|
Stephen Harper has been criticized for limiting media access to his government, including trying to choose which reporters ask questions at his press conferences. Graeme MacKay for the Hamilton Spectator.
|
CBC correspondent Julie Van Dusen was poised at the microphone, ready with her questions at Stephen Harper's April 11 press conference, when the Prime Minister turned and picked a reporter from the audience instead.
Van Dusen was shocked. After a stunned pause she interrupted the Prime Minister, "Why are you ignoring the line up? We're in a line up, and I'm next."
Harper continued to ignore her until the other reporter chose not to ask his question.
Van Dusen then asked her question but Harper gave a very short answer and left. He hasn't held a full-fledged press conference in Ottawa since.
Since Harper's swearing in, his office and the press have been waging a war over access. So far, the only thing this has accomplished is to hinder both sides' ability to do their jobs.
David Taras, a media and politics professor at the University of Calgary, says, "Unless there are cooperative relations, then neither the government nor the Press Gallery can do their job, and ultimately, Canadians as a whole aren't getting the complete story."
New governments tend to exercise tight control over their message, at least initially. In that respect Harper's no different.
But veteran Hill reporter Hugh Winsor says something is different under Harper.
"Other Prime Ministers have always accepted the press, but Harper's essentially said, 'Fuck you'," he explains.
Tom Flanagan, Harper's 2004 campaign manager and 2006 campaign editor general, says that Harper's fine without the Gallery.
"The Press Gallery is a bunch of self-important, preening prima donnas who think they're crucial because they're stationed in Ottawa and they've watched All the President's Men too many times."
The fight for control
Harper started limiting media access almost instantly.
He ended photo ops with foreign leaders, offering journalists photos from his personal photographer instead.
His communications staff rarely returns reporter's calls. Yves Malo, president of the Gallery and TVA reporter, complains that Harper's press secretary, Sandra Buckler, hasn't returned one of his calls.
As well, after six messages and an email, the Prime Minister's Office made no effort to comment for this article.
Under other governments, the media knew when cabinet meetings were happening, so they could wait outside and catch ministers for comments on the day's news. But Harper's meetings are secret.
So, reporters ended up lurking in the hallways after question period. Van Dusen says that didn't really work either.
"A lot of times you don't even see the Conservatives, they go out the backdoor."
Then Harper tried to overturn the long-established practices for press conferences. He wanted journalists to sign up with his press secretary, who would then select the questioners.
Before Harper, journalists asked questions on a first come, first serve basis.
The Gallery tried to reach an agreement with Harper, with two microphones and a line up, explains Don Newman, the senior parliamentary editor for CBC.
"They've turned that down, they want the list," Newman says, "That has led many people in the Gallery to believe it's who asks the questions that they are really trying to control. Why wouldn't they just go for the proposal from the Gallery? It meets all the requirements that they claim they're trying to meet."
To protest the list, and the access issues, Gallery reporters walked out of the Darfur news conference on May 23, a first according to Hill veterans. Harper delivered his statement to a single camera in an almost empty room.
Van Dusen explains, "The list thing sounds kind of like whining but it's a symbol of lack of access overall."
Things just got worse when Harper announced he wouldn't hold press conferences with the Gallery anymore. He claimed the reporters had wrongly decided to become the opposition to his government, and he wasn't going to take it.
Van Dusen responds to this with a laugh. "We're not the government's fan club; we're not its adversaries. We're supposed to be here as members of the public asking questions and reporting on what the government's doing."
Opposition or not, Gallery reporters have a depth of knowledge that other reporters don't have the time to achieve.
"The Parliamentary Press Gallery gets excited over things like the standing committee on transportation is examining paragraph 23c, and that's a big deal for them. Well, if you haven't followed the previous 22 paragraphs, then 23c doesn't really make any difference. And that's likely to be the background knowledge that distant reporters won't bring to the story. That's not because they're bad, it's because it's not their job," says Paul Attallah, a communications professor at Carleton.
Another crucial aspect of the Press Gallery is its reach.
Tait Simpson, who does communications for the Liberal Party, says, "I'm always surprised when you hold a press conference and 15, 20 members of the press show up, and you say, 'Wow, that's not very many,' and the next day it's in every paper across the country. It's a small group of people who have extraordinary reach into the homes of Canadians."
Attallah agrees, "The press gallery has always served that conveyor belt function."
Not only is the Gallery important for its knowledge and its reach, it's also a helpful tool for politicians.
"The government of the day's first task is to govern; the second is to communicate what they're doing. Because the decisions you make affect the lives of Canadians you have to distil that information out to the public in a manageable way," says Simpson.
Gallery reporters help governments present information with background and explanation in ways that Canadians can understand.
So, the government obviously needs the Gallery as much as Gallery reporters need access to government documents and staff. Both can do their jobs without the other, but cooperation makes their lives much simpler.
"You can try all you want to circumvent it, but the reality is that there is a group of people who are paid to be in Ottawa to cover Parliament Hill," says Simpson. "If you make it difficult for them to do their job, that's all you're doing, making it difficult. The idea that you're going to prevent them from doing their job is a myth."
As Arnold Amber, of the CBC and Canadian Media Guild, explains, "You can't do without a Press Gallery, even though a Press Gallery sometimes becomes too big for its britches. It'll get too ingrained in its own importance, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't play any credible role."
That role Amber refers to is telling the public about their government's actions, a necessary part of any democracy. This has suffered as bruised egos have prevented journalists from writing in-depth stories on Harper's government, its actions and its decisions.
"Where normally they might write a feature or something interesting on a minister, policy, style, all of these things, now as far as general consumption goes, what you see is what you get," explains Senator Jim Munson, a former journalist and the communications director for Jean Chretien.
Hill veteran Winsor admits that journalists have not come off in the best light since the dispute started. He says, "The media should be writing about it everyday, about turned down requests, delays, requests that the government takes years to respond to. Instead of whining we should be writing."
Beyond the complaining, journalists' pens can be sharper than knives. Harper has complained that the media is biased towards the Liberals. The negative stories, however, have had little to do with his politics.
In fact, a study by the Observatory on Media and Public Policy analyzed the coverage in seven major Canadian dailies of the 2006 election campaign and found Harper got the most positive press.
The study rated the tone of the coverage as positive or negative, and then calculated the net, or overall, tone. A net tone of zero would be neutral.
The Conservative Party's net tone was a positive 1 percent, as compared to the Liberal Party's negative tone of -13 percent.
Harper's net tone was neutral, while Martin's was -11 percent.
All in all, Harper's government had the rosiest relationship with the media.
All honeymoons must end, and this one did, as the access-denied and frustrated media began focusing on everything from Harper's paunch and control-freak hair to his farewell handshakes with his kids. One vicious, and false, rumour spread that Harper had changed his birthday from April 20 to April 30, so it wouldn't be the same as Hitler's.
Comes with the job
Harper's not the only Prime Minister to face media attacks. Joe Clark was effeminate, Brian Mulroney was stiff, Kim Campbell was overweight, Pierre Trudeau was a playboy, and Paul Martin was Mr. Dithers.
Really, some negative personal press comes with the position.
As Van Dusen says, "That's the downside of being in politics. You're a personality and people make fun of your little vest when you go to Calgary."
So, beyond frustrating the media with access issues, Harper hasn't really succeeded in changing the relationship between the Gallery and the PMO.
As media expert Taras says, "Good relations with the media are kind of a political insurance policy, and I think what Harper's doing is kind of burning the insurance policy."
"I think that the manipulation is going to come back to haunt you in one way, shape, or form," says Munson, "Because in my view, when there are stories when there has to be a benefit of the doubt, I think that collectively the members of the media who feel hard done by will not go out of their way to give Harper that extra benefit of the doubt."
The two groups must learn to coexist. Harper has a country to run, and he needs Canadians to understand his actions if he wants a chance at re-election. Gallery reporters are paid to be in Ottawa, and will cover politics with or without Harper's help, but with access they can do a much better job.
On September 5, faced with a crumbling boycott, the Gallery voted to put their names on Harper's much-criticized list for the next 30 days, in an act of goodwill and hopes for a compromise. The government never responded.
Van Dusen describes the whole situation as juvenile. "Harper has a job to do and we have a job to do. Our job is to ask politicians questions and do stories and report on developments on Parliament Hill. His job is to run the country, so why we even got caught up in this, 'Who knows?'"
