Reporters walk out on PM

[GAP]

After 13 years of the Liberals, the Ottawa Press Corps have gotten into the habit of determining the focus of the news, instead of reporting it. The Liberals used this to their advantage. They would reports some item, put their spin on it, and the Press Corps would take off from there, with little or no contrary opinion. Even if the opposition parties gave dissenting opinions, they were largely ignored, because, it seems, it didn't fit the stream.

There may be some staff positions at stake here. If the Press Corps cannot become productive in the short term, the media companies will start pulling people out and reassigning them to productive work.

 

[a_majoor]

I think it's easy to overstate the press gallery's "agenda"; most reporters are far too cynical, jaded, and terrified of losing his or her jobs in some ruthless management purge in the newsroom actively to pursue a coherent political agenda. 

While I think it's a truism that most reporters are left of center culturally (as TMM seems to demonstrate  ) that doesn't necessarily translate into party bias.  Having had some journalism experience myself, I think the main obession for reporters is two-fold: not being scooped, and getting noticed by the managing editor.  In other words newsroom politics dominates their thinking not party politics.

In these circumstances the herd rules the day, which is why if you ever see the gallery in action they will flit around from scrum to scrum making sure they haven't missed anything and often parrot what they think is the main story line from other reporters. (If they miss the main story of the day, aforesaid managing editor will very, very unhappy.)

Overall I think Harper's strategy is a high risk one and probably a diversion of time and energy; perhaps not now, as the poll results indicate, but during the next election campaign.

Prime Minister Harper seems to have found the flaw in the press gallery's armour. If he uses "nuke and bypass", they will be cut off from scoops, access to good stories, backgrounders, exclusive interviews etc. and managing editors will be ROYALLY pissed at their "spoiled brat pack" who are no longer able to get the goods.

I suspect behind the scenes there will be ultimatums delivered in the managing editor's offices of many a media outlet. The press gallery reporters will probably start showing up to press conferences again, although you can bet with very bad grace and revving up their own "open agenda" to an even higher pitch.

 

[Kirkhill]

a_majoor:

Another point is that with the PM getting air time anyway, and not looking angry, while the parliamentary press gallery (now identified as the enemy) continues to moan and sniffle and generally look unbecoming, some portion of the public will now be inclined to write off any "attack pieces" with an attitude of "what can you expect anyway, they loathe each other, a pox on both their houses".

This might neutralize the PPG sufficiently in the minds of enough electors to undo their ability to sway opinion and an election.  All the PPG has to sell is credibility.  If they lose that.....

 

[mdh]

I suspect behind the scenes there will be ultimatums delivered in the managing editor's offices of many a media outlet.

a-majoor: agree with you 100 per cent (ps good article in the back issue of Army Journal)

Another point is that with the PM getting air time anyway, and not looking angry, while the parliamentary press gallery (now identified as the enemy) continues to moan and sniffle and generally look unbecoming, some portion of the public will now be inclined to write off any "attack pieces" with an attitude of "what can you expect anyway, they loathe each other, a pox on both their houses".

This might neutralize the PPG sufficiently in the minds of enough electors to undo their ability to sway opinion and an election.  All the PPG has to sell is credibility.

Kirkhill

I think political memories are short and "media memories" (if I can call it that) are even shorter. The vast majority of audiences pay scant attention to political news.  Moreover, I don't think the media has much credibility with the public anyway (although it's better than most politicians). 

Audience reactions therefore tend to be visceral. In that sense I don't think it's possible to neutralize the PPG; they will be a fact of political life.  The question for media strategists is - or should be - how can we co-opt them or get around them.  As already noted, Harper is using the regional media as an alternative to deliver his messages, and this might succeed. But any smart opposition will see this as a huge opportunity to curry favour with the PPG ie "Hey come along with us on our bus, folks, and we'll make sure the caviar is Russian and the champagne Dom Perignon  :-*)

cheers, mdh

 

[Old Sweat]

I just watched the PM's press conference in Vancouver on CTV Newsnet. Interestingly Bob Fife was also a spectator from Ottawa and both he and Kate Wheeler said several times that it was time for the PPG and the PMO to sit down together and resolve the issue. The press in Vancouver also did n'ot press the issue all that far and one gets the impression that the journalists are, if not close to blinking, niot displaying solidarity. To give in will be difficult for both sides, most especially for the media who are painting themselves as on the side of the angels, and there will probably be more 'he said, she said' back and forth until they decide to reach a compromise.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>He needs the Ottawa based national press to get re-elected, or they will control the entire focus of the campaign and crush him.

If the Ottawa-based national press has that much influence over federal elections, it's past time to break that influence.

Politicians don't need a single floating press pool to release information.  They can create as many opportunities to publicly release information as they desire.  The more such opportunities, the less information which will be passed through the same filter (group of reporters).

This snit boils down to two simple factors:
1) Loss of influence (the commanding position of being the national information filter).
2) Gathering information is harder work than having it fed to you.

