Reporters walk out on PM

[Brad Sallows]

>I am forced to question what all your reactions would be if the Liberals had done the same thing....

My reaction would likely have been that since Martin could almost never give a direct and meaningful answer to a question, changing the means by which questions were asked would have been irrelevant.

The press like scrums and ambushes because they hope to catch a politician off balance and obtain a meaningless but controversial (and hence salable) sound bite.  Since these opportunities have been reduced - including the conscious lip-biting enforced on the more outspoken MPs whose views are regarded as lying too far outside the mainstream of polite discourse - there has been a sustained whine of complaint from not only the press, but from people opposed to the government who want more such controversial sound bites on the record in order to construct a suitable ("scary") effigy of the government to oppose.  In short, they seem to wish public discourse to consist of the equivalent of a word association test - don't think about it, just spit out whatever comes to mind when we bombard you with a flurry of shouted questions, crowd your personal space, and shine a bevy of bright lights upon you.

What confounds me is that - judging from blog posts - many of the same people objected to the shotgun debate on our commitment to Afghanistan.

So, my challenge to people is: which do you choose?  Either you want politicians to be in a composed state of mind to respond intelligibly to questions of substance in order to provide answers of substance on the burning issues of the day, or you don't.  Pick one and stand by it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I would say exactly what I said.......I love the idea, for anybody, so that one can make sense out of the whole thing.

 

[Kirkhill]

What confounds me is that - judging from blog posts - many of the same people objected to the shotgun debate on our commitment to Afghanistan.

So, my challenge to people is: which do you choose?  Either you want politicians to be in a composed state of mind to respond intelligibly to questions of substance in order to provide answers of substance on the burning issues of the day, or you don't.  Pick one and stand by it.

Funny you should say that Brad.  I was just thinking the same thing last night.  Kady somebodyorother from the Hill Times was complaining that the press only got government releases at the same time as everybody else.  They weren't given notice so that they can review the policy, debate its merits, decide on its validity and consequences and line up contrarian opinion. All in time to get the news out at the same time the government makes its announcement.

Apparently our media can come to the final judgement on the budget in a  6 hour lockdown but our MPs can't come to a final judgement on Afghanistan in a 6 hour debate.

I suppose though that if the media actuall read the documents, reported the text, waited for the committee debates and reported them, waited for the amendments and reported them, waited for the vote and reported that then whole process might not be as fraught and suitable for brooooooooooooadcast.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Funny you should say that Brad.  I was just thinking the same thing last night.  Kady somebodyorother from the Hill Times was complaining that the press only got government releases at the same time as everybody else.  They weren't given notice so that they can review the policy, debate its merits, decide on its validity and consequences and line up contrarian opinion. All in time to get the news out at the same time the government makes its announcement.

Apparently our media can come to the final judgement on the budget in a  6 hour lockdown but our MPs can't come to a final judgement on Afghanistan in a 6 hour debate.

I suppose though that if the media actuall read the documents, reported the text, waited for the committee debates and reported them, waited for the amendments and reported them, waited for the vote and reported that then whole process might not be as fraught and suitable for brooooooooooooadcast.

When Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt were doing their thing in 1972 as the last men to walk on the moon (Schmitt was the only bonafide scientist so far to ever visit another world), TV stations were showing I Love Lucy reruns.  Perhaps we too are to blame for not realizing what's good for us...the lack of desire for the majority to become fully involved in the political process has probably put us in this position. I'm not sure what the solution is. Critical thinking among the masses....shocking. Perhaps if there was some profit to be had by blogs and alternative forms of media, the biggies would start to change their processes, but if we keep buying, they'll keep selling.

 

[a_majoor]

This blog has an interesting look at the PPG, in particular their behavior towards their own reporters. Prime Minister Harper called on a reporter to ask a question, and the PPG shouted him down and prevented him from asking the question. This is getting into Brownshirt territory as far as I am concerned.

http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2006/05/news-with-disclaimer.html

When the Prime Minister arrived, he took a question or two from the lines, then asked Tim Naumetz, who writes for Canwest and Time Canada, whether he had any questions. The transcript of what happened tells the story:

Harper: Tim, do you have a question?

