The Media's Imperfect Storm

[Argus]

Harper supporters should be writing letters and phoning and doing whatever else they can to get their leader to stop picking fights with the press....if you care about your PM that is.

But we despise the media.

[Montgomery Burns]

Michael Hardner:

After all the very same media adored Ronald Reagan.

That's not true. The MSM despised Reagan. Only when he died did they generally hail him as a great prez, so as not to look hopelessly out of touch with the public--like in the 80s when the public adored Reagan and the MSM detested him and his values.

[gerryhatrick]

Bullshit.

The government is accountable to the people, not a self-selected group of political ideolgues who represent no one.

No, the government is not accountable to anyone if they are not required to answer questions.

give your head a shake man.

[newbie]

Michael Hardner:

After all the very same media adored Ronald Reagan.

That's not true. The MSM despised Reagan. Only when he died did they generally hail him as a great prez, so as not to look hopelessly out of touch with the public--like in the 80s when the public adored Reagan and the MSM detested him and his values.

I challenge that. The media gave him a free ride most of the time during his tenure. Read Mark Hertsgaard's On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency for some insight.

[Argus]

Bullshit.

The government is accountable to the people, not a self-selected group of political ideolgues who represent no one.

No, the government is not accountable to anyone if they are not required to answer questions.

give your head a shake man.

There's this thing called "Question Period" in the House of Commons. That's where they are required to answer questions.

[August1991]

I've asked it before, but no one seems to be interested in answering. What other nations governments let some third party decide who the prime minister/president/king/dictator can take questions from. In what other nation would the prime minister/president/king/dictator point to a reporter at a presss conrference and ask him his question, and have the reporter say "Uhm, you can't speak to me. You have to ask that other guy the question because the press gallery head - who loathes you - decided he was first."

Argus, would you argue the same if it were PM Layton avoiding the media's questions?

There's a crass element of partisanship to this debate.

And who cares if other leaders in other countries don't have to face the press? Or even that our Constitution is silent on this issue? In the middle of Watergate, when Nixon was avoiding for months on end a press conference and was pushing Ziegler to face the press in his place, I thought it admirable that the parliamentary system requires the PM to face Question Period on a regular basis. (Incidentally, our Constitution is silent about QP too.)

So, if foreign leaders can avoid the press, that's no reason ours should. If anything, we should be proud that our system has such a tradition.

----

Having read several columns and posts on this topic, it seems to me that the subtext to this issue is the PPG/MSM's basic competence and professionalism. They report on whether Harper drinks diet Coke, has a paunch, shakes his kid's hand. The vast majority of them ignored Adscam. They have never reported, for example, on how the Liberals planned to implement Kyoto.

I don't know if the PMO's request for a list of names/questions prior to a press conference will improve their competency but I guess it's worth a try.

----

Lastly, there's a minor irony in watching Rightwing posters to this forum arguing that they trust government officials more than private sector journalists and then Leftwing posters arguing the opposite. The Left may want more and bigger government in the form of Tommy Douglas but who says it won't instead come in the form of Bush Jnr.

[geoffrey]

I'd rather get my info on the government from the government... not the media. It's rather sad to say I trust the government more.

You naively (or perhaps willfully) think the media is a simple unit motivated to a single purpose.

It is astounding to me that you would forgo all responsibility of reporting to your government.

Obviously there is bad reporting in the media, just like there are bad actions in government. Both should be on display for all to judge. Under Harpers vision his government gets removed from display, except for what he wants to show you.

Do you seriously think he will show you the warts?

Harper supporters should be writing letters and phoning and doing whatever else they can to get their leader to stop picking fights with the press....if you care about your PM that is.

The media is a simple unit motivate to a single purpose... sell papers, sell advertising on their TV/radio shows. Nothing else. There is no altruistic nature in media.

If media wants to report something, let them. But I won't read it. I personally am fed up with media folks thinking they know more than everyone else and writing condescending stories that treat me like a 5 year old.

His government isn't removed from display, we have the freedom of information act. We have press conferences. All the media in this country does is listen to press conferences, and try to 'interpret' (read: dumb down) everything for the common folk. There is no digging up dirt. Half of the press gallery nearly died when Harper refused to answer their questions, they realised they were incapable of actually investigating anything.