 

[Cloud Cover]

>He needs the Ottawa based national press to get re-elected, or they will control the entire focus of the campaign and crush him.

If the Ottawa-based national press has that much influence over federal elections, it's past time to break that influence.- I'm just sayin'..

Conservative Politicians don't need a single floating press pool to release information.  They can create as many opportunities to publicly release information as they desire.  The more such opportunities, the less information which will be passed through the same filter (group of reporters).

This snit boils down to two simple factors:
1) Loss of influence (the commanding position of being the national information filter).
2) Gathering information is harder work than having it fed to you. [Ahhhh. the old Liberals live off the avails of others theory... it's true!!!]

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As Edward has pointed out in other threads, far to many of our "reporters" are simply scribes used to being spoon fed by Liberal press releases. Having to actually work at finding facts and reporting the story must be very unsettling to them.

When did Martin or Chretien ever actually answer a question, though? I mean seriously, they were renowned for their ability to duck a question. You would think Mr. Harper's style - of actually answering what he is asked - would be seen as helpful.  If anything, on the face of it, those "journalists" had to work twice as hard before to pull nuggets out of the manure, if one assumes that all they did was ask questions.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I was a journalism student until life happened and I had to change my plans, but I'll be going back in the next 5-10 years. I still think the media does more good than harm, Any time the state starts to change the "information delivery model" I worry.

Talk about a lukewarm endorsement. So the journalists in this country produce poorly reported schlock, but at least they don't kill anybody? Journalistic "standards" have become a joke - like 2 CDO said - it is almost unheard of for anyone to be directly involved in a news story and then have the pleasure of seeing it reported 100 percent correctly in the paper or on TV the next day.

 

[2 Cdo]

When did Martin or Chretien ever actually answer a question, though? I mean seriously, they were renowned for their ability to duck a question. You would think Mr. Harper's style - of actually answering what he is asked - would be seen as helpful.  If anything, on the face of it, those "journalists" had to work twice as hard before to pull nuggets out of the manure, if one assumes that all they did was ask questions.

:cheers:Beautifully said!

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I was a journalism student until life happened and I had to change my plans, but I'll be going back in the next 5-10 years. I still think the media does more good than harm, Any time the state starts to change the "information delivery model" I worry.

A completely unbiased source. :

 

[couchcommander]

I am forced to question what all your reactions would be if the Liberals had done the same thing.... I strongly suspect it wouldn't have been "You get those reporters Paul Martin", but more along the "damn dictator" line... I could be wrong, but that is just what I find myself asking.

As well, as I have pointed out in past, though there are significant leftist editorial boards, there is also a very well represented rightist section as well. Decrying the Liberal control of the press is nonsense, go pick up a Sun or a National Post (or pretty much any Canwest or Quebecor media product).

The press did MORE than their fair share of Liberal bashing while they were in power, welcome to the flip side.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

I think this is just a power struggle.  The PMO wants to be able to control their image,  very understandable.  The Journalists want to be able to poke around, dig, test, prod and generally do their job in an un fettered manner. They don’t want him to be able to “control” his image.  Also, I know myself, I get rather pissy when I feel someone is being disrespectful to me.  I think both sides feel that they are being disrespected; I think both sides are right in that thought. 

Although I dislike how some of the reporters act, I have to say I dislike government control over the access to information more.  We need journalists to keep our system honest and working. Yes they can be rough at times,  but they can not allow themselves to be whipped and collared,  with treats handed out only to the good puppies that tow the government line.  That isn’t our way,  that isn’t our country.  And as a Homer Simpson once said “That’s not even Mexico”.  It isn’t just soldiers that fight for freedom. 

If you want to complain about my posting - please form a line,  now take a number,  okay now fill out this form.  You’re all set we’ll contact you back in 2-3 weeks with further instructions on how to proceed. 

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think this is just a power struggle.  The PMO wants to be able to control their image,  very understandable.  The Journalists want to be able to poke around, dig, test, prod and generally do their job in an un fettered manner. They don’t want him to be able to “control” his image.  Also, I know myself, I get rather pissy when I feel someone is being disrespectful to me.  I think both sides feel that they are being disrespected; I think both sides are right in that thought. 

Although I dislike how some of the reporters act, I have to say I dislike government control over the access to information more.  We need journalists to keep our system honest and working. Yes they can be rough at times,  but they can not allow themselves to be whipped and collared,  with treats handed out only to the good puppies that tow the government line.  That isn’t our way,  that isn’t our country.  And as a Homer Simpson once said “That’s not even Mexico”.  It isn’t just soldiers that fight for freedom. 

If you want to complain about my posting - please form a line,  now take a number,  okay now fill out this form.  You’re all set we’ll contact you back in 2-3 weeks with further instructions on how to proceed. 

It's not about access to information so much as knowing which reporters are going to do something constructive with the information. If you think about it, whomever asks the questions is irrelevant. The reporters should all be reporting unbiased accounts of the facts presented, so it doesn't matter who asks what. The questions re: any given issue should be obvious.  The issue here is knowing which reporters will, in the PM or PMO's opinion, distort that info. If the reporters are really so childish that they see "getting" to ask a question as a reward, then hey, I'm for that if it means it encourages fair reporting. Personally, I think they should get over their own egos and just play ball for awhile.

 

[GAP]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A reporter is a type of journalist who researches and presents information in certain types of mass media.

Reporting is usually distinguished from similar work, such as writing in general, by news judgment (determining newsworthiness) and journalism values (such as truthiness).

Whose Press Conference is it? The media did not call the press conference, the Prime Minister did. His ball...his game..get over it!
Don't like it....don't attend...simple.

 

[Kirkhill]

couch commander:

You might be right but I don't know that this is so much about the press at large as the parliamentary press gallery.   You mention that the National Post and the Sun are contrarian in their coverage.  However the Sun is broadly considered as a local paper with limited contact with Ottawa.  Greg Weston is their standard carrier in Ottawa and generally runs counter to the editorial bent of the chain.  He fits in well however with the rest of the press gallery and regularly does the talking head stuff - a leftish commentator from a rightish newspaper allows people like the CBC to claim they are supplying an unbiased platform.  This is in line with the days when Peter Gzowski used to host David Lewis of the NDP, Eric (the Red) Kierans of the Liberals, and Dalton Camp who defined the term Red Tory and asked them to comment on the policy of the day.  All parties represented but the world view was the same.

Efforts are being made by the CBC by allowing Rex Murphy a podium and exotics like Andrew Coyne and Lorne Gunter a chance to comment on occasion for a short time but the general drift of their coverage continues to reflect a sense that there is a rightness to leftness.  

The attitude might best be summed up as, when looking at new policy initiatives:

By the Liberals - what is this policy doing FOR us,

By the Conservatives - what is this policy doing TO us.

Couple that with the general tendeny of the press to make news by making and breaking personalities, a field in which I concede they are even-handed.  

In my view that creates the situation where Liberals may be castigated for personality but seldom policy while Conservatives are castigated for both.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A reporter is a type of journalist who researches and presents information in certain types of mass media.

Reporting is usually distinguished from similar work, such as writing in general, by news judgment (determining newsworthiness) and journalism values (such as truthiness).

Dude, you realize where the word "truthiness" comes from, right?

 

[GAP]

This I gotta hear!! ;D

 

[Michael Dorosh]

This I gotta hear!! ;D

Stephen Colbert - actually, I think you can look up "truthiness" on wikipedia as it has its own entry...

 

[GAP]

eewh....shudder...sorry......

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I watched some coverage of this last night and here's what I read between the lines.

The Press Gallery is responding to the wants of their editors to find juicy and contraversy-generating stories.  A press conference can therefore be dominated by umpteen reporters asking nearly the same question on the same contraversial topic in order to try to get Harper (or other ministers) to provide a contraversial answer.  Regardless of the answers, the reporters in Ottawa do spin whatever is said in the most conspiratorial (sp?) way possible in order to generate interest.  In short, the press gallery is primarily about "ratings" and "entertainment value" as opposed to providing unbiased objective information.  In addition, their dedication to their view of "objectivity" always includes a counterpoint from someone who may or may not know their ass from a hole in the ground.  So in the case of Darfur, the PM steps up with money and the reporter immediately looks for someone/anyone to give a comment that it's insufficient, selfish, etc. and generating that confrontational comment is more important that providing the background context such as what the previous government has done/not done in the past or how this money could help (XXXXXX rations, vaccinations, tents, etc.)

From the PMO's perspective, they see all these things and believe the Press Gallery is constantly is setting them up for a game of "gotcha".  Example in trying to solicit a comment from the PM on the Caledonia standoff, everyone recognizes they're trying to find any indicating of saying something negative about natives....so they can spin that into racisim....which generates a headline.  So the comment they're waiting for is "The natives are imposing on the rights of innocent residents who go to work every day and pay their taxes and should have the right to the road they pay for...."  Everyone knows at that point the counterquestion from the Press Corps is going to be: "Are you saying that natives aren't working and don't pay their fair share of taxes?".....and regardless of Harper's response the headline is going to read something to the effect of "HARPER SUGGESTS NATIVE PROTESTORS DON'T WORK ENOUGH".  In addition, this constant nonsense means that other initiatives that are worthy of coverage by the Ottawa Press Corps get intentionally ignored and buried (censored). When the American's were pushing the passport access issue, the media was all over how mean and unfair the Americans were being.  Now that they've deferred implementation (primarily due to good relations with the Harper Government), we haven't heard one word about that extension and in particular have not given Harper 1 oz of credit for his work on what is an important economic issue.

Bottom Line:  This isn't about freedom of the press.  This about a press corps that embodies the worst of what journalism can be.  They may write and report for established newspapers and TV stations, but most of their work is more suited to the National Enquirer or Inside Edition, and does a huge disservice to Canadians who rely on them for their information.  In short, I think change is long overdue and I applaud Harper having the stones to try to get these asshats inline.


Matthew.