one conservative's plan for Harper majority...

[afransen]

We're not allowed to ask candidates, through our media proxies, about even their party's policy platforms. Unless these people are meat puppets for the prime minister, I don't think it is reasonable to muzzle them, and it is something Canadians shouldn't tolerate. We're being asked to give these people a chance at running our government. Harper can't do it all himself, so the character, views and competencies of his candidates should be fair game for media examination.

This isn't a one off event, either. The CPC sicced police on media waiting outside a Conservative caucus retreat in an Ottawa hotel. At another point in time, the opted to give advance briefing on a controversial announcement to a very select group of media. When some of those invited informed the rest of the Ottawa press gallery and uninvited journos started arriving, the CPC officials literally were observed fleeing. It's more than a little bizarre.

 

[Hydrogen]

If you are suggesting a gradual evolution wherein power is being concentrated in the party and in the overt control of messaging, I agree. All parties have "muzzled" candidates and MP's to some degree from time to time. Part of the reason is that the party itself now stands for much more than the elected representatives. In effect, the party sets the tone for the kind of representative who can be selected. Candidates are now, in effect, the representatives of the party in a given riding, and not necessarily a member of the community with a political point of view wishing to represent that riding in parliament. This helps explain why parachuting candidates into a riding is something people rarely blink at these days. A prospective candidate need no longer live in the area that they are supposed to represent; what matters is if they will best represent the needs and message of the party.

Obviously, political parties are big organizations, and great effort is put into messaging and controlling the messaging. For some people, all of this represents too much power concentration (and it is a concentration of power). Are the Conservatives practicing this right now? Yes, but the Liberals did so as well quite recently. If you are saying it is problematic, I agree - but it's not new.

As for media announcements, select invitations to media events and the like, let's remember that if journalists allow themselves to be controlled, they will be controlled. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an invitation-only media event when the event is arranged and controlled by those providing the message that is to be conveyed at such an event. That is the purpose of such an event. Journalists make a big issue about not being invited to a media event, but so what? Mass media outlets eat a steady diet at controlled media events like this, and political parties are happy to feed them - the reason being that it makes the job of the journalist and the party easy. For journalists to presume that they had an automatic right to be at a controlled event is just silly.

Rather than whining about not getting into an event to which they were not invited to, these journalists could actually go out and so some journalism (some do so quite well in spite of not being invited to a party PR massage-fest). Maybe some of these journalists should take the time to look at what the party is (or is not) offering, going out and meeting candidates, analyzing what the party or the people are saying. Counting on the party to deliver anything critical of themselves is a bit lazy. The same, of course, could be requested of citizens as well.

 

[afransen]

This helps explain why parachuting candidates into a riding is something people rarely blink at these days.

I'm not convinced. Lisa Raitt in Halton is one example. I'd say that a decent percentage of the time there is some uproar when a candidate is appointed. It usually happens when the riding association's pick was pushed aside for someone who is less palatable to the locals.

Are the Conservatives practicing this right now? Yes, but the Liberals did so as well quite recently. If you are saying it is problematic, I agree - but it's not new.

What's new is the degree. This government has taken centralization and messaging far beyond anything we've seen in this country. We've never seen cabinet ministers muzzled as the rule rather than the exception. And we've never seen anything like the subversion of the press that Harper has been attempting to limited success these past two years. It's a bit of a running joke that even those in the know have to check who the minister is because they do not speak for their departments. I think the average Canadian would be hard pressed to identify more than one minister and his/her area of responsibility (Flaherty is the only one I'd expect Canadians to know of).

As for media announcements, select invitations to media events and the like, let's remember that if journalists allow themselves to be controlled, they will be controlled. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an invitation-only media event when the event is arranged and controlled by those providing the message that is to be conveyed at such an event. That is the purpose of such an event. Journalists make a big issue about not being invited to a media event, but so what? Mass media outlets eat a steady diet at controlled media events like this, and political parties are happy to feed them - the reason being that it makes the job of the journalist and the party easy. For journalists to presume that they had an automatic right to be at a controlled event is just silly.

