if Mr. Bird had gone to one of those his story would have been different??? Not likely….
Could it be that the time constraints of the first one did not permit questions.
But of course, that doesn’t make a good anti
Harper story now does it!
Billg…go read Stephen Taylors column – see my reply to miffed above.
Perhaps it isn’t SH who needs to play nice all the time. Maybe the media just need to show up at the right times.
So billg,,You are saying the press control this country and not the government??Giving in to the press is blackmail don,t you think.And also giving in to the press sends the message that they(press) control you and can make you do things you do not want to do.PM Harper has the press where he wants them.More and more they are realizing the Government is in charge and can get it,s message out without newsprint involved.Papers are going bankrupt because the general population is not buying the lies and manipulation of words that the press was using after speaking to or listening to members of the Conservative Government.They have made a great profession (journalism) into the worst profession in 4 years and have been hurting no one but future generations of journalists who will no longer be trusted to print the truth.Their columns now are mostly fiction and the public is well aware of it.NO billg Pm Harper does not have to suck up to press to get a majority,he just has to keep governing like he has and the majority will come.
Hey Victor,
I’m not sure I entirely agree, and I say that as someone fully aware his “career” has been pushed forward by social media.
Journalists are held to a higher degree of accuracy than, for instance, I am. I can get a story wrong, or make factual inaccuracies, and continue to blog. That would not be the case if I were employed by a reputable newspaper [that's not a slight to the National Post. They take much of my work and heavily edit the rough edges out].
The media aren’t merely messenger boys and girls, like runners in the House of Commons. They serve a vital and important function of a stable democracy, or at least this is what we like to crow about to Iran and North Korea.
We believe that a free press continues to serve a function beyond that which “citizen journalists” and social media can provide. Because they held to a professional standard of research, editing, and investigation.
Do I think there is much yellow journalism out there? Sure. Do you throw the baby out with the bath water? No.
Saying the media is hostile to Stephen Harper is an excuse for his refusal to engage with a component of our democracy. We think of the media as some entity that is uniformly conspired against conservatives.
It isn’t. How do I know? Well, because I’m a part of that alleged conspiracy.
There is also this piece by Robert Barron which describes at pitiful length how the PM ignored the media at the Shellfish Field Station north of Nanaimo.
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/story.html?id=58fb8329-c754-4ddd-8494-9fb27ec6bf90
Apart from the fact that neither of these so-called reporters, or their editors seem to understand what “Photo Op Only” means, it’s a bit strange to have two very similar articles by two different reporters in two different media organizations, so you might understand why Conservatives get a bit paranoid about the media.
And for the record, at Royal Roads, while the PM certainly spoke from under a tent, apart from a few rows of seats close to the stage, ample tent cover was provided for anyone who wanted it.
Re your comment “Journalists are held to a higher degree of accuracy than, for instance, I am. I can get a story wrong, or make factual inaccuracies, and continue to blog. That would not be the case if I were employed by a reputable newspaper”
Given the glaring inaccuracies that are promulgated daily in the Star and the Globe on topics from the gun registry to the CRTC process to the current foofarah about the Quebec City arena that the PM has “pledged” to fund, I’m not sure what your comment says about those two newspapers. It seems to me that editors fix grammar and spelling errors, but most papers appear to have dispensed with fact-checkers.