Normally, when members of our esteemed press here in the Great White North complain about access at the Department of National Defence, I don’t pay much heed; operational security isn’t something most of them know anything about, and so they whine.
But in this particular case, they’ve got a point:
Important information and interview requests directed to the Canadian military must now be cleared by senior bureaucrats who are under the direction of the prime minister’s office, say defence sources.
The Privy Council Office directive applies to all matters of “national importance,” but is primarily focused on shaping information related to the war in Afghanistan.
The order was issued within the last two weeks and caps a determined effort by the Conservatives to assert more civilian control over the military, which has been seen in government circles to have too much influence in the conduct of the war.
“Big deal,” you say. “So the PMO wants to control the message and make sure everyone’s on the same page, so what?”
If only that was all there was to it. Unfortunately, this informal directive is so draconian that often even the simplest of requests for information never come back down:
So I asked DND whether anyone would like to comment on the piece for a reply I was composing. The very pleasant officer I spoke with on the phone at the Media Liason Office took note of my questions, and asked the usual question about my deadline. I’ve given up trying to explain that I don’t have an editor looking over my shoulder, so I told her noon the next day would be fine, since I figured twenty-four hours to put me in touch with someone in procurement who could provide me with some context wouldn’t be onerous.
She quickly disabused me of that notion: “It will probably be at least a week.” A week? For someone to talk with me for five minutes about a story that will be dust-covered and stale by then? What if I actually did have an editor hovering behind me, beating me with a rolled-up newspaper to meet a deadline?
It’s now been six days since I made my inquiry. I’ve received no response. Not a challenging response, where their line of argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Not a weak response, where they don’t really address my questions. Not even a flaccid response where they tell me that “DND is continually assessing its munitions needs and purchasing accordingly” or some such bafflegab.
No, the only response I’ve received from DND is a deafening silence.
When the PMO and PCO are stifling communications rather than coordinating them, that’s a problem. Especially given the fact that DND consistently does a better job speaking to the Canadian people than any other department in government. Anyone care to speculate where public opinion would be on the Afghan mission if the CF had stayed silent these past years like CIDA and DFAIT have?
One of the few Canadian journalists well-versed on defence issues put it to me this way the other day:
For Canadians to get an accurate picture of military issues and challenges, the military needs to speak up. Not in carefully scripted letters approved by 5 levels of bureaucracy, but in open dialogue. Refusing to answer questions about the status of various programs or various challenges, just looks like they have something to hide. Plus it results in speculation and inaccuracy, and while in the short term the public will be the loser, over the long term, I believe the military will be the biggest loser.
I’d go a step further than that: the Canadian public will be the biggest loser.
The public needs good information in order to make good decisions about our military. The CF needs an informed public in order to pursue its mandate with sufficient support and resources. And the public in turn needs a competent military to further its domestic and international goals. By removing the first link in that chain, the bureaucrats responsible for this shift in Public Affairs are putting the whole fragile construct at risk. What could possibly justify that?
It’s not a rhetorical question. I’m beginning to wonder if this whole affair isn’t about putting those who serve in uniform back in their place. Hillier is an extraordinary leader, and it’s no secret that his personal popularity and charisma are threatening to those who inhabit the backrooms of power in Ottawa. One wonders if a chastened and diminished Canadian Forces out of touch with the Canadian public is exactly what the senior bureaucrats and political staffers want in all of this.
It’s time for Harper and the Conservatives to put an end to this internecine bureaucratic political warfare, and let the CF do its job. It’s time to take the shackles off them, and let them inform the Canadian public about who they are and what they do, as they have in the recent past.
Because the informal policy they’re working under right now isn’t a communications strategy, it’s an abandonment of the idea of communications in the first place.
Peter DL
“Great, so we agree that there is a whole lot of partisanship and biased reporting on blogs and in the mainstream media. Good to see that we are on the same page and that we agree that SDA is part of the problem.
BTW – How does it feel to support a site that engages in the exact same behavior that you loathe in other sites?”
It’s obvious you haven’t hung around SDA long or read the variety of opinion in the threads…and also the fact that Kate is VERY tolerant of opposing opinion…particularly of Harper policies…of which I have personally been a lead critic when they vary from the member-ratified policy book….so I think you condemnation is based in your own prejudices and ignorance…particularly if you consider ME to be a lock-step conservative…you obviously have not read anything I have posted.
Have a nice day trying to discover absolute unbiased blogs ( your’s included) and enjoy rolling in your own prejudices as being the benchmark of balance….BTW the purpose of the blogoshere is to offer news and opinion not seen in the MSM…Partisan sites usually ape MSM…and they don’t get traffic…SDA gets traffic because Kate allows all kinds of feedback on her posts short of slander or disinfo.
Good gawd, if politics in a democracy isn’t made up of “partisan” viewpoints and ideologies it isn’t a democracy, I think they’d call it a Commie state or
dictatorship.
Most of us are capable of critiquing all of our politicians no matter their Party politics while believing strongly in the principles of one particular party. We also are more apt to defend those we strongly believe in.
Minuteman, I’d hope it’s clear that my criticism isn’t directed towards those in uniform, or even those working for DND. I don’t like the instructions DND and the CF are being given.
And I also want to be clear: I have no problems with civilian oversight and control of the military, none at all. The government is exercising its lawful right to manage this department.
But two points are key. First, the direction is idiotic, short-sighted, and petty. Second, instead of changing the official communications policy under which the CF has operated for years now, the mandarins are trying to muzzle them by stealth. I say if you’re going to stifle the voices of our soldiers, at least have the balls to do it openly and justify it to the Canadian public.