It's a prisoners dilemma with huge incentive to defect. Harper for the first part of his tenure refused to allow the press to control questioning at press events as was traditional, presumably to use the threat of not allowing questions to keep reporters from making negative statements. He generally only made himself available for interviews with friendly journos or non-Ottawa press.

I'm just incredibly uncomfortable with this level of secrecy, unaccountability and spin to be the SOP for government on a day-by-day basis. I wonder how long it will take for Canadians to reject this behaviour.

Rather than whining about not getting into an event to which they were not invited to, these journalists could actually go out and so some journalism (some do so quite well in spite of not being invited to a party PR massage-fest). Maybe some of these journalists should take the time to look at what the party is (or is not) offering, going out and meeting candidates, analyzing what the party or the people are saying. Counting on the party to deliver anything critical of themselves is a bit lazy. The same, of course, could be requested of citizens as well.

It makes it rather difficult to provide balanced reporting when the minister is prohibited from speaking to you, and ministry officials are prohibited from making any statements not vetted by the PMO. Add to that tactics such as responses to access to information requests being fulfilled by 90% redacted documents, terminating the registry of such requests, firing any government officials making unapproved statements, etc.

 

[Hydrogen]

I'm not convinced. Lisa Raitt in Halton is one example. I'd say that a decent percentage of the time there is some uproar when a candidate is appointed. It usually happens when the riding association's pick was pushed aside for someone who is less palatable to the locals.

Experience is subjective, but I can remember a time when parachuting a candidate in was something of an electoral death sentence for that candidate.

What's new is the degree. This government has taken centralization and messaging far beyond anything we've seen in this country. We've never seen cabinet ministers muzzled as the rule rather than the exception. And we've never seen anything like the subversion of the press that Harper has been attempting to limited success these past two years. It's a bit of a running joke that even those in the know have to check who the minister is because they do not speak for their departments. I think the average Canadian would be hard pressed to identify more than one minister and his/her area of responsibility (Flaherty is the only one I'd expect Canadians to know of).

Quite possibly, but at the same time we've never had more media outlets so incapable and so neutered. Ministers have always taken a portion of their messaging from their departments (relating to the content rather than the political slant, if you will).

If the press is "subverted," it is largely a result of it's own doing. In reality, there really never has been a "fair and balanced" point of view emanating from that body. This is something that we have taught by way of repetition. As a voter (as a citizen, for that matter) we all have to be aware enough to analyze what the government messaging is, but we also have to recognize that the media is a business with its own interests - and not ours. They are going to have a "perspective" as well

We have a mass media that tends to focus on the innocuous or explosive because it makes for sound bites with which to grab the attention of an audience. Sound bites or other selective quotations/images are used because there is a belief by many in the media that the audience is either too superficial or too stupid to understand anything more complex. That produces media practitioners who believe that sound reporting is the delivery of explosive sound bite or image that fits into the medium through which it is to be communicated. Governments or political parties, in turn, respond to this by trying to control the message as much as possible, crafting it to suit their needs and to maximize its effective transmission through whatever medium.

I recognize that this is a bit of a generalization, but there is some truth to it. The Conservatives are merely trying to control their message as much as possible. If Ritz cracks a joke - however off colour - that becomes an aspect of the election. But it really has nothing to do with the election, the party or agricultural policy. Does this help voters? No. Is this a sound way to conduct an election? No. But for the moment, this is what we have.

Harper for the first part of his tenure refused to allow the press to control questioning at press events as was traditional, presumably to use the threat of not allowing questions to keep reporters from making negative statements.

I don't think there is anything wrong by a political leader trying to control their message. It does nothing to stop an effective reporter from looking elsewhere for answers, or raising questions about what that leader is doing. Reporters are not muzzled; they can make statements all they want - informed or otherwise.

I'm just incredibly uncomfortable with this level of secrecy, unaccountability and spin to be the SOP for government on a day-by-day basis. I wonder how long it will take for Canadians to reject this behaviour.

Are you talking about this election? I would hardly call the Conservatives secretive. I'd say they are uncommunicative. As for Canadians at large, who knows. When their intermediate is the mass media with its own interests, it's hard to know how people are engaging in this election (made all the worse in that it really isn't about anything in particular other than the government having wanted an election).

Add to that tactics such as responses to access to information requests being fulfilled by 90% redacted documents, terminating the registry of such requests, firing any government officials making unapproved statements, etc.

The access to information restrictions are stupid. They stink. Period. As for government officials (PS) making unapproved statements, tough luck for them. Rules are made quite clear when one joins the PS.

Typed really fast, pardon the typos.

 

[afransen]

I think it's fair to describe the Conservatives as secretive, by which I mean they seem obsessed with only disclosing what they want disclosed, obfuscating or making inaccessible that which they do not want exposed, and not even making much effort to appear to answer questions. As we saw today, they answer questions they don't like with a "We don't think that is relevant/important," then answer subsequent questions with "We've already answered that question". By 'answer', of course, they mean criticize.

All of this for a government that campaigned on the promise of transparency and accountability is shameful.

And of course, I'm not only referring to this election, but how the CPC has operated government since gaining power in 2006. They have perhaps improved somewhat. Harper is available for daily questions during this campaign. In 2006, he essentially declared war on the Ottawa press gallery.

I have to ask what you mean by "The access to information restrictions are stupid. They stink. Period." I'm not sure what you're criticizing.

 

[kEiThZ]

I can't say I am enamored with the Conservative behaviour with transparency and their relations with the press. But I do agree that the press seems to practice a certain amount of 'gotcha' journalism which makes the Cons particularly antsy to avoid.

I have to ask what you mean by "The access to information restrictions are stupid. They stink. Period." I'm not sure what you're criticizing.

As someone who get's these at work. I will say they do suck. Not because they are extra work, but because most dumbass reporters produce what we refer to as 'shotgun atips' ...fire away with the hopes that something will stick. For example, let me ask the CF to release every document in relation to the Sarpoza prison break. Given that a lot of that is classified and given the sheer volume of documents that there might be on that topic, if you submit a shotgun like that all you will get are re-dacted docs, or the response that your request is too onerous. Some of the requests we get would literally take person-years of labour to fill. And after they are denied you still get the reporter who decides to bug the poor schmo who had to shoot down his request, in the hopes that harassing said schmo will cause him/her to give in. ATIPs would probably work better if reporters themselves knew what to ask for (from their own research) what they wanted instead of treating the ATIP process as a fishing expedition. Perhaps the Liberals saw no problem with wasting the labour of thousands of civil servants to fulfill these idiotic requests (there are really very very few genuine ATIPs that come through) but it was an unsustainable policy that was due to end....sooner or later reporters have to do their job, instead of getting a well paid civil servant to do their job by filling out a form on the internet.

Another note on ATIP, cabinet briefing notes are classified, and this has always been the rule. Perhaps the Liberals were more generous with their notes, but it's been the norm that a lot this stuff is not shared with the public simply because the random musings of public servants should not derail elected governments.

 

[Hydrogen]

My response is that I have seen this type of behaviour before from government, so maybe it seems like a typical course of action - particularly during an election. Frankly, I find that the Conservatives have very little to keep secret. To my mind, their biggest secret is that they don't represent anything new, novel or interesting.

Concerning access to information, I was making reference to CAIRS, the Co-ordination of Access to Information Requests System, which was the database that allowed people to identify millions of pages of once-secret documents that were made public through individual freedom-of-information requests over many years. The government cancelled the service early in 2008, and its cancellation chokes access to information. This action also goes against their stated ideals of transparency and accountability.