As Mr. Akin has pointed out, further supported by Mr. Teneycke, officials in the PMO are available after the briefing for “on-the-record” discussions of the material presented, but if the journalists choose not to avail themselves of that opportunity because they’re in a hurry to get somewhere else, that’s their problem. Also, Mr. Teneycke quite rightly points out that further on-the-record discussions should come from the appropriate Minister or their office, not the PMO. I would also surmise that much of the detail is left out of the “general briefing” since not every shred of information can be hashed over during the briefing. Hence, the availability of PMO staff after the announcements.

Contrary to the position that the PMO isn’t being “transparent” or “accountable” to the citizens through the media, I will argue that the PMO is pursuing transparency and accountability by decentralizing the reporting away from the PMO and asking reporters to go directly to the “source” of the information; that being the office of the Minister involved, or the Minister themselves. Further, I would argue that the mechanisms and availabilities are in place for the kind of transparency and accountability that journalists such as Mr. Wherry would like to see, but many simply aren’t willing to do the legwork necessary to obtain that information, preferring instead that all the necessary information should come from the same trough; that being the PMO.

“Comparisons to the US approach are out of context. Our executive branch is held accountable by an elected opposition in Question Period…”

KT you are glossing over your comparison with the US systems you fail to acknowledge at least two relevant points

1) in both systems, the citizenry is sovereign. notwithstanding differences in the structuring of their representation, ultimately accountably of the executive in both systems flows to the people.

2) in both systems, transparency is essential to an informed citizenry who are effectively able to select representatives and make an assessment of the executive.

Given the point of journalism is to inform citizens, how does the statement above respect points 1&2 (should I be reading that statement as informing citizens with on the record briefings citizenry isn’t that important because that opposition is more instrumental in the accountability process? Because that is the sense I am getting from that statement.)

How do off the record briefings aid citizens in making choices about their government? (I think Aaron is onto something re legitimacy; I think it also offer a modicum of deniability by making the information not directly attributable to “the PM’s spokesperson”).

After reading David Aiken’s comments, I am inclined to think that Aaron Wherry is correct, this is just a matter of silliness. PMO’s position seemingly being we will provide a bunch of info anonymously, then we will talk about it all on the record. Nothing in KT’s post suggested any reason the breifing had to be off the record. (ie informal, scheduling and technical information, last I checked, can all be done on the record) How often is the briefer and then the on the record discussant the same person David?

Nonetheless, even if this is mostly about silliness, it still seems to me that citizens would be better served by more on-the-record briefings, where they can then attribute information and positions to the government of the day.

(And just to be clear, I think journos have a role to play here, by not allowing PMO or whomever else to play the game. DA’s is one approach, and not a bad one. Though it seems to me to facilitate the continuance of the practice as opposed to strategies designed to force the end of this practice).

Honestly, the lack of professionalism of that crew is astonishing.

To be clear, my argument is not so much that this practice is evil as much as it is silly.

There is probably also a discussion to be had about what the use of unnecessary anonymity in sourcing is doing for journalism’s general credibility, but I’ll leave that for more interested parties.

Macleans – or any other Canadian media outlet for that matter – would be virtually empty, if they were to remove stories quoting an unnamed source, or written on the basis of information provided on background.

Comparisons to the US approach are out of context. Our executive branch is held accountable by an elected opposition in Question Period, not by the media in a daily briefing. The media have an important role in our system, but it is not the same as in the US.

The purpose of keeping briefings off-the-record is to allow for a more informal exchange of information with the gallery. Often this information is technical and relates to scheduling of events. This is done to assist media in planning where they will need to send satellite trucks, how many reporters should be on-call over a weekend, etc.

As David correctly points out, the opportunity to ask “on-the-record” questions does exist after briefings have concluded. In many cases, however, it is more appropriate for journalists to contact the Minister responsible for “on-the-record” comment. Having PMO answer all questions may be easier for the gallery, but it is not really consistent with our system of government.

As for Macleans participation in future briefings… I have been assured by a “senior Macleans official” that they will continue to attend.

Kory Teneycke
Director of Communication
Office of the Prime Minister

One indicator – media people are typically seen on the social pages photos in their latest formal wear with politicos of all stripes – speaks volumes to the deals that have been cut – implicitly or explicitly. One wonders how, for example, Don Martin, has evolved/devolved from an ethical principled journalist in Alberta to one of the gang out here. I imagine there was no huge demand for black tie in Edmonton, right Don?

Paid media is just that — they buy ad space, TV time, pay for direct mail, etc. Earned media occurs when something newsworthy happens and the press shows up to cover it — such as with a press conference or policy announcement. The only times anonymity is warranted is when the person is giving information contrary to the orders of their party (to let the public know what the party wants kept secret) and is therefore subject to retaliation, or if the source is a public servant or participant in a court action and has reason to believe they will be the subject of retaliation if their identity becomes known.

You in the Ottawa press corps and your editors can fashion whatever policy statements you like — but the fundamental question with anonymity should be: Did they earn it?

During the recent campaign, I wrote emails and letters to the editors of the Globe & Mail, National Post, CBC and CTV news divisions asking each for their organization’s policies regarding the use of unattributed, confidential and anonymous sources.

Not one of them replied. Their silence speaks volumes.

Yes, Taber and Fife are serial offenders, but they are not alone. Perhaps if we had some foreign press ownership in Canada, we could shake up things a bit. So long as we have only five or six sources of news in our country, each of them up to their hips in conflicts of interest with the subjects they cover, expect more of this third-rate crap.

Oh, the PMO would find out who did that and that person will never be invited again. It’s also likely a violation of the reporter’s employment contract, which could result in firing.

When you agree to something, you have to abide by it.

Not to accuse any of the nice people here at Macleans, but I can’t help feeling that paying homage to official sources is a function of careerists wanting to bask in the reflected glory of important people.

Video a PMO official giving an official briefing to reporters on condition of anonymity, and then post the video on YouTube with the official (I presume Teneycke or Sparrow) digitized out, and with an altered voice.

I think people would love to see a government official giving an official briefing to a room full of reporters while simultaneously insisting on anonymity. The sheer madness of gathering together a room full of reporters for a briefing and yet insisting that they not tell anyone who gave the briefing is laughable, but would be particularly so if we had a video of a whole room full of people getting the briefing that they’re not allowed to source.

Also, why not start explicitly referring to the madness of this practice in print. Point out that the information comes from a briefing given by an official to a room full of bureau chiefs, but that despite briefing a room full of reporters on topic X, the government insists that we not tell you just WHO told a room full of reporters X.

You could even write a novel. Kafka certainly had success with these kind of plots.

You mean to tell me in all these briefings no reporter has broken ranks? No one has said: “You don’t actually expect us to use this as information, do you?”

It’s not just a problem with the government’s behaviour, the compliance with these absurd rules is a symptom of a wider problem with Canadian news organizations which is that they have allowed themselves to become completely dependent on government sources.

And holding up NY Times as some sort of standard is laughable. They have got all these rules about anon sources but they get pushed aside when NY Times reporters have a chance to publish a hit piece on Repubs.

Some very minor research would indicate … NO PATENT PENDING … which would further indicate, on a tight path, switchbacks are probable.

One of the most blatant and recent examples of this approach being ignored by the Canadian media was some of the CTV coverage of the last national election campaign. I think it is safe to say that Bob Fife and Jane Taber aren’t too keen on following this Times-inspired policy.

And it would certainly be refreshing if the various Parliamentary bureaus put their collective feet down to stop this ridiculous situation created by the PMO. Since the PM has reinvented himself as the new warm and fuzzy Stephen Harper full of non-partisan love and harmony, I’m sure he won’t mind being more transparent and open to the national media. Right? Let us know how that goes. I will be most definitely (and alas, cynically) not holding my breath.