Posted on 04/01/2006 12:43:41 AM PST by goldstategop
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who electioneered by promising Canadians a more "open" government, took two measures last month aimed at establishing a more "closed" one closed, that is, to the media. In so doing, he appeared to have declared war on the parliamentary press gallery.
First, he decreed that all public communications from his Cabinet ministers everything from speeches, to press releases, to policy statements, to letters to the editor must have the prior approval of the Prime Minister's Office.
Second, he ruled that the meetings of his Cabinet will no longer be announced in advance, and press access to the chamber outside the Cabinet Room will henceforth be closed to the media. This meant that reporters could no longer waylay ministers as they left Cabinet meetings for on-the-spot televised "scrums," which occasionally result in unbecoming and often-incoherent shouting matches between reporters and Cabinet ministers.
The announcements, particularly the latter, set off a furious media protest, and much editorial denunciation. A formal meeting between the press gallery executive and officials of the Prime Minister's Office broke up after 20 minutes because, said a gallery spokeswoman, "we weren't getting anywhere."
Meeting the press directly, Harper defended both actions. All his ministers are new, he said, and he wants every public statement to reflect uniform governmental policy. This necessitates central control of all public statements. As for the Cabinet meetings, they are constitutionally "private," not public, and should be treated as such
This implicit one-finger salute to the Ottawa media must, of course, have been a carefully considered decision, probably reached, like many of Harper's decisions, long before he took office. He knows that he owes journalists no thanks whatever for his election, and that during the remarkable five years when he gained the leadership of the right, and unified it into a force capable of forming a minority government, the media in general jeered and deplored him at every step.
So what hope, he will have reasoned, did he now have of securing their unbiased coverage once he had formed a government? The answer is none whatever. By winning the election, he had proved them dead wrong. So a hostile reaction to his government was the only thing he could expect.
Winning a majority in the next election is his uppermost objective. That election can be called at any time the opposition unite to defeat a Government Bill in the House, or whenever Harper himself decides to call it. To win it, he needs the support of the electorate, not necessarily of the media. The media always assume that a government requires the latter to gain the former, that it is they and their coverage that really decides the election.
This is the assumption that Harper has now challenged. He knows, as Macleans magazine columnist Paul Wells glumly observed, "that we're not nearly as good at rallying public opinion to our side as we are at feeling sorry for ourselves."
Indeed, Harper is no doubt gratified by the media's loud outrage. That is, he may be trying to turn their own weapons against them. Every time they write an anti-government story, the public will be inclined to conclude: This just demonstrates their hatred of the man and all he stands for. So instead of hurting the government, bad publicity will have the effect of vindicating him. He said they were out to get him, and now look what they're doing. Bad news, as it were, becomes good news.
The initial public reaction was divided, the liberal Globe and Mail published four condemnatory letters, the conservative National Post published three siding with the government, one of which voiced precisely the response Harper doubtless hopes for:
Oh those poor, poor reporters. They are shunted aside and ignored no more self-absorbed men and women with an exaggerated sense of self-importance to breathlessly report out-of-context snippets and ministerial misstatements. How our understanding of the world will suffer, without the scrums, the jostling, and the total disregard for substance. Now these poor wretches may actually have to do some serious analysis.
Thus, the government's strategy is to depict the media, not as observers of the game, but as players in it, zealously intent upon making points and scoring goals. In this way, media bias gradually destroys media credibility, and the press become the enemies of the truth rather than the purveyors of it. But did Steve Harper actually figure all this out before he was even elected? To those who know the man, it's altogether likely.
Agreed. Their only real advantage is owning their own 'means of production'. Propaganda happens. I'm a firm believer that the government should own one unabashedly nationalist TV station so they are given an equal opportunity to demagogue any given issue with the leftists and subversives.
He probably got word that Helen Thomas was being assigned to Canada.
I spend a lot of time in Canada. While many in America decry the bias of the MSM ours are tame by comparison. The bias against anything conservative anything USA anything that doesn't advance the social/liberal agenda is marginalized, mischarcterized and mocked. Take for example the issue of gay marriage (only because we are all familiar with it) Canadians generally poll about the same as Americans on the subject majority against. However no politician..not even Stephen Harper..dare stand up the liberal Canadian Courts that by fiat have decreed it. The press suggests any such move with be tantmount to an overthrow of their judicial order. There are many examples but if anything our MSM is still in the closet..theirs is out and proud. By the way brilliant tactic by Harper on stiffing the media hope it works.
EXACTLY, SO FU OTTAWA PRESS CORP..
"I'd prefer no filtering. "
Er, the media IS the filtering. Harper is defeating the media filter by making more communications direct and organizing them.
Harper is 100% right on this. The media likes leaks and embarrassing hallway pounces. But that's warped, there is more reality in unfiltered Govt statements.
"Limiting the power of your own cabinet to speak candidly to the public is quite another matter."
Nothing of the sort here. Official statements need to
lined up with the leadership. Makes perfect sense, and something the US Presidents have done for years.
There is zero restriction on press here.
"I'm sorry, but this just smacks of Soviet-style 'Ministry of Information' tactics that will sanitize the reports rather than calling for honesty in the media. Not good."
nonsense. It may 'smack' of something but that doesnt make it remotely comparable.
Every organization in a free media society has a press office and media contact channels, with SOP as to how member interact with those media channels, and organization statements are channelled through that office. This is true for the Red Cross, Fortune 500 companies, US Democratic Senate Caucus, The White House, the RNC, etc. This is bog-standard press management, and to suggest otherwise is absurd.
This criticism of yours is utter nonsense. The leftie media is freaking out and over-reacting because they know Harper is on to some of their tricks and is shutting them down.
Do not try to make those whom you have defeated, like you
Like as in, think kindly of.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.