Tim Naumetz: Yeah, I have a question on that. The section that allows--[gallery members interjected and refused to let Naumetz continue]

Naumetz: Oh, I'm sorry.

Julie Van Dusen: Yeah, that's what the lineup's about.

Harper: Go ahead, Tim. If you want a question, you can.

Van Dusen: Well, we've lined up here.

Harper: That's fine. I asked Tim to ask me a question. Go ahead, Tim, if you want. If he wants.

Van Dusen: So you're going to ignore the lineup that's been lining up for 15 minutes?

Harper: Tim, do you want to ask a question or not?

Naumetz: Well, I wasn't aware that there was a line.

Van Dusen: There is a line.

Harper: Go ahead, Julie. Ask your question.

The Prime Minister answered her question, then left the room, having watched the Parliamentary Press Gallery browbeat a reporter into silence.

Now pay attention to all the stories you'll read, hear and see about the "feud" between the Prime Minister and the press, and ask why they will never include this fact.

The stories will never tell you that the Parliamentary Press Gallery has already shouted down one reporter who tried to do his job and ask a question about an act of Parliament.

The stories will never tell you that the Parliamentary Press Gallery makes its own carefully controlled list of who gets to ask questions, and nobody knows how they make that list, or even who makes it up?

Read the rest

 

[couchcommander]

Actually the entire scene was played on CBC and described in the globe and mail. This blogger needs to get his facts straight.

The reason that reporter was "browbeaten", which is actually a rather glorious description considering the crowd just started all saying "there is a line" at once, was because the Prime Minister's cronies had decided that this particular reporter would get to ask the questions, despite the fact that there was a massive line up of reporters behind a microphone.

Actually most of the reporters weren't even invited to the press conference, the PM's office had only invited a few they planned to talk to, but the rest of them found out about it and came.

This guy walked in, sat down, the PM gave his speech, then despite the rest of the reporters (neatly lined up might I point out, not doing the big scrum which I too find really annoying) singled this guy out who was at the top of the PM's pet list.

After answering Julie Van Dusen's (or however you spell it) question he had a little temper tantrum and left the room because he couldn't get his way.

When has it become acceptable for a Prime Minister only to be responsbile to the least critical voice?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

It is my impression that Tim Naumetz was asked to forward his question, because he signed the list as per the PM's new protocol. 
The press are acting like a bunch of spoiled prima donnas.  It doesn't matter what happened in the past, this current Prime Minister wants to do things his way.  How unbelievably disrespectful that these hacks feel that they have the RIGHT to dictate to the leader of our nation how he will be allowed to present his information. 
The argument will boil down to who needs who.  Certainly the PM needs some sort of venue of media to get information out to the public.  But since the media has become so morally bankrupt, and has moved themselves into the realm of info-tainment, not journalism, it seems they may want to play nice if they want good info.  I don't think it is unreasonable that anyone who has their time on a leash at best would want to create a framework to keep questions on track, and not have to suffer partisan fools whose only objective is to advance their own political parties agenda's. 
It happens everywhere.  Even our Department here in Windsor has one reporter that the detectives trust with information, because they know he will present it in a fair and unbiased way.  There have been others that were "let in", and then turned around and piped the Department with some crap article with more unsubstantiated opinions from half-wits than the facts that they were given.  Guess what?  They don't get jack from us when a big story hits, and the inside guy gets to be the one who breaks all the good stories.  Don't bite the hand that feeds you. 
I remember seeing a story that got press for about as long as a flash from a camera around a year ago about our new embassy in Germany and the cost of it.  There was some MP being asked about it, the one who had approved the costs and project, and once he was pinned he said a trite "I will 'ave to see about dis,no more question, merci beaucoup" then screwed off.  It was a Lieberal project (go figure) and after that it never came up again.  Journalism with integrity would have stuck with this story and followed it up mercilessly until real answers were provided.  As it is, when I was trying to Google up a link to the story to which I am referring, I can find nothing (or I am not very good at finding info on the net  ;D ).  That suggests to me that NOTHING ever was put in print.  So, for the few of us that just happened to be watching that particular chunk of CBC news that night, we are the only ones who will ever know about that issue.  That is one thing the Americans have over us.  You will see them revisit a story ENDLESSLY until a remedy had been reached.  Maybe being so close to the US here gives me better access to the news reports and their style.  If a public official is pinned down doing something inappropriate (or even illegal) they will follow him, ambush him with questions, show up at his office weekly.  The "hip-hop mayor" of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, used the cash strapped city police budget for to lease a Lincoln Navigator for his wife, then lied about it for months.  They finally made his life so difficult, he had to admit on camera that "mistakes were made" and paid the money back. 
If these clowns in Ottawa fancy themselves as some sort of vital information source to this country, then they need to do what they are told, sign the bloody list and STFU.  If at such time they can't get the "hard" questions answered in the proper forum, they have other means available to them. 
There's a new sheriff in town.  Suck it up, buttercups. 

