Other Shoe Drops?
No aspect of responsible government is more fundamental than having the trust of citizens. Canadians' faith in the institutions and practices of government has been eroded. This new government trusts in the Canadian people, and its goal is that Canadians will once again trust in their government. It is time for accountability....
Effective checks and balances are important, but they are not enough. The trust of citizens must be earned every day. The Government will work to earn that trust.
Stephen Harper doesn't care about national journalists.
"Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government," Mr. Harper told London's A-Channel....
The prime minister does not want to hold press conferences unless his staff choose which journalists ask questions from a list they compile. The Ottawa press gallery has refused to play by those rules.
Is that what transparency and accountability looks like? Silencing opposition and hand picking friendly media?
Labels: politics
6 comment:
One could argue that the ottawa press gallery is just as 'unaccountable,' if not more so than Harper's PMO in this instance. Today, reporters still have the opportunity to ask questions as long as they file their names first with the PMO. Newspapers haven't been nationalized; television stations have not been shut down. This is not censorship. Harper is simply identifying that the press gallery has been far too cozy with the Liberal government of the past 15 years and may therefore present some explicit and implicit biases in the methods of their reporting and choosing who asks the questions ... one could argue.
Mulroney did something very similar in 84, as did Chretien in 93. Edit
Since when were the press nice to the liberals? I think the Canadian press bitch out all politicians, and that is the way it should be. Edit
Preface: I know you bookended your comment with "one" to simply play the devil's advocate. No "one" in their right mind would believe that above argument. But I'll bite. Also, what follows, is my opinion.
Anyhoo...I'm not sure what you're referring to when you (or "one," rather,) said Mulroney did something similar in '84. (a reference to Kinsella's piece on the Post blog says it was '83 whilst Bri-Bri was in the opposition, so it already doesn't seem "very similar")A.) The Government is accountable to the people.
"One" could argue that you're just as unaccountable as the press gallery. And you are. So am I. But nobody cares. Because you're not the democratically elected government.
Holding the media to the same yardstick as the Prime Minister is crazy. Yes they should be held accountable, but it's of a different measure.
And, even if, as "one" might claim, that there is a big and little "L" agenda behind the media, that doesn't invalidate the questioning.
B.) There hasn't been a documented identifiable bias.
It's nice to wash that away with the lazy phrase that Harper is "simply identifying that the press gallery has been far too cozy with the Liberal government...". Tough questions are asked and PMs throughout the ages have felt threatened with the press and claimed "they" were out to get them.
As a sidebar:
However, Mark Entwistle, Mulroney's press secretary, seems to have a problem with what Harper is doing: Even Brian Mulroney met the national press." (Here's some fodder for the "quotes out of context" response "one" might generate)
C.) It is not the Prime Minister's duty to identify who has a bias in their reporting, and direct questions to only PMO-vetted journalists. Funnily enough that's not my idea; the notion of an independent media is strongly entrenched in Canadian culture.
Of course, "the list" would suggest otherwise. The PMO says they're "merely trying to install some order to the often chaotic ritual of parliamentary news scrums."So then if he would be fair, what's the purpose of the list? Why would it be needed? FIFO works for every other bureaucratic process, why the need for such tight control if it's not for the purpose of preferential selection?
Harper is very clearly following the field-tested model the Bush Administration has managed over the past 6 years. Would "one" want more? I'd ignore the MSM links since there's an "obvious" bias, instead, I'll go to the bloggers. Or wait, would they have a bias too? Who should report things? It's all too much with this bickering and mudslinging; let me sit a spell.
Prolly the scariest thing I've read thus far is from Sandra Buckler, the PM's communications director:I hope that's not true. The sycophants defending Harper's decision forget that there is both a very clear distinction AND relationship between an elected PM and a free press.
Perhaps a letter to the editor in today's [May 26] G&M summed it up best: Edit
The following is my opinion. By the way, I don't disagree with any of those quotes that you included in your comment or original post.
All I'm saying is that I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Newspapers still print, TV and Radio still broadcasts. Reporters and media will still report all sides of a story because that's what they do in this country.
The press gallery in Ottawa no longer calls the shots on parliamentary reporting. Good. Reporters need to register with the PMO before being allowed to scrum or report after cabinet meetings. Alright. If you were PM, wouldn't you want to know if punks like me were going to ruin your press conferences? Now, if the current PM has some fairly harsh anti-right critics who might be drinking a little too much of their own koolaid to provide balanced coverage, don't you think the PMO wants to keep them away from official channels at parliament?
Maybe you don't. That's fine. All I know is that press is still free in this country. Relax.
Funny, something you said about PMO-vetted journalists. Paul Wells registered with the PMO's list. He certainly isn't any fan of Harper, or any politician for that matter. How could he possibly be called 'vetted?' It's a new order on the Hill. Reporters sign the list, or they're not allowed to report there. Big deal. Get over it. Edit
That's precisely the big deal. Maybe I'm missing the point: Why the list?
It's not to keep the riff-raff out as you suggest, that's already handled by the media credentials and security checks that were in place before.
It's not to stifle perceived anti-Conservative reporters according to the PMO.
The press gallery has repeatedly said that to make it more orderly, they would line up at a mic, going one at a time, first-in, first-out.
So what's the purpose?
You say just sign the list, big deal. Well I think we, as a free and democratic society, should abhor lists created for the sake of lists.
By actively picking and choosing who speaks when, the PM is influencing the media.
You said: "don't you think the PMO wants to keep them away from official channels at parliament?"
That's exactly my point. Who is the PM to decide who is worthy of getting information from official channels? If you're a Canadian citizen, you have the same rights as every other citizen.
And don't suggest nonsense like national security warrants secrecy from citizens. This isn't of national security, there is no need for additional secrecy.
Let me spell it out one more time:
Having the Prime Minister of Canada selectively choosing who can ask questions of the Prime Minister of Canada, necessarily limits the freedom of the press. Edit
From Paul Well's blog; not exactly a ringing endorsement of the list.
I'll agree isn't a "big deal" in the scale of national events that are going unreported because of this event, but it's certainly not something that should be dismissed lightly. If you think it's simply changing the colour of a pen, you're sadly mistaken. There is a message behind this change.[Also, I'm trying to create a new cliche: Not simply changing the colour of a pen -- Undervaluing the magnitude of a change. -- origins: when the PM required a signup list, it's not as though he was simply changing the colour of the pen; there wasn't a list before and he was bringing it into existence] Edit
Post a Comment