Your the one being naive if you think the press gallery in Ottawa is investigative and tells you anything you don't get from a press conference. They are all paid typewritters and bad ones at that.

If they were allowed to ask questions, what would that change? If there was a massive cover-up, do you think the PM would just pull out the "ok, now that you asked, I did shoot Kennedy!"

How ridiculous. You respect the media too much, remember, they are all bottom-feeding scum out to spin a story the right way to sell the most papers the news-stand.

[Hicksey]

I'd rather get my info on the government from the government... not the media. It's rather sad to say I trust the government more.

You naively (or perhaps willfully) think the media is a simple unit motivated to a single purpose.

It is astounding to me that you would forgo all responsibility of reporting to your government.

Obviously there is bad reporting in the media, just like there are bad actions in government. Both should be on display for all to judge. Under Harpers vision his government gets removed from display, except for what he wants to show you.

Do you seriously think he will show you the warts?

Harper supporters should be writing letters and phoning and doing whatever else they can to get their leader to stop picking fights with the press....if you care about your PM that is.

The media is a simple unit motivate to a single purpose... sell papers, sell advertising on their TV/radio shows. Nothing else. There is no altruistic nature in media.

If media wants to report something, let them. But I won't read it. I personally am fed up with media folks thinking they know more than everyone else and writing condescending stories that treat me like a 5 year old.

His government isn't removed from display, we have the freedom of information act. We have press conferences. All the media in this country does is listen to press conferences, and try to 'interpret' (read: dumb down) everything for the common folk. There is no digging up dirt. Half of the press gallery nearly died when Harper refused to answer their questions, they realised they were incapable of actually investigating anything.

Your the one being naive if you think the press gallery in Ottawa is investigative and tells you anything you don't get from a press conference. They are all paid typewritters and bad ones at that.

If they were allowed to ask questions, what would that change? If there was a massive cover-up, do you think the PM would just pull out the "ok, now that you asked, I did shoot Kennedy!"

How ridiculous. You respect the media too much, remember, they are all bottom-feeding scum out to spin a story the right way to sell the most papers the news-stand.

Wow, how could anyone paint a more accurate picture of the press?

[gerryhatrick]

The media is a simple unit motivate to a single purpose... sell papers, sell advertising on their TV/radio shows. Nothing else. There is no altruistic nature in media.

Actually many journalists take their jobs and the responsibility of informing the public quite seriously. They're about journalism and reporting facts, not selling papers.

Your narrow view is akin to saying that hospitals in the USA have a singular purpose...to make money. It is true US hospitals have to make money, so the statement is not altogether without basis...but Doctors more often than not have a higher motivation that that.

His government isn't removed from display, we have the freedom of information act.

If the new accountability legislation was provided to reporters more than a few minutes before the press conference on it then you might know a little bit about how the FOIA is impacted.

As it is, you don't.

I guess we all have to go read the new legislation ourselves, right? Can't rely on the media to look at it and report the relavent facts to us, huh?

I've never seen such paranoid delusion in this Country.

Your the one being naive if you think the press gallery in Ottawa is investigative and tells you anything you don't get from a press conference. They are all paid typewritters and bad ones at that.

Who dug up the sponsorship story?

If all those 200+ journalists are doing is telling us what comes out of a press conference then why is Harper trying to control and restrict them? It makes no sense.

The media is what scritinizes government. It is a check on government power. I think the naive one is you if you think a government should be allowed to operate in a bubble of it's own making. Your love of Harper has gotten in the way of rational thought.

[Kiraly]

Who dug up the sponsorship story?

The Auditor General.

[GostHacked]

I'd rather get my info on the government from the government... not the media. It's rather sad to say I trust the government more.

Media is all spin to make a quick buck. Anti-war, anti-Americanism and radical liberal agendas sell papersin this country, its obvious where the paper are aiming their spin to.

If that was the case, you would have never had heard of the Sponsorship Scandal. We need another group (like the media as biased as they are) to present us with other items of interest. If all your news was comming from the government, you can bet your red and white canadian ass you would here nothing but positive things and alot of fluffy bullshat lies. Take the government story with a grain of salt, just like the rest of the media.

