The rolling people

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 3:32 PM - 0 Comments

As of tomorrow morning, I’m on the road, again. In this case that means following Michael Ignatieff around southern Ontario—Thornhill, Toronto, Burlington, Stoney Creek, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, Oakville and Mississauga. The trip concludes with a visit to Caribana where the Liberal leader will, in a party tradition that dates to Laurier, be made to jump and wine.

I last saw Mr. Ignatieff on the road nearly two years ago during the 2008 election, the result of which was a magazine story, the content of which may or may not still be relevant. I last saw Mr. Ignatieff beyond the walls of Parliament last fall, the result of which was a magazine story, the content of which may or may not still be relevant.

For the perspective of someone who is not, nor has ever been, a member of the parliamentary press gallery, the Citizen’s Matthew Pearson (full disclosure: he’s a good friend of mine) rode the Liberal bus for the first few days of this summer’s tour and came back with 1,600 words on what he saw.

Personally, I blame myself

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 21, 2010 at 2:19 PM - 11 Comments

Preston Manning endorses the Chong Plan for Question Period, but wonders if the press gallery isn’t part of the problem and shouldn’t be part of the solution.

Most House leaders and Question Period co-ordinators I know feel that no matter what reforms are made, they are likely to be met with skepticism, ridicule and opposition from the media. This is because from a news-generating standpoint, a Question Period characterized by negative, antagonistic, exaggerated and emotional exchanges is much more newsworthy than one characterized by positive, co-operative, moderate and rational exchanges.

Parliamentary and legislative committees addressing Question Period reform should therefore tackle this obstacle head-on by specifically soliciting input and suggestions from their respective press galleries. There must be some way of making Question Period more civil, productive and newsworthy, and the sooner we find it, the better it will be for Canadian democracy.

Most of what happens in QP at present is actively ignored by the press gallery. I can think of one major media outlet that regularly and specifically attends in person. Most of those reporters and columnists who don’t attend would, I suspect, blame the tone and tenor of the proceedings (well, that and the fact that the proceedings are televised, making the arduous journey up to the House not absolutely necessary). So it would seem completely ridiculous for the press gallery, in this imagined world of reform, to equally shun a more substantive and reasonable QP.

And if outsider perspective is necessary, at least a couple of us would be only too happy to fix everything.

The Commons: The loneliness of the opposition leader

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 7:12 PM - 69 Comments

The Scene. In the basement ballroom of the Crown Plaza hotel in downtown Ottawa, Michael Ignatieff was celebrating his 63rd birthday with the brothers and sisters of Canada’s building trade unions. Entering the room to the strains of BTO’s You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet—the brothers and sisters’ choice, not his—he smiled and shook hands as he made his way to the dais. The brother who introduced him had wished him a happy birthday and so as Mr. Ignatieff took his spot at the lectern, the Liberal leader pronounced it difficult to turn 40—a small joke before starting.

He wore a grey suit, white shirt and red tie. As he proceeded with his remarks, his eyebrows danced and his hands bounced from point to point. Except when he switched to French he seemed completely uninterested in his prepared text. He enthused about demographic transition and labour markets and skill shortages, China, India, education, training and teaching. If there was more than one member of the press gallery present they were decidedly inconspicuous. Continue…

We cannot be trusted with this information

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM - 35 Comments

Conservative Gerald Keddy explains why details of MP expenses shouldn’t be made public.

South Shore-St. Margarets MP Gerald Keddy, a Conservative, points out that federal MPs need to follow much tougher rules than MLAs did, with strict oversight by officials who review their spending, so he sees no reason to make it public. ”No,” he said. “No way. No way. All we’re doing is opening it up, giving the media an opportunity to find fault. What we have is an overall budget. We are absolutely 100 per cent responsible for that budget. If we go over that budget, we pay out of our own pocket, and we have very, very good scrutiny.”

On the one hand, he’s absolutely correct. The full publication of MP expenses would inevitably result in various outlets and individuals placing unreasonable significance on the expensing of, say, a pack of gum, or some cabinet minister’s decision to dine at some establishment more rarefied than Kelsey’s.

On the other hand, the potential for embarrassment and the frequent tawdriness of the Parliamentary press gallery are likely not legally recognized excuses for public officials to avoid accountability and transparency.

Don't you people read newspapers?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 12:18 PM - 16 Comments

Jeff Jedras considers the Prime Minister’s YouTube interview, and similar forays by the leader of the opposition.

What didn’t we get? Questions on the horse race. On polling. On electoral gamesmanship. No “will you force an election” or political “whose is bigger” questions. To judge by nearly every press conference I’ve seen with Harper and Ignatieff, with nearly every pundit panel on the political talk shows, with most analysis pieces from the columnists, you’d think electoral chicken and the horse race is the issue of most concern to Canadians.

When Canadians get the chance to question their political leaders directly, though, that’s not what we get. We get questions on issues of policy that are important to them for a rainbow of reasons.

Magical objectivity

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 8, 2010 at 1:35 PM - 47 Comments

Ta-Nehisi Coates considers modern political reportage.

There is, in the press, a profane bias toward political success, a sense that success is strictly defined by elections won. Left uninterrogated is the ends to which those elections serve.

What we’re really talking about is the fake “objectivity” which the press worships. Serious policy reporting necessitates making calls, and making calls open you up to the charge of political bias. A good one to avoid that charge is to cover elections, in the way you cover sports. Ron Jaworski may love the Eagles, but if they’re sucking it up, he has to say as much. Likewise, a reporter can be a socialist in his private life, but by covering the horse-race he’s magically become objective.

How we talk about this

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 19, 2010 at 11:35 AM - 16 Comments

Matthew Yglesias considers Packer.

I consider this another reason to try to enhance understanding of the fact that when it comes to political outcomes it’s the fundamentals that matter most. Interest in the horse-race aspects of politics is to some extent inevitable, but to understand the horse-race properly you need to spend more time trying to understand what’s actually happening in the country and less time paying attention to spin and positioning.

How we talk about this

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 1:10 PM - 29 Comments

George Packer considers the way we discuss this stuff.

Broder wasn’t analyzing Palin’s positions or accusations, or the truth or falsehood of her claims, or even the nature of the emotions that she appeals to. He was reviewing a performance and giving it the thumbs up, using the familiar terminology of political journalism. This has been so characteristic of the coverage of politics for so long that it doesn’t seem in the least bit odd, and it’s hard to imagine doing it any other way. A couple of weeks ago, the Times ran a piece by its lead political reporter, Adam Nagourney, about a Republican strategy session in Hawaii: “Here in Honolulu, the strains within the party over conservative principles versus political pragmatism played out in a sharp and public way, especially as the party establishment struggled to deal with the demands of the Tea Party movement.” The structure of the sentence, and of the article, puts the emphasis entirely on tactics and performance. This kind of prose goes down as easily and unnoticeably as a glass of sparkling water, with no aftertaste. Readers interested in politics drink quarts of it every day without gaining weight. And Broder and Nagourney are at the top of their game.

On the run

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at 12:30 AM - 1 Comment

Included among the hundreds of films now online from the National Film Board is History on the Run, an entirely fascinating documentary about the media and the 1979 federal election that climaxes with a technical explanation of how best to light Joe Clark’s chin.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.922584&w=425&h=350&fv=mID%3DIDOBJ13393%26bufferTime%3D15%E2%8C%A9%3Den%E2%84%91%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.nfb.ca%2Fmedias%2Fnfb_tube%2Fthumbs_large%2F2010%2FHistory-on-the-Run_BIG.jpg%26width%3D516%26height%3D337%26bookmarksURL%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.nfb.ca%2Fremote%2Fget_bookmarks%2Fhistory_on_the_run%2F%26getPlaylistOnEnd%3Dtrue%26playlist_id%3DREL13393%26showWarningMessages%3Dfalse%26enableJavascriptAPI%3Dtrue]

Aside from the fashions, technologies and attitudes toward indoor smoking, I’m not sure much has changed.

Please remain seated

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 29, 2010 at 3:47 PM - 58 Comments

Stephen Harper, Nov. 21, 2009. We believe strongly that Canadians’ freedom is enhanced when journalists are free to pursue the truth, to shine light into dark corners and assist the process of holding government’s accountable.

CBC, today. Harper flew back from Switzerland today.  While in the air his office announced the appointment of five new Senators and the Supreme Court ruled he has the power to decide to ask if Omar Khadr could be repatriated. What does Harper have to say about these developments? Nothing. Journalists travelling with Harper are being kept on the plane to ensure the Prime Minister doesn’t face any questions in his short jaunt from the bottom of the staircase to his waiting limousine.

Look at us, doing stuff

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 11, 2010 at 6:11 PM - 24 Comments

The Prime Minister’s Office has helpfully sent the press gallery these 13 seconds of video (sadly, no audio) of the Prime Minister receiving a “national security briefing” from four of his ministers. Interesting to note that Peter Van Loan is apparently not allowed to sit or speak during these meetings and must, instead, hover silently at the Prime Minister’s side.

The Commons: ‘Canadians are not as cynical as he thought’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM - 87 Comments

The Scene. He opened with pleasantries—”Happy New Year,” he said—and then a joke.

“I’ve hope you’ve all had a good rest. Time with your families,” Michael Ignatieff said, surveying the cluster of reporters in front of him. “Now your family’s thrown you out and told you to get back to work? Same here.”

Aside from a working crew tearing up the front steps to Centre Block—access to our democracy, quite literally, being demolished!—Parliament Hill was quiet and dark, security guards standing around without much to mind. Mr. Ignatieff stood at a lectern in the foyer, behind him the closed doors of the Commons, behind them a group of university students participating in a mock Parliament—the closest the chamber will get to functioning democracy for some weeks yet.

Mr. Ignatieff proceeded with his prepared remarks.

“Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament, shut Parliament down on New Year’s Eve, when he thought no one was looking,” he reviewed. “He thought Canadians didn’t care. And it turns out they do care … Canadians are not as cynical as he thought.”

So it is that our cynicism apparently has its limits. Or perhaps it is merely that some don’t appreciate having their cynicism so unashamedly confirmed. Either way, here we are, openly and heatedly discussing the parameters of Parliamentary democracy, tens of thousands of Canadians signing up for a Facebook group that trumpets the word “proroguing.”

“We’re listening,” the Liberal leader continued. “And we’re going to be going back to work.” Continue…

That is the system that we have

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 4, 2010 at 1:07 PM - 46 Comments

A little over a year ago, the Hill Times checked up on the relationship between Stephen Harper’s government and the press gallery—a saga that has gripped the nation like nothing since the Vancouver Grizzlies. In between anecdotes of this glamourous existence, the Prime Minister’s press secretary, since departed, offered this explanation of the official view.

Mr. Teneycke said he didn’t agree that there are cabinet ministers who don’t speak to the media, and that in Canada’s Parliamentary system the 45-minute daily Question Period is the primary way in which ministers answer questions about their files. ”Ministers are available in Question Period to answer questions of the elected opposition, that is the system that we have, that is the primary way by which cabinet ministers in a Parliamentary democracy are held accountable,” said Mr. Teneycke. “If media have additional questions from time to time the primary way by which ministers are held to account is via an elected opposition through the House of Commons.”

It will, of course, be another two months before cabinet ministers are held so accountable. And for those of you keeping score at home, by the time March 1 arrives, the Prime Minister—owing to international travel and a photo with the national lacrosse team—will have submitted himself to a total of six such exercises in accountability over a four month period.

Escape route

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM - 48 Comments

Tim Naumetz reveals the Prime Minister’s way in and out of Question Period each day.

For at least two years, following his battle with the press gallery in 2006, Harper has snubbed the front door of the Commons for Question Period. He established a covert route to get to the Chamber from his third-floor Centre Block office, ducking down through a narrow hallway behind the public gallery atop the west side of the Chamber, down a small staircase, and then scuttling into the government lobby through a back door across from the House Speaker’s Chamber.

Arriving and leaving the Centre Block, his motorcade now pulls up beside a renovated House Speaker’s entrance at the West side of the building. Harper whisks in and out as his sun-glassed Mountie bodyguards give cover.

No Prime Minister has ever avoided the front entrance to the Commons and no one, at least outside of Harper’s inner circle, understands why Harper does.

'That was totally useless. Thank you.'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM - 46 Comments

Strolling casually around the House of Commons foyer yesterday, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan happens upon a group of reporters. A delightful exchange of pleasantries follows.

Question: How long have you had the report from the Commissioner of Firearms?

Hon. Peter Van Loan: The report from the Commissioner of Firearms has to be tabled tomorrow which it will be.  I know that some information – some information on it will be coming out shortly.  Some of it has already been released in the public accounts.  The one that I know has attracted some interest is the number of times that the police access it which is close to three and a half million times.  What’s very interesting about that statistic is of those three and a half million times only 2.4 percent of the time is it actually information about the registration of a long-gun that would eliminated by the long-gun registry.  If the bill to eliminate the long-gun registry is passed and becomes law, 97 percent of the times that the police utilize that information from the firearms centre would continue to be in place because of course the bill does not eliminate the requirement for licensing of gun owners and only, as I said, 2.4 percent of those queries had to do with information related to long-gun registration.

Question: (Inaudible)

Hon. Peter Van Loan: I am referring to the 2008 statistics.  And what’s more interesting -

Question: (Inaudible)

Hon. Peter Van Loan: If I could finish, what’s more interesting -

Question: You haven’t answered my question once yet though.

Continue…

Liberal media conspiracy infiltrates Harper cabinet

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, November 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM - 137 Comments

Congratulations are due to Peter MacKay.

In a startling reversal of roles, it was Defence Minister Peter MacKay asking the news media a big question when he proposed to a CTV news executive Saturday.

MacKay asked Jana Juginovic, director of programming at CTV News Channel, for her hand while they were in Boston, where she is on a one-year fellowship. She said yes immediately, according to sources.

No word yet on how Larry Miller is taking the news.

False dichotomy

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:54 AM - 11 Comments

Rob Silver responds to Glen Pearson’s response to Andrew Coyne’s suggestion.

The dichotomy Glen buys into is either you say nothing (the “safe option”) or you put out lots of smart, detailed policies (the “risky option”). The risky option is akin to political suicide and therefore the safe option must be followed at all costs … The real dichotomy is between communicating your ideas well – whether those ideas are bold or more of the same – versus communicating your ideas poorly.

Through the looking glass

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 12:52 PM - 24 Comments

Former anonymous source laments press gallery’s use of anonymous sources.

'Any limits on content or opinion were my own'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 5:08 PM - 2 Comments

Bit tardy in getting to this, but here is the late Doug Fisher’s last column for the Sun, reprinted on the occasion of his recent passing.

I carried the opposition MP’s mentality into journalism. Over the years, my opinions have been more critical than approving of whatever government has been in power … The arrogance of government, its overwhelming control of Parliament, and the opposition’s weakness were a big theme during my four parliaments as an MP—much discussed on the Hill and in the press. I carried that theme with me to the press gallery and have often written about it.

After nearly 50 years, I can only say that government has become immense, the prime minister’s office is vastly bigger and more powerful, more attention than ever is paid to party leaders and in particular to the prime minister, and the House of Commons—whose weakness we bemoaned back in my time in it—has withered almost to insignificance…

Today’s MPs are easily as able and hard-working as during the Diefenbaker years — as well as better educated and provided with far better facilities and support services. Paradoxically, they play a far smaller, less important role than MPs of yore, undermined over the years by a hardening of caucus discipline and by the swelling cadres of aides and spin doctors in the offices of the prime minister and the other parties’ leaders.

Hopefully his sense of humour remains intact

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, September 18, 2009 at 12:15 PM - 13 Comments

Courtesy of the Sun’s Elizabeth Thompson, video of Jack Layton’s poignant performance at the press gallery dinner in 2005.

The barely solvent elephant in the room (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 3:14 PM - 19 Comments

Dan Gardner cheers.

If the cash-strapped media decides to save a few bucks by putting fewer bums on plane cushions, there will be more bums in newsroom seats. Those bums will have to do something that can be done from a newsroom. They might, for example, examine the parties’ policy proposals. Or investigate the accuracy of leaders’ statements. Or do any one of a hundred things that are more informative than anything that comes out of the travelling circus that is the leaders’ tour.

In sum, election coverage will improve. And we’ll save cash doing it.

The barely solvent elephant in the room

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 12:39 PM - 22 Comments

Susan Delacourt wonders if the rear cabins of campaign planes this fall might be empty.

Our industry, as some might have noticed, is in a bit of a “transition” period. Elections are expensive.  And the most expensive item is the leader’s tour. It costs, conservatively, approximately $15,000 a week for one reporter’s seat on one leader’s campaign plane. Multiply that by five weeks and four reporters — that’s $300,000, minimum… In the past, the media managers would have sucked up the cost of the leaders’ tours as the price of doing the journalism business. But the business is changing (read: has no money), so it would be unwise of any politico, planning a leader’s tour, to count on all those journalists’ seats being filled on the plane. (We’ve been suspecting, by the way, that we’re subsidizing those tours.)

Rare look inside secret meeting of MSM establishment

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, August 21, 2009 at 2:58 PM - 25 Comments

The second photo here captures the press gallery in the midst of negotiating the questions that would be asked of the President and Prime Minister during Barack Obama’s visit to Ottawa earlier this year.

For the record, I am standing on the right side of the picture. And appear to have been in need of a haircut.

A summer of discontent

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, July 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM - 6 Comments

Glen Pearson’s spent the break wrestling at some length with his existence, such as this.

In May, I walked through the restaurant at the Marriott Hotel and was summoned to a table of Conservatives who were celebrated the anniversary of their election.  ”Come on, have a drink with us,” they entreated.  I was glad to do it and they were great to be with. At one point in the evening, one of them expressed frustration at how difficult it was for the average MP to speak their mind in the House. One of the women present lamented that the same had to be said about parliamentary committees. All chipped in with the understanding that we couldn’t mention of this to the media lest they take it out of context and our respective party establishments take offense.