Gagging the Messenger

[Keepitsimple]

Saw this article in the National Post. The McGuinty campaign is being tightly scripted. If he doesn't have a scripted answer, it appears that Mr. McGuinty doesn't know how to provide an answer. He's a puppet for the back-room boys.

Gagging the messenger

Dalton McGuinty's provincial Liberals had a bad day on Thursday. Ontario's Premier had just finished a stump speech and was heading for his campaign bus when a man shook his hand and asked a simple question: "What are you going to do about the natives occupying my site?" That fellow was Mike Quattrociocchi, a small housing developer from Brantford, Ont. In September, he had to stop work on his development property after it was occupied by natives seeking to shake him down for $48,000.

It was an awkward question, but certainly valid given that natives occupying private land in Caledonia, Ont., have been allowed to squat for months without consequence. Mr. Quattrociocchi wonders -- as do we -- whether Mr. McGuinty ever intends to enforce the law and protect innocent property-owners. Mr. McGuinty appeared uncomfortable and fumbled his words. All this was captured by Hamilton's CHCH-TV station, which had its cameras rolling and had put a mic on Mr. Quattrociocchi when its staff learned he was going to ask the Premier a question.

Ben Chin, a former journalist and presently a communications advisor to Mr. McGuinty, was apparently enraged. He called the station, and accused CHCH-TV of setting up the Premier. According to the station, he warned that if it ran the clip CHCH would be denied all future access to Mr. McGuinty, and that senior managers in its organization would be contacted.

Such thuggish tactics are not the way to manage the media. Freedom of the press is a key right in a democracy, one that is especially important during an election. It should not be trampled on by backroom political flacks seeking to censor legitimate political commentary. Mr. McGuinty should apologize for Mr. Chin's over-zealous behaviour and assure CHCH-TV that he will not boycott the station.

It would also be nice if he answered Mr. Quattrociocchi question, too.

Link: http://www.canada.com/components/print.asp...13-0e186bb9917c

Edited September 18, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[mikedavid00]

Saw this article in the National Post. The McGuinty campaign is being tightly scripted. If he doesn't have a scripted answer, it appears that Pinocchio doesn't know how to provide an answer. He's a puppet for the back-room boys.

Link: http://www.canada.com/components/print.asp...13-0e186bb9917c

And what about when John Tory was asked about whether or not he would accept Ontario public schools teaching Shariah Law which is a very valid question.

Tory didn't answer it and danced around it.

[geoffrey]

Indians pose a much greater threat to your freedom than kids learning Islam in school. Mind you, Sharia law isn't exactly disirable either.

[bk59]

It looks like all political parties are starting to script more and treat the media with less respect. It worked fairly well for Harper so why wouldn't others do the same?

[Keepitsimple]

More than scripting, I was trying to point out the bullies that can emerge from a campaign as reflected by this quote from the article:

Ben Chin, a former journalist and presently a communications advisor to Mr. McGuinty, was apparently enraged. He called the station, and accused CHCH-TV of setting up the Premier. According to the station, he warned that if it ran the clip CHCH would be denied all future access to Mr. McGuinty, and that senior managers in its organization would be contacted.

[bk59]

More than scripting, I was trying to point out the bullies that can emerge from a campaign as reflected by this quote from the article:

Not just from a campaign though. It's really not that different from Harper telling the national media that he will no longer talk to them and that he will only go through local stations. As far as I'm concerned our politicians, of every party at every level, have a responsibility to deal with the media. Although I will make an exception for media stations that tell lies, etc. But that wasn't the case with McGuinty or with Harper and is very unlikely to ever happen in Canada (at least with mainstream media).

[scribblet]

It looks like all political parties are starting to script more and treat the media with less respect. It worked fairly well for Harper so why wouldn't others do the same?

Maybe it's because often, the media doesn't report factually or they slant a story to fit their own biases.

[bk59]

Maybe it's because often, the media doesn't report factually or they slant a story to fit their own biases.

This is a favourite claim from certain people / parties. It is a claim that does not excuse politicians from being open with the public in a democracy. Do you really want politicians threatening media sources because they don't like a particular story? Do Canadians really want their politicians trying to control the media by determining who gets access and who doesn't? By only going to those reporters who will soft-ball questions, or just parrot the official line / news release? That's not the media's job. That's why politicians have public relations people, press secretaries, etc.

I haven't seen any objective evidence that proves that there is an overall media bias. The fact that people from all political parties and viewpoints can point to sources in the media and scream bias shows me that overall the system is balanced. Not only that, but I think that it's quite rare to find a story that has had facts changed or made up on purpose. As for a story's slant... every media source will intentionally or unintentionally have a slant. It might be small, it might be big. But it generally evens out by comparing the same story in multiple sources. This makes it even more important that we don't let our politicians pick and choose who reports the stories. More sources make it easier for people to get a balanced, and perhaps more accurate, picture.

Any claim by a politician that "the media is out to get me" should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

[jennie]

Indians pose a much greater threat to your freedom than kids learning Islam in school. Mind you, Sharia law isn't exactly disirable either.

geoffrey, I must say this is a disgusting statement.

[geoffrey]

geoffrey, I must say this is a disgusting statement.

The Six Nation's attacking civilians and stealing property is a much bigger risk than a call to prayer, isn't it?

[Higgly]

The Six Nation's attacking civilians and stealing property is a much bigger risk than a call to prayer, isn't it?

Stealing property and attacking civilians. Sound familiar?

[August1991]

It looks like all political parties are starting to script more and treat the media with less respect. It worked fairly well for Harper so why wouldn't others do the same?

If I recall correctly, Harper didn't adopt such a media policy during an election campaign.

OTOH, Richard Nixon in 1968 did, to some success. So, the idea of a politician mistreating the media is not new - and it may work.

[bk59]

If I recall correctly, Harper didn't adopt such a media policy during an election campaign.

OTOH, Richard Nixon in 1968 did, to some success. So, the idea of a politician mistreating the media is not new - and it may work.

True, the idea is definitely not new. And while Harper did complain about the media, he did not restrict access during a campaign. Which in my mind actually makes it a bit worse. At least during a campaign people can see what they are getting and vote appropriately. Freezing the media out once you are in power is more dangerous in my mind.

[Higgly]

True, the idea is definitely not new. And while Harper did complain about the media, he did not restrict access during a campaign.

He managed access.

[geoffrey]

He managed access.

Common sense, used by all parties. We didn't have any fuddle duddle, flipping the bird or 'screw the west, we'll take the rest' from any party last campaign.

They have evolved.

[Higgly]

Common sense, used by all parties. We didn't have any fuddle duddle, flipping the bird or 'screw the west, we'll take the rest' from any party last campaign.

They have evolved.

No, that's not evolution. That's backroom hacks moving to the fore so we can't hear what the leaders actually think.

I change the channel whenever I see some party hack smarming it's way to the front of the pack. I can't believe that there hasn't been more hue and cry that these parasites are given direct access to the the electorate.

Gag me with a ballot.

[jdobbin]

If I recall correctly, Harper didn't adopt such a media policy during an election campaign.

OTOH, Richard Nixon in 1968 did, to some success. So, the idea of a politician mistreating the media is not new - and it may work.

The media always gets their revenge. That isn't new either.

[jbg]

It looks like all political parties are starting to script more and treat the media with less respect. It worked fairly well for Harper so why wouldn't others do the same?

What G-d given right does the media have to control candidate access to the voters?

[bk59]

What G-d given right does the media have to control candidate access to the voters?

What are you talking about? This is about voter access to the candidates not the other way around.

Politicians can use various means to get in touch with voters, including many that have nothing to do with the media (speeches, dinners, etc.). But voters have a right to know about their politicians. Voters have a right to hear the responses that politicians give not just to the soft-ball questions, but to the hard questions as well. The media allows the voters to do that, because quite frankly we all can't follow our politicians all of the time and one politician cannot meet with millions of voters.

More importantly, this topic was started in relation to politicians choosing one media source over another not because a particular source lied, but because that source asked a tough question or ran a story that while true happened to display the politician in a negative light. Politicians are responsible to all of the voters, including the ones that want answers to tough questions. In a democracy politicians owe it to the people to engage with them through the media. We will end up in a bad spot if all of a sudden we let politicians decide which media sources are appropriate, which stories are appropriate, and which questions are appropriate.

[jbg]

More importantly, this topic was started in relation to politicians choosing one media source over another not because a particular source lied, but because that source asked a tough question or ran a story that while true happened to display the politician in a negative light. Politicians are responsible to all of the voters, including the ones that want answers to tough questions. In a democracy politicians owe it to the people to engage with them through the media. We will end up in a bad spot if all of a sudden we let politicians decide which media sources are appropriate, which stories are appropriate, and which questions are appropriate.

We basically agree, but even in my country, newspapers of the left and right come dangerously close to making their front page into a disguised editorial page. If a question is asked in a "when did you stop beating your wife (err, maybe same sex partner), should a politician fall for the obvious bait?

[Shakeyhands]

I love the title of this thread, written by a true Conservative no doubt.

[Keepitsimple]

I love the title of this thread, written by a true Conservative no doubt.

The term "thug" came from the article's use of the word "thuggish" but Conservative-leaning though I am, I took your comment to heart and changed the sub-title from "Liberal thugs" to "Back room Thugs". The tight scripters are in all parties but it seems that McGuinty allows himself to be more tightly scripted than the other leaders......and I guess it's no wonder. Here's a video of him answering some questions on crime. This is obviously a partisan video but these are the kinds of McGuinty Moments that rarely show up in news footage.

McGuinty quizzed on Crime: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=443...h&plindex=5

Edited September 17, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[Shakeyhands]

this isn't news and certainly isn't restricted to the Liberals. I can think of several incidents in the last few years that were similar if not worse...

perhaps McGuinty should have the OPP restrict access and bar undesirable mediatypes.

[jennie]

True, the idea is definitely not new. And while Harper did complain about the media, he did not restrict access during a campaign. Which in my mind actually makes it a bit worse. At least during a campaign people can see what they are getting and vote appropriately. Freezing the media out once you are in power is more dangerous in my mind.

People noticed Harper tampering with their right to know too. How the government handles the media does affect how people will vote next time. McGuinty's snub of the man with cancer won't slip people's minds either, I think. He didn't even say 'Sorry for your troubles' or show him any compassion - all politics. That was sad.

Ben Chin is a communications type who spoke to the media as if they were in his employ. Wakeup call for him.

I thought Quattrochiocci did a smart thing, and I thought CH handled the fallout well by just reporting it. That allows the public to make up their own minds.

[kengs333]

People noticed Harper tampering with their right to know too. How the government handles the media does affect how people will vote next time. McGuinty's snub of the man with cancer won't slip people's minds either, I think. He didn't even say 'Sorry for your troubles' or show him any compassion - all politics. That was sad.

Ben Chin is a communications type who spoke to the media as if they were in his employ. Wakeup call for him.

I thought Quattrochiocci did a smart thing, and I thought CH handled the fallout well by just reporting it. That allows the public to make up their own minds.

Was this the guy who wouldn't shake McGuinty's hand? I totally forgot about that, actually, but now that you brought it up, having cancer isn't excuse for being a rude asshole. I would have kept on walking, too.