Since the CBC is state funded (by taxpayers) we would only get a nice nice look at the government. Again someone mentioned "more accountability in government", oh wait that was Harper correct? How is this making government more accountable?

[August1991]

Who dug up the sponsorship story?

The Auditor General.

I think Daniel Leblanc and Campbell Calrk of the Globe & Mail, along with the persistent questioning of the Bloc Quebecois in the House, brought Adscam to public attention and arguably made the AG's report necessary.

The Globe's Daniel Leblanc and Campbell Clark are the two journalists responsible for making sure Adscam saw the light of the day.

Some Left Wing Link

I am also inclined to think that PM PM's desire to stick it to Chretien played a role too.

[Kiraly]

Double post

[Kiraly]

Who dug up the sponsorship story?

The Auditor General.

I think Daniel Leblanc and Campbell Calrk of the Globe & Mail, along with the persistent questioning of the Bloc Quebecois in the House, brought Adscam to public attention and arguably made the AG's report necessary.

The Globe's Daniel Leblanc and Campbell Clark are the two journalists responsible for making sure Adscam saw the light of the day.

Some Left Wing Link

I am also inclined to think that PM PM's desire to stick it to Chretien played a role too.

I wonder who tipped off these two reporters?

From the link you provided, it almost seems to me the media would be more effective with their investigative journalism if access to information laws were more favourable as opposed to governing the questioning process at press conferences.

[Argus]

I've asked it before, but no one seems to be interested in answering. What other nations governments let some third party decide who the prime minister/president/king/dictator can take questions from. In what other nation would the prime minister/president/king/dictator point to a reporter at a presss conrference and ask him his question, and have the reporter say "Uhm, you can't speak to me. You have to ask that other guy the question because the press gallery head - who loathes you - decided he was first."

Argus, would you argue the same if it were PM Layton avoiding the media's questions?

What questions has Harper avoided?

And who cares if other leaders in other countries don't have to face the press? Or even that our Constitution is silent on this issue?

Well, those on the other side are implying that Harper's refusal to satisfy the press gallery is some kind of major attack on democratic ideals and freedom, and I'm simply pointing out that in other nations, the head of state might well hold a press conference, but he or she will then decide whose questions they take.

Having read several columns and posts on this topic, it seems to me that the subtext to this issue is the PPG/MSM's basic competence and professionalism. They report on whether Harper drinks diet Coke, has a paunch, shakes his kid's hand. The vast majority of them ignored Adscam. They have never reported, for example, on how the Liberals planned to implement Kyoto.

That's basically it. The press are looking for scandals. They will word their questions in a way in which they hope to be able to trap someone into saying something which can be blown into a scandal, or which can be taken out of context or made to seem other than it was. The media can easily control how big or small stories are, or seem. For example, I remember seeing a story on the media and its reporting of protests. If the media organization sympathises with the protest, it can take a close in video or picture which shows a lot of bodies, making it seem like there is a major protest. Or, if it doesn't like them, they can broaden the shot to show no more than a few dozen people in an otherwise empty street or lot, making the protest seem minor. In the case of the Tories, the media have a history of trying to blow small things up into scandals, just as in the case of the Liberals, they have a history of downplaying major stories into nothing. Stockwell Day was a ridiculed moron for showing up at a press conference in a set suit, but Jean Chretien inviting reporters to come watch him play basketball - and then fall on his face - is tactfully overlooked or downplayed as not important. Day misstated the direction of a river and was endlessly mocked, but when Chretien overstated the number of troops we had in Yugoslavia during a visit - by ten times - and wore a helmet backwards, no one paid any attention.

Reporters have, for example, been trying to contact Conservatives, particularly the ones known to be against same sex marriage, to get comments about the gay mounties marrying. Why? I think we all know what they think of it. So why? Why not call promiment Liberals who are against same-sex marriage and ask them? Because that's not the story the media wants to tell. Harper, or even one of his MPs make some minor comment about the bias on the Supreme Court and the media is screming and gnashing their teeth, but when Martin very obviously deliberately stacked the court with his latest two nominees to ensure it would support gay marriage there was hardly a peep of a suggestion from the national press gallery that perhaps that was the wrong thing to do. Furthermore, while the NPG is outraged that Harper wants to choose who he takes questions on I've seen reports that Martin did just that during the last election without any protest from the media.

