Political Messaging and the Canadian Press
June 10, 2010 | 5 Comments
Via the CBC, I see that the Canadian Press has an investigative series based on documents it has received through an FOI on messaging techniques used by the government and specifically the Prime Minister’s Office in an attempt to massage Canadians’ views on the the country’s involvement in Afghanistan,
An investigation by The Canadian Press shows Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives systematically drafted “message event proposals” (MEPs) as part of a quiet campaign to persuade Canadians their country was primarily engaged in development work to rebuild a shattered nation rather than hunting down and killing an emboldened insurgency.
The government used MEPs to script the words it wanted to hear from the mouths of its top diplomats, aid workers and cabinet ministers in 2007-08 to divert public attention from the soaring double-digit death toll of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
The use of these MEPs is apparently, “worrisome” to some scholars,
The MEP is worrisome because it erases the traditional line separating public servants and politicians, said political scientist Jonathan Rose of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.
“You’ve got bureaucrats who are doing the government’s partisan work and also political staffers who are doing bureaucrats’ work,” he said. “So there’s this huge blurring of lines between the two.”
Rose said he sees the MEP process as a “pre-emptive strike” by the Prime Minister’s Office on all federal communications.
“In other words, the political wing of government needs to have control over what is said prior to it being said. I think that’s not good for democracy.”
So, look, I’m loathe to pass up an opportunity to criticize Stephen Harper. The man lost what little political respect I might have held on to for him in the wake of his second prorogation of Parliament.
But realistically, the story here isn’t how controlling government has become and how bad that is, so much as it is a story about the utter failure of the Canadian press corps.
I mean, is it a good thing that the PMO and the government sought to paint the country’s efforts and the situation in Afghanistan in a rosier hue than was deserved? No, of course not. But is it in any way surprising or controversial? No. No it is not.
Messaging is a part of politics. Controlling the narrative of a story or an issue such that it most benefits you and your party as best as is possible is as old as politics itself. This is why so much of politics is focused around communications and why so much efforts and time is expended on developing the best communications methods possible.
That fact is true whether you happen to be in a campaigning or a governing situation.
A large part of what politicians due is to try to control the narrative on any number of different things such that public opinion aligns with the course of action that they would like to undertake on any given issue. If you find that disturbing, you should likely stop paying attention to politics. And I haven’t seen anything that suggests that the government and/or the PMO outright lied — which is a different ball of wax — so, as far as I can tell, there isn’t really much of a story here. At least as far as Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are concerned.
Where there is a story; however, is the way in which the Canadian Press is approaching these documents and the issue. I mean, where was the hard hitting investigative journalism when the country first decided to become embroiled in the morass of Afghanistan?
Sure, questions were asked. But how sharp were those question? How much time did reporters spend trying to dig up documentation or talk to political aides or military consultants to get an inside scoop on what is perhaps one of the most important and wide ranging decisions a country can make?
As one watches the Canadian Press, one is left with the sense that Canadian journalists seem to see news as something that happens to them and that they, in turn, take and report to their various readerships. Having spent as much time covering US politics as I have, I am bound to notice and point out a resilient passivity amongst the Canadian press that just doesn’t pass muster south of the border.
Canadian journalists seem almost trained to swallow the very messaging floated by political parties and that we are now apparently supposed to express shock and disdain over whole. In this regard, though I know that there is many a Canadian who proudly defines his/her national identity as, “not American”, I think we have a good deal to learn from our neighbours.
In part, I think that the respective histories of the countries have a lot to do with our different approaches to journalism and a free press. A mistrust of government and a belief that an aggressive and relentless free press is one of the best means of keeping government in line is built into the very proto-libertarian fabric of America.
American political journalism is a tooth and claw affair. Journalists look to break stories and reveal misdeeds not just day-by-day, but increasingly on an hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute basis. The celebrated journalist is the one who has most recently broken through the buttressing of political messaging to reveal the truth of a particular issue to the American people that will rile outrage in the most effective means possible.
And there is no resting on one’s laurels. Breaking a story today doesn’t ensure one glory and praise into the future. There are always more stories to break, more truth to be revealed, more power to be checked.
Of course, some of that effort turns into “gotcha journalism” that is more concerned with sensationalism than fact or substance. But media outlets that devolve into sheer manufacture of consent, to borrow a Chomskian phrase, don’t ultimately hold water as reputable news sources to a majority of Americans. For all their bluster, there is a certain grain of salt with which news broken by Fox is taken. Though, Fox on more than one occasion has been known to break a major story.
The distinction here isn’t perfectly black and white.
Some might also suggest that with polls showing American anti-government sentiment at all time highs, this kind of mistrust between the governors and the governed has gone overboard. What I would suggest; however, is that Americans seem to have ample reason to mistrustful of their government these days. That citizens are in possession of the information to justify such a sentiment is not indicator of the erosion of American democracy, but rather a bright warning about the need to do something to save it.
In short, with the power that governments wield in a contemporary setting, an ingrained mistrust and skepticism towards the application of that power isn’t such a bad thing.
And increasingly, where the so-called “mainstream media” fails to fulfill this role, America’s blogosphere is stepping up to the plate.
According to Wired’s Threat Level back in 2008, a record number of Americans use the Internet to seek out and consume their political news,
The spring 2008 survey finds that a record-breaking 46 percent of all Americans have used the internet, e-mail or cell-phone text messaging to participate in the political process.