Maybe a little clarification is in order here.
As a serving member of the CF, I have no problem with telling my fellow Canadians (Within the constraints of operational security) anything about what we do. We are proud of our contributions and our profession.
Unfortunately the problem is not my fellow Canadians, it is the media. I feel the “media chill”, as do most of us, because a generation of experience has shown that in many cases the MSM is tacitly or actively against us, and will use or spin anything in the most negative manner possible. Therefore we generally don’t see the MSM as our fellow Canadians, but as a danger to our profession and, by extension, our country.
I cannot speak for our civilian masters, but I suspect they feel the same chill, for the same reasons.
When you encounter a poisonous snake you either handle it very carefully or avoid it completely. Is that not a rational response?
When the MSM becomes unbiased, objective, and professional, instead of potentially dangerous, I am sure the “media chill” I feel will abate.
Not before.
That is not to say that DND does not have a responsibility to accept the risk, and learn to handle the poisonous snake rather than avoiding it. It is dangerous, and we may get bitten, but it needs to be dealt with.
As Damian knows all too well.
To quote a famous Canadian, in this case “the media IS the message!”
Kate: These are news outlets. They represent themselves as deliverers of timely, accurate information on current events. They are expected to be thorough, retain proper context, and keep their personal political bias out of the story. None of these things are the norm these days…I am a news consumer and as such, I reserve the right to criticize their product.
Someone who is truly against bias in the media would criticize news outlets that are both left-leaning (e.g., T.O. Star, G&M, CBC, CNN) and right-leaning (e.g, Nat. Post, FoxNews). Someone who is against only left-wing bias would criticize the former and give a pass to the latter. The lasting impression would be that one doesn’t actually want a news media that’s objective and impartial, but rather a news media that caters to one’s own partisan views — equally biased, only in the opposite direction.
You can do whatever you like, but let’s be clear on what you’re for and what you’re against.
Franzen et al, there are lefties that haunt this place (such as Partisan “Non-Partisan” Ted) who claim there is NO LEFT BIAS at all in the media or that the bias is evenly split left and right.
That has been shown to be incorrect…there IS left bias in the media and overwhelmingly so. Refer to a previous thread here at SDA where this (American) report was presented and discussed.
SDA-ers have generally acknowledged that there are some “right-wing sympathetic” media outlets, but they are NOT overtly so…perhaps you could argue the case for FoxNews (I have no idea…what little I’ve seen seemed to be reasonably balanced). There is no equivalent large “conservative” paper to the large “liberal” paper that is the Toronto Star…despite having one or two sane voices amongst their legion of moonbats.
I think what you will find as a recurring theme here is…we want NO BIAS at all in the media. We want them to present FACTS and BACKGROUND, but not spin or opinion or indoctrination…neither to the left nor to the right.
I accuse you of reading SDA with off-coloured glasses (per TC’s previous posting). Sure, there are some here who are partisan…but not anywhere near the majority. If anything, we’re so glad to finally have a half-ways reasonable PM that we are a bit too willing to look the other way at the minor transgressions.
Well said Eeyore….. But I believe you are waisting your time.
@Eeyore: Why characterize it as “left-wing bias” but “right-wing sympathy“? Bias is bias, whether it’s overt or not. In fact, it’s arguable worse when it’s not overt.
There is no equivalent large “conservative” paper to the large “liberal” paper that is the Toronto Star…
I presume you believe in the power of the free market, right? You know what they say: demand drives supply. Have you considered the possibility that the news consuming public, insofar as it still buy papers at all, is as a whole more liberal than conservative?
I think what you will find as a recurring theme here is…we want NO BIAS at all in the media. We want them to present FACTS and BACKGROUND, but not spin or opinion or indoctrination…neither to the left nor to the right.
Except that I’ve never seen a single SDA post that highlights and criticizes right-wing bias in, for example, the National Post.
Which leads me to think that the recurring theme here is (and forgive me for paraphrasing): “we want NO LIBERAL BIAS at all in the media. We want them to present FACTS and BACKGROUND, or spin or opinion or indoctrination as long as it’s sympathetic to the right.”
If you’re correct that SDA readers don’t want any bias or spin or indoctrination from the right either, then why don’t we see more (or any, for that matter) spontaneous criticisms of right-wing bias in the “readers’ tips” threads?
Interesting question Franzen. Ironically, we’ve seen no mention here of Paul Jackson, the Calgary Sun columnist who wrote favourable articles for the opponent of Craig Chandler – at behest of the Progressive Conservative government of Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach.
What amazes me is that people here have convinced themselves that there is an overt, dominating left wing bias. We’ve got to wade through shrill cries of “CBC Pravda!” on a regular occassion, but of course no commentary on the proof that a Sun columnist – he admitted it! – takes his marching orders from the premier’s office! So don’t give me that line that you’re sympathetic to right bias…SDA pines for it!! You guys WANT it!
Part of the problem is that ANY criticism of Harper (or any of their pet political heroes) is automatically construes as left leaning bias. Unbelievable. I guess everyone tuned out during the bashing of the Liberals for the last however many years…oh yes, I forgot, that fits into another SDA narrative, that the Liberal media disliked Paul Martin, so they pushed him out in favour of Dion…wait a minute…huh?
Nothing new here. I was involved in Ipperwash from 94-98 and was ordered not to talk to anyone about what really went on there. Not to the media, or at the trial of Ken Dean and the Ipperwash Inquiry refused to let me testify. Nothing new, just now it’s a Conservative Govt instead of liberals. Political correctness is killing the truth!!