 

[couchcommander]

If the PM wants to impose some order, far be it from me to tell him what's what, infact it would be a good idea.

However, as I pointed out, this isn't just signing a list to choose in order of signing on, this is sign the list so we can pick the one we want to talk to.

If the PM wants to have an interview with one reporter, then go ahead. If he wants to hold a national press conference in parliament - that's a different story.

The PM needs to answer to all the voices, even the crazy left wing hippy ones, just like our Liberal PM had to answer to all you crazy right wing guys.

I remember a few years back there was one article I will always remember. It was in the National Post, and it was an editorial about how the Liberals were evil (ha), based upon an account by an anonymous source, who was apparently "close" to Brian Tobin when he left.

The post ran it, big headline. It was NEVER substantiated, even when I emailed the editors asking for clarification.

Mr. Zipperhead, if there was even a sniff of a scandal, the media would have been all over it, let me tell you. The reason they didn't report it is because there was probably something legitimate. Unfortunately makes bad news.

As I said, go pick up or watch a quebecor or canwest media product from 2002-2004 if you want to see the anti-liberal press in action.

In the end, you are right though, it is his choice. However I find this particularly amusing coming from a gentleman that campaigned on promises of "accountability" and "transparency", being accountable to the national press core is part of that IMO.

Even that could be taken with a grain of salt. However combined with the fact that he has routed his entire caucus, nay the entire government through the PMO (what happened to the days when the CCRAP, er Conservatives, were up in arms about the concentration of power in the PMO?) while at the same actually bringing further restrictions into the Access to Information, makes laugh, quite frankly. The hypocrisy is amazing.

Not the Liberals aren't hypocritical - just that you really need to view the Conservatives in the same light.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I am going to agree that the PM and his people are accountable to Canadians.  However, they are NOT accountable to the press.  If the press has become so self absorbed that they think they have superceded our elected officials as the public's representatives, they need to get over themselves. 
If Dithers and his capo's chose to be bullied around by the press, that is their problem.  Again with the Lieberal naval-gazing arrogance.  Just because "that is how it has been done" doesn't mean that is how it will be forever.  I hardly think we can hold up the party that promoted fraud at a level that most organized crime groups can only dream about is in any position to say what is proper or not.  Mr. Harper is not going to fall in line and be a good little cookie cutter politician.  Many of his opponents realize that, and are probably getting some pretty good knots in their stomachs realizing that Canadians appreciate this kind of candour.  No doubt throwing some smoke and mirrors around, and hijacking the PM's topics when he is trying to get information out USED to be an effective tactic to control the scrums.  Sorry.  The new flavor is going to be "play ball, or beat it".  I'm sure that if "hard" questions are asked that are on topic, then they will be asked and answered. 
When that election comes, it's gonna be ugly for you and your ilk.  :-X

 

[couchcommander]

Well I'll agree with you on your last point.

What I don't understand is why the parliamentary Liberals aren't all over this (well, actually I do, but it's kind of dumb).

If the PM doesn't want to talk to the media, and their hurting for a story....man if I was Bill Graham I'd line up my entire caucus in front of a microphone, each one with two or three points on how the conservatives have managed to already start Mulroneying the country (won't get into that now - different time, different thread), and just go down the line. Spoon feed them all the stories they want.

It's really a great opportunity, and I am dumbfounded as to why they aren't taking advantage of it. I suppose it's the same reason they lost the last election.

Makes me one sad panda.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

;D

 

[couchcommander]

That's the one.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>However, as I pointed out, this isn't just signing a list to choose in order of signing on, this is sign the list so we can pick the one we want to talk to.

Anyone who takes questions can do that.  No list is necessary.  All he has to do is say, "I have no comment/cannot answer that.  Next question, please".

I've been waiting for someone to publish lists of names of reporters who signed up to ask questions and were not offered a chance to ask, and in particular to provide proof that selected reporters are routinely overlooked or ignored.  I'm highly confident that there is a large enough number of people opposed to Harper and the CPC minority government that any systematic bias on the part of the PMO when it comes to answering questions would be revealed, and revealed quickly.  So far none has been revealed.  All the critics are talking about is the hypothetical practicality of blacklisting, not actual blacklisting.  That includes the comment I quoted above.  Read that again: "...this is sign the list so we can pick the one we want to talk to."  Do you know the minds of the PM and his staffers?  Have you even accumulated proof of behaviour that would circumstantially demonstrate such an intent?

There is no bedrock moral principle being offended when the government changes the manner in which it conducts its press conferences and questioning opportunities, so when the critics are forced to complain only about the way things could be rather than things as they are, it should be a clue to them that the foundation of their objections is weak.

 

[GAP]

Again...it boils down to:

My News Conference...my rules

Oh well.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Just a quick little note on why I can't/don't trust the "press" in Canada. Last week in Kingston RMC was having their graduation ceremonies and the Skyhawks were on hand to do their show as part of the grad. The local radio station, K-Rock, in their usual well-informed manner reported that the Canadian Forces parachute demonstration team "The Seahawks" were performing that day! :

:rofl:

"yes ladies and gentlemen you heard it, right here on K-Rock, your information source, that both the parachute demonstration team AND Canada's famous precision flying team, known worldwide as "The Seahawks" and "The Snow Geese..."

Hey, they DID get the country right...its a start.

 

[Hot Lips]

Right...well...I have always found the reporters to be annoying when seen on television...
They are all hollering their questions out like an unruly mob...
What is wrong with a little order...a bit of policy as to the how tos...
Like it's been said above...he's the PM...not the press.
Another point is...why do some of them word their questions so as to be an accusation or an opinion rather than a question...
That would drive me nuts...and do they ever really truly listen to the answers ???

A few thoughts...

HL

 

[couchcommander]

Read that again: "...this is sign the list so we can pick the one we want to talk to."  Do you know the minds of the PM and his staffers?  Have you even accumulated proof of behaviour that would circumstantially demonstrate such an intent?

From the LA Times, reproduced in a publically availible format here

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003019772_canada26.html

Harper said he would choose questioners from a pre-screened list

 

[Kirkhill]

Malo acknowledged that the press culture in Toronto was less decorous than other places such as the White House, where reporters stand up when the president enters the room and don't interrupt while he is speaking.

Accuracy all the time eh? 

 

[couchcommander]

lol, I didn't notice that. funny. I wonder if the PM before Harper was Jean Poutine as well.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

:rofl: