Showing posts with label Crappy Moments in Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crappy Moments in Journalism. Show all posts

Friday, August 06, 2010

Media obsess over stupid shit, Canadians tune out, Harper smiles

If in 50 years, a Canadian political science professor is lecturing his or her freshmen about the decline of political journalism in Canada, this morning’s spectacle at Rideau Hall in Ottawa would provide an interesting case study.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had a rare press availability this morning, on the occasion of a minor cabinet shuffle. This was a notable for a number of reasons. One, Steve doesn’t talk to the media that much. He knows the risks of over-exposure, so he always leaves them wanting more. He also hasn’t been seen for some time while a number of controversial issues have swirled, such as more G-20 fallout, the census brouhaha, air attacks from the Soviet Union, an alarming rise in unreported crime, and some minor drama that 15 people will see in Toronto.

I was working so, sadly, I couldn’t watch the drama live. Thankfully, Twitter was on duty, and my hack/flack/journo column in Tweetdeck went wild with more cat-fighting than the last time Paris and Lindsay ended-up crossing paths at the same club in Hollywood.

The Globe’s Steven Chase does the synopsis well enough. But first, some helpful background. Our media long-ago caved to the Harper PMO’s desire for media control by agreeing to put their names on a list at press conferences, which allows the PMO to pick which journos to let ask a question. OK, go read Chase and come back.

First of all, let me say I think both David Akin and Craig Oliver’s questions were both pretty dumb. I prefer the two the pack came up with, although not by much. I have no problem though with letting them ask whatever the heck they want to, and I’m not upset at all they wanted to stray from the pack. I encourage it. I just wish they’d stray with questions that have a little more relevance to things Canadians actually care about.

Because I find this entire situation sadly laughable, and think everyone comes off looking pretty ridiculous.

First of all, there’s too much of a pack mentality in the Parliamentary Press Gallery as it is, and huddling to decide on your questions doesn’t help. And then getting huffy when Harper strays from the protocol he has put in place to control you by taking it one step further? I laughed. The problem isn’t that Harper strayed from the list; the problem is that you agreed to the dammed list in the first place! You’ve already surrendered, and now you’re complaining about the quality of the gruel in the prison camp? See the forest for the trees guys, really.

That’s what is at the root of this: Harper’s continual beating down of the national media, and the media’s unwavering willingness to stand there and take it. If the media just once said no, we’re not going to cover your photo-op, if they said if you insist on a list, and will only take four questions, then we’re not coming; he’d cave. Instead, too afraid in the 24-hour news cycle of losing one story, one “scoop” no matter how minor, they’ve given in.

I don’t blame Harper or the PMO one little bit. While as a democrat I bemoan the strategy, the fact is it’s working for them so why on Earth would they change anything? By limiting the opportunity and the questions, they limit the risk, and rather than lashing-out the media have tamely complied, rarely asking tough questions even when they get the opportunity. He’s playing them like a fiddle. Sure, they’ll grumble on Twitter. But then they’ll file the stories he was hoping for.

And don’t tell me the opposition leaders haven’t been watching this phenomenon carefully. Now obviously, opposition leaders need more media exposure, so they need to put themselves out there. Still, put yourself out there and take every question and you’ll either step on your crank or let the media finally hit on a negative story or one that you don’t want; it’s inevitable. Limit it, and they’re forced to parrot your message.

It’s rewarding bad behaviour and like a dog, with repeated reinforcement even a politician will learn eventually. By buying into Harper’s system, the media are perpetuating the behaviour they claim to dislike. Let’s say the Liberals win an election at some point (stick with me here), why would they do anything different than Harper on this? It clearly hasn’t hurt Harper at all.

The other problem is, when they do get a political leader in front of them, the questions the media ask usually have no relevance to what Canadians (their supposed audience) actually care about. This is true any time I see Harper, Ignatieff or Jack Layton taking questions. They inevitably ask about polls. Election speculation. Gamesmanship and the horserace. And their audience tunes-out, because outside the Ottawa bubble we could care less about that nonesense.

I’ve written about this before, but it’s instructive to look at what Canadians ask when they get a chance to question the leaders directly. Health care, foreign affairs, democratic institutions, drug policy, climate change, child care, post-secondary education. These are the sorts of things Canadians actually care about, yet they’re the things our media, supposedly our proxy to our political leadership, never ask about.

There are many challenges for the mainstream media at large to face in today’s media climate. But for our political media specifically, the solutions are clear: reconnect with what your audience actually cares about and act as their proxy, like you’re supposed to. And find where you left your stones.

After that, the rest will take care of itself.

P.S. Actually, there is one more thing the media needs to do. Not be afraid to call bullshit. And I don't mean this as a partisan thing, because all sides of the political spectrum put lots of bullshit out there. And, sadly, media see balance as letting each side have their say, no matter how full of bullshit they are. What they need to do instead is say no, actually the sky isn't blue and Canada isn't being invaded by unreported Communist unicorns.

Anyway, whenever I get too upset about any of this stuff, I'm comforted by reminding myself that hardly anyone is watching this crap anyway. Were I in the gallery though, I'd find that less comforting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

A non-partisan edition of Crappy Moments in Journalism

While most of the entries in my new regular feature, Crappy Moments in Journalism, will likely focus on the progressive end of the spectrum (my Conservative friends keep a sharp eye for crappiness, real or imagined, down in their neck of the woods) sometimes incidents will be egregious enough to deserve an entry here.


And this entry from the CanWest News Service certainly meets the qualifications. The article covers a United Nations women's rights conference where Conservative minister Helena Guergis would be speaking, and making her first public appearance since news of her Hurricane Helena performance at a PEI airport came to light.

Now, obviously the PEI incident merits mention, and were I a reporter at the event I'd use the opportunity to ask her about the incident, will she resign, did she read Anne of Green Gables as a kid, wasn't Road to Avonlea lame, yada yada. All fair ball. And most of the story is fine, talking about what she plans to talk about, and her government's record on women's issues, with comments from women's groups.

But the first three graphs of this story? Pretty crappy:
Status of Women Minister Helena Guergis kept her temper on an even keel Monday as she spent Day 1 representing Canada at a major United Nations women's rights conference -- just days after apologizing for using her own status to allegedly disparage Prince Edward Island airport workers and their province.

Scheduled to take part in what the UN billed as a "high-level" roundtable debate, Guergis planned to stick strictly to the rule that she speak for no longer than three minutes, her handlers said.

That contrasts with her alleged off-the-cuff outburst at Charlottetown Airport after she arrived late for a flight Feb. 19 -- for which she issued an apology Thursday.
They make her out to be like the Incredible Hulk. Is this going to be how they cover every Guergis public appearance now, watching for signs of the emergence of evil Helena? "Conservative Minister Helena Guergis refrained from throwing her shoes and calling the province a hell-hole as she spoke to the Podunk chamber of commerce Monday..." You won't like her when she's angry.

Guergis deserves all the flack she's taking for her behaviour. Maybe she won't be able to get past it, time will tell. I'd support the call for her resignation, but one has to wonder, just who would take her place?

But the Incredible Hulk stuff is lame. If she does explode, report that. Otherwise, stick to the news.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, March 01, 2010

Crappy moments in journalism, CTV powns the odium edition

In a "news story" today covering Stephen Harper's pre-budget smoke-blowing, the "journalists" at CTV slip in this ricidulous and unfounded partisan shot at Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:

And taking advantage over the euphoria surrounding Canada's record-setting gold medal count in Vancouver, Ignatieff told reporters that he wants Harper to extend funding for the "Own the Podium" initiative for Canadian athletes.

The Liberal leader may be trying to make up for his lack of presence during the broadcast of Canada's thrilling 3-2 win over the United States in men's hockey Sunday.
If you're wondering at home the answer is no, inserting dickish commentary into news reports isn't something they encourage in journalism school. Particularly when it's completely full of crap. All that's missing is the insinuation is hates Canada, is just visiting, and was secretly cheering for Russia the United States.

Because last week, well before Ignatieff decided not to bring his personal photographer to yesterday's game, or bat womens' arms out of the way to maximize his camera time, he had this to say to the Globe and Mail's Gary Mason:
To that end, Mr. Ignatieff told The Globe and Mail that a federal Liberal government would contribute $22-million a year towards OTP - the level of funding it has now - and then challenge the private sector to match that amount. He'd like to see funding top $40-million soon.

"This is bigger than just sports," he said. "One in 10 Canadians is obese. One in four is overweight. Our children are doing less sports now than they did in the 90s. So if you think of this as a pyramid, you have to invest in the elite athletes at the top to get a broad base of people who are turning to sport.

"There are huge health benefits here. You have to make this part of your health policy. I'm not just breathing in the Kool-Aid during an excitable time in Vancouver. I do believe this is a strategic investment we should be making."
So yes, the Liberal proposal to extend OTP funding predates his decision not to crassly exploit yesterday's hockey game. And if you're not current on our present media ownership conglomerates yes, CTV and the Globe are both owned by the same company. So maybe they could give CTV a deal on a subscription or something.

Really though, far be it from me to give lectures on journalism to the network that gave us such investigative features as "which country's athletes are hotter?", "hot tub body shots at the base" and "intern waits in line for seven hours."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Crappy moments in journalism, questioning love of country edition

From the not so great moments in journalism files comes this entry from Jane "tell me about your cats" Taber, who offers regular proof that giving some members of the media the increased bandwidth of blogging isn't really a good thing.


Yesterday, Taber posted this insulting and groundless entry that, hold your breath, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff would be cheering for Canada in last night's Canada/Russia Olympic men's hockey game:
Michael Ignatieff is not conflicted.

In fact he takes umbrage with any hint of a suggestion that he would feel the slightest bit of conflict watching the Canadian men's Olympic hockey team play the Russians in a sudden death quarter final.
I'd take umbrage too, for it's an incredibly stupid question. I'm 1/4 Irish, should I be conflicted when Canada and Ireland meet on the field of sporting battle? Should I have my patriotism questioned? This is reminiscent of the Conservative attacks on Ignatieff's heritage, just like they attacked Stephane Dion's loyalty because his mother came from France. I expect such nonsense from the Conservatives, but not from the national newspaper of a nation of immigrants.

Taber's piece also begs the question, just where is this issue coming from? Who is raising this as a legitimate and newsworthy issue? As Ignatieff said:
Even just asking the question leaves him "stupefied by the proposition." He added: "I mean that."
So, who raised this issue? Rewind two weeks and oh, look, it was actually Jane Taber:
While Mr. Ignatieff faces many dilemmas as a political leader, his biggest right now would be who to cheer for if the men’s gold medal hockey game is between Canada and Russia, given his Russian ancestry.
Yes, that's right, she creates the flawed and insulting premise out of thin-air, with no sourcing to back it up, then forces him to respond to her made-up malarkey that not so subtly questions, without basis, Ignatieff's patriotism and love for Canada.

Stay classy San Diego.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers