An unfortunate trend in journalism short-changes all of us
At the risk of sounding like one of those grumpy old men who spends far too much time lamenting about how things were better “back in my day”, I must admit that I’m seeing more things lately that make me think just that.
There’s lots of examples and if you are of a certain age, I’m sure you could easily come up with your own list.
But rather than a list, my focus in this blog is journalism and provincial politics, and how the rules of the game seem to have changed. For some time now, I notice that many politicians don’t seem to allow themselves to be interviewed very much anymore. Have you noticed that in more and more news stories, you see reference to the media asking for an interview from a Minister or whoever, but rather that agreeing, what they do is send an email response to a question, and as often as not, just a general comment about whatever the issue of the day is. This has become common practice. And it is unfortunate.
It's specifically on my mind this week because of the CBC story on former Conservative government Minister Bruce Northrup coming out of retirement to run for the Liberals. He’ll be running against Conservative Tourism Minister Tammy Scott-Wallace. So of course, CBC, like any other newsroom covering the story, wanted to see what she thought of that.
What jumped out at me from the CBC story was this line: “CBC News has asked PC campaign manager Steve Outhouse for an interview with Scott-Wallace and was instead sent an email statement by her.”
Excerpt from CBC online story about Bruce Northrup running for the Liberals
Say what? Reporters now have to get permission to interview a government minister from the guy Higgs brought in to run his campaign? They couldn’t, you know, just phone her? Or at the very least send her an email? They have to go through a gatekeeper? What kind of bullcrap is this?
And it’s not as if it worked? Rather than an interview they got an email statement that says Northrup left the province but is now motivated to come back "to support the policies of Susan Holt and Justin Trudeau." No substance, just a campaign talking point. And it’s not even honest. I suppose there is a remote chance she was the one who said that, but I’m willing to bet the farm that that response came straight from the aforementioned Outhouse. I say this because his strategy is to never mention Susan Holt without mentioning Justin Trudeau in the same sentence. The strategy being that by tying Holt in with the historically unpopular Trudeau, that the weight of him will drag her down. But what are the odds that Scott-Wallace would use that wording? Good, I guess, if Outhouse sent out a directive to all candidates telling them to always do that, and maybe he has. But what a terrible trend this is. And by “this”, I mean both having to go through a gatekeeper, and the trend of politicians emailing responses rather than giving interviews. At least when politicians refuse to answer questions in Question Period, people can see the deflection and make their judgements accordingly.
This email trend is only terrible though, for journalists who can’t get an answer of substance, and for their listeners or readers who deserve better. But for the government, it works great. They get total control. They get the messages out that they want to get out, without having to be bothered with follow-up questions, or risk being embarrassed or put on the spot . And as often as not, it means not even answering the original question. And to be clear this trend isn’t something particularly unique to this govermnment. Previous ones have done likewise. But I sense it is getting worse.
As a former journalist, I hate this trend, but as someone who teaches clients how to interact with the media, I have an obligation not to ignore it. Just in the past month, I have had this discussion in several of my media training workshops. For the record, my advice is to build solid relationships with the media, based on honesty and respect, but the control afforded by simply sending off an email rather than granting an interview has, unfortunately, become a thing.
In the past, the challenge was tracking down whoever it was we wanted an answer from. And sometimes that would take a while. But at least we weren’t reduced to broadcasting or publishing political talking points, as was the case with Scott-Wallace and so many others who opt for pablum over substance.
For some, this may sound like just so much inside baseball. But the problem with this trend, is that it tips the scale in favour of the politicians, end-running the journalist’s responsibility and intention of keeping them accountable. That’s unfortunate for journalists, but bigger picture, it is unfortunate for democracy, because political accountability is a fundamental part of that. This trend chips away at it.