So it isn't as though the Tories are necessarily afraid that certain reporters will ask difficult questions as that certain reporters will ask leading questions, not in an effort to find out anything, but to trip Harper up and create a story. In addition, I've seen some outright rudeness from reporters the likes of which I never saw during the Liberal years. In those times the PM would rarely be asked anything hard, and if he shrugged off the question the reporter would tactfully move on. I've seen Harper pressed time and again to be more explicit in his answers, as reporters "demand" that he answer their questions fully and completely in the way they want them answered.

Lastly, there's a minor irony in watching Rightwing posters to this forum arguing that they trust government officials more than private sector journalists

I distrust both government and media. However, this particular government has not proved itself dishonest to me, while this particular press gallery has.

[Montgomery Burns]

I don't blame Harper one bit for distrusting the media. What the hell kind of a question - to a person running for Prime Minister - is this: "Mr Harper, do you love Canada?"

The "news reports" about his vest, his cowboy get-up (but nothing about how Paul Martin looked with that big Chinese hat on his head), his belly, him drinking a non-diet Root Beer while in Afghanistan, the constant questions about gay marriage, and the episode with Harper dropping off his Grade 4 son at school. I admit the handshake thing looked a bit awkward (Harper claims it is a family thing), but think about it. When you were in Grade 4, would you want your Dad to drop you off at school and give you a big hug in front of your classmates?

I'm glad it is out in the open. Now when the MSM cheaply attacks Harper, the public will know that the MSM is biased.

I have seen, in the last few days, some members of the PPG posting - anonymously - in the comments section of Ottawawatch.blogspot (whose owner is a member of the PPG) and at StephenTaylor's blog. Needless to say, the millions of fact-checking citizens crushed the arguments made by said PPG members posting. I specifically remember 2 things:

1) One PPG member started off saying that the PPG is not biased, but at the end of his/her post lamented that Harper would only call on reporters who were biased towards his view. Hmmm.

2) It is the job of the PPG to keep the govt accountable.

Silly me. I thought it was the job of the Opposition and the public to keep the govt accountable.

And what about CTV's Question Period on Sunday? Your typical "fair and balanced" show with a liberal moderator hosting a 4 person panel of 3 liberals and a guy who was an advisor for renowned "conservative" Joe Clark. They spent half the 1 hour show whining about Harper's war on the press, the battle between the PPG and Harper - that Harper started! And then to top it off, moderator Giggles Jane Tabor said they might be able to find out more tomorrow...."if Harper will talk to us." Finally, at about 5 to 7, they got around to talking about Harper's attempts to have free elections for the Senate and fixed election dates.

This is what passes for political debate in Canada (yes I know the CBC is worse)?! No wonder so many Canadians are stupid. I'm sorry for being so blunt but I remember watching CPAC's "people on the street interviews" in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver during the election: I don't care if the Liberals are corrupt; I'm voting for them anyway. Anything to keep the Conservatives out of power!

Think about it. 1 in 6 Canadians - ignore Quebec - and 1 in 5 Canadians vote for an outright socialist party whose leader is on the record as saying, "I prefer to be called a socialist rather than a social democrat." The NDP would be a lunatic fringe party in the USA! The mindset of this country needs to be changed.

[Hicksey]

I'd rather get my info on the government from the government... not the media. It's rather sad to say I trust the government more.

Media is all spin to make a quick buck. Anti-war, anti-Americanism and radical liberal agendas sell papersin this country, its obvious where the paper are aiming their spin to.

If that was the case, you would have never had heard of the Sponsorship Scandal. We need another group (like the media as biased as they are) to present us with other items of interest. If all your news was comming from the government, you can bet your red and white canadian ass you would here nothing but positive things and alot of fluffy bullshat lies. Take the government story with a grain of salt, just like the rest of the media.

Since the CBC is state funded (by taxpayers) we would only get a nice nice look at the government. Again someone mentioned "more accountability in government", oh wait that was Harper correct? How is this making government more accountable?

We would have heard of the Sponsorship Scandal for sure. While the media is a little more friendly to the Liberal Party than the others, they will ultimately fry anyone if it suits them. The "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality of the press demands they report on it.