The survey found that the internet is becoming an increasing part of the norm of political participation — people are using it to read the news, share their views, or to participate in some other process to get others to take political action.
And according to Mark Penn in the Wall Street Journal,
The best studies we can find say we are a nation of over 20 million bloggers, with 1.7 million profiting from the work, and 452,000 of those using blogging as their primary source of income. That’s almost 2 million Americans getting paid by the word, the post, or the click — whether on their site or someone else’s. And that’s nearly half a million of whom it can be said, as Bob Dylan did of Hurricane Carter: “It’s my work he’d say, I do it for pay.”
Similar studies are not readily available for Canadians, but taking the vast disproportion between the two country’s populations into consideration, the same kind of uptick is not present in our country.
And not only do there appear to be far fewer bloggers, but the role and prominence of blogging in Canadian society and politics is vastly inferior to its American counterpart. Pretty much all Canadian media outlets have blogs associated with their structures. But even more than American outlets, those blogs are largely an after thought and don’t play nearly the vital role that American bloggers do in crafting the political narrative of the country.
And I can attest from first hand experience that money in blogging about Canadian politics is almost non-existent. Of the two sources of income I derive from writing, both are from American companies for writing about American politics. I’ve offered to blog for some Canadian institutions free of charge and have not even warranted a, “Thanks, but no thanks,” response.
Perhaps that has something to do with my skills as a writer or my connections in the larger Canadian media network. But the broader trend seems relatively clear.
I mean, look around. Where are the Canadian Glenn Greenwalds and Andrew Sullivans? Where are the FireDogLakes and DailyKos’? Who’s proposing a Canadian Red State or Ricochet?
The straight and simple answer is that they don’t exist. I mean, sure, we have folks like Aaron Wherry, Andrew Coyne, Norman Spector, Kate Werk, Kathy Shaidle, Dan Arnold, and Dave Cournoyer. But taken as a whole, we just aren’t even in the same universe as our American counterparts. And we as Canadians are poorer for that.
This is in no small part what drives my desire to participate in the Commons despite Jon’s accurate assessment of being “spread ridiculously thin”. There is a lesson here for us. A lesson that we can learn from the American media and blogosphere. There is a lesson about what it takes to generate and sustain a vital democracy. And it is a lesson of which we are in bad need given the latest indicators on the health of our confederation.
An active — or at least more active — Canadian blogosphere and urgent political press will not solve all the problems that ail us as a country. But I am increasingly of the opinion that where those things are not sufficient, they are most certainly necessary.
And the most exciting element of this opportunity to me is that we are all as Canadians not just invited, but encouraged and urged to join in.
Tags: Afghanistan > American media > blogging > Canadian Press > citizen journalism > democracy > investigative journalism > MEPs > urgency
Comments
5 Responses to “Political Messaging and the Canadian Press”
Leave a Reply
June 10th, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
To be clear, I said you were spread “ridiculously thin” not “too thin”. I believe your density is perfect.
And I love the fact that you’re defending a part of a “proto-libertarian fabric”.
[Reply]
Scott H. Payne Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Yeah, convince my wife of the same, will you? And I thought you’d like the libertarian ranty side of me that shines through in this post. That Scott is a bit rough around the edges, but overall a lovable chap. Afterall, he means well.
[Reply]
Scott H. Payne Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
In retrospect, that’s not fair. She is very supportive of my obsessional behaviour.
[Reply]
June 10th, 2010 @ 5:19 pm
Scott
I absolutely agree with your assessment of the Canadian press. There is definitely a pack mentality- witness how quickly everyone gravitates to the same stories, like the “fake lake” scandal. I think part of the reason for this can be attributed to the dwindling amount of reporters thanks to convergence. These reporters are definitely stretched thin and under pressure to keep up with the competition. It’s a vicious circle.
So a stronger blogosphere would add to the voices and investigative capacity-but as you say, it is tough to make a living this way.
[Reply]
Scott H. Payne Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
That’s a really good point about scarcity of resources, Kate. And it’s one to which I don’t think I gave due regard in this post.
There are good reporters out there, but there is also a dearth of resources to support their work. It is true that journalism is undergoing seismic shifts. And while I think the reports of its impending death are greatly exaggerated, there remains a lot of uncertainty about precisely what the future looks like.
It is just undeniable that this will have an impact on journalism.
But I think we bloggers need to see this as an opportunity. It provides us with the chance to step up and fill the void. This is precisely what has happened in the US and, as mentioned, I think there is lesson in that for us here in Canada.
It means a lot of free time evaporates and you plug away with little-to-no recognition often times. But there is still a well functioning meritocratic principle at play in our society. Hard work can and does eventually pay off. And when you’re passionate about that in which you’re engaged, it often eventually draws a crowd by way of standing out.
When I started blogging 2.5 years ago, I couldn’t imagine earning any money from doing so. Then in March I started drawing a modest income. And recently that income has grown, again modestly, but it’s growing. Opportunities are coming up more and more.
This is one of those rare, “God/Allah/Yahweh/Tao/Whatever helps those who help themselves,” instances, I think. We as Canadian bloggers need to shed the yoke ofr passivity that is in many ways I think bred into the DNA of the country and take part in creating the market we wish to be a part of.
The void is there. The question is what we intend to do about it.
[Reply]