Let me give the short version of my reaction to all this.
First, I'm not overly fussed when campaigns take wide latitude in determining how they want to present themselves. I've seen a lot. And I've read Allan Levine's wonderful old book about political reporting in Ottawa, Scrum Wars, so I know, for instance, that the National Press Theatre exists because Lester Pearson hated scrums, found them claustrophobic, and was desperate to claw back some dignity. Everyone's playing for advantage.
But just about the only thing I've been writing for three years now, to anyone who would listen (which is nobody), is: My God, you people put far too much stock in message discipline.
It's an article of faith, too widely shared, that if politicians say *exactly what they've prepared* to *journalists who would never think to disagree,* then all will be well. And you know who just ran a campaign like that? Kamala Harris.
I sent a note to the Liberal Party and they replied quickly with a link to their media sign-up page. the prices mentioned are (very roughly? It's been some time since I had to worry about the cost of staffing a campaign) in line with costs to cover past tours run by various parties. The bulk of that page reads as follows:
The Liberal Party of Canada invites media organizations to confirm their interest in joining the National Leader’s Tour, for when the next election begins.
Tour fees will be:
$1,500 per day;
$6,600 per week; or
$33,500 for the full campaign.
Fees will cover: travel, food, access to filing rooms, and wifi.
Media accreditation requests must be submitted two (2) days prior to departure in order to be processed — or for the launch of the campaign, one (1) day. All fields required. Priority will be given to Media accredited by the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery, and to those committing to longer time periods.
Please contact xxx@xxx.xx regarding questions or concerns.
Well, it will be interesting to see how the media covers PP vs MC -- with some analysis around who benefits the most from encouraging vs discouraging media coverage. It's rather amusing to me that the Conservatives cite the rising costs of subsidizing media when they have raised more than $40 million and the Libs are still able to underwrite some of the costs when they have raised considerably less. Hmmmm.
There is very little MSM in my house. One need only look at the Munk debate on media, featuring Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi, who eviscerated Canadian MSM's neutrality for taking Liberal subsidies. I haven't bought a newspaper in a decade, and I haven't seen a television news broadcast in a similar amount of time.
Should I turn on a news show, I get clips. Those clips do appear on X or YouTube often with some accompanying excellent commentary. Modern news has a forebearer in pamphleteering. Substack, such as Mr. Wells and others, reflect a digital return to pamphleteering.
What happens on a campaign bus is largely irrelevant. Much of the important information won't be on the bus but at some event. Suspect the Conservatives have a good grasp of modern media.
I read the CPC message this way: “We do not want considered questions asked in an environment where a detailed answer could be expected.”
While I get that any answer could be meaningless pap from any party, but at least the others seem to be willing to put on a show. The CPC position is a metaphorical middle finger salute to professionals who, by and large, do that “fact checking” thing.
Wow. A masterclass in bullshit and spin. Our politicians and business leaders are really, really averse to third party accountability and scrutiny, aren't they.
The obvious beneficiary of this kind and considerate “no media, thank you” is the CBC. The CBC may be about the only media organization who can dilute their campaign reporting down to the local bureaus but how about the CBC Parliamentary Crew (or Global, CTV NEWS et al) who have been dying for the election call, only to get thrown off the bus? That sure launches the Tory campaign with a goodwill gesture. I guess there is always Zoom.
Perhaps Mr. Wells could fill us in? Do the media outlets care? Is the cost of having reporters tagging along on the tightly controlled whistle stops worth the cost and bother?
Interesting discussion here. I think my reaction is mostly ‘meh’. But sort adjacent to this topic… on media, liberal bias, what do these things tell us… I did a giant eye roll on Evan Solomon running for Liberals. Like no, please don’t. Not because I’m a L but it just seems to reinforce what people already think about media and that does not seem good?!?!? And all these social reshares with messages about what a great guy he is and how he’ll be an excellent MP. Just no. Stay out of it.
We now have the responses from the CPC and the LPC.
Given their impoverished state we can expect that if the NDP has an airplane tour there will be one of two options. First, the airplane will be a Cessna 172 (4 seater, including pilot) so no room for media. Second option is a DC3 (some are still flying) configured for freight (to allow cost recovery, of course) and the carrying of, oh, 20 passengers at a cost per day of $2,500 (again, cost recovery).
There, now we know what all the parties are doing in terms of leaders' tours.
On the other hand, precisely how many people REALLY want to know what the Singher is promising when HE becomes Prime Minister?
My very occasional interactions with her have never been unpleasant. However, I do take the “Let me assure you, we plan to forge new frontiers of openness” handwaving before even saying what the deal is to be a tell.
Translation: We don't want to deal with journos who may ask questions that are uncomfortable or 'off our message'. Nor do we want any kind of consistency in reporting on the campaign. That way we can guarantee that all voters will hear is our message(s) (on social media) without the imposition of any nasty 'facts'.
I guess this was a calculated assessment of the potential benefits and liabilities. I suspect the CPC thought that there would be journalists attempting to pick a fight with Mr Poilievre in order to get their 30 second clip noticed. That could still happen of course during scrums at events, but at events you always have an exit planned ahead of time to quickly get out if you need to.
Let me give the short version of my reaction to all this.
First, I'm not overly fussed when campaigns take wide latitude in determining how they want to present themselves. I've seen a lot. And I've read Allan Levine's wonderful old book about political reporting in Ottawa, Scrum Wars, so I know, for instance, that the National Press Theatre exists because Lester Pearson hated scrums, found them claustrophobic, and was desperate to claw back some dignity. Everyone's playing for advantage.
But just about the only thing I've been writing for three years now, to anyone who would listen (which is nobody), is: My God, you people put far too much stock in message discipline.
It's an article of faith, too widely shared, that if politicians say *exactly what they've prepared* to *journalists who would never think to disagree,* then all will be well. And you know who just ran a campaign like that? Kamala Harris.
I sent a note to the Liberal Party and they replied quickly with a link to their media sign-up page. the prices mentioned are (very roughly? It's been some time since I had to worry about the cost of staffing a campaign) in line with costs to cover past tours run by various parties. The bulk of that page reads as follows:
The Liberal Party of Canada invites media organizations to confirm their interest in joining the National Leader’s Tour, for when the next election begins.
Tour fees will be:
$1,500 per day;
$6,600 per week; or
$33,500 for the full campaign.
Fees will cover: travel, food, access to filing rooms, and wifi.
Media accreditation requests must be submitted two (2) days prior to departure in order to be processed — or for the launch of the campaign, one (1) day. All fields required. Priority will be given to Media accredited by the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery, and to those committing to longer time periods.
Please contact xxx@xxx.xx regarding questions or concerns.
Yeah that’s all good. But neither of these parties are actually answering questions. We are so poorly served as citizens.
I just want to quit all of this. If nobody cares, why should I? Or is that the entire point of party strategists these days?
This is, indeed, a thought that occurs.
Of course, you do have the example from the south where all questions are answered but with lies, distortions and obfuscations.
I suppose the lesson is that we need to be careful and very, VERY precise as to what it is that we wish for.
Not sure how different that is from the answers provided here, from all parties.
Well, it will be interesting to see how the media covers PP vs MC -- with some analysis around who benefits the most from encouraging vs discouraging media coverage. It's rather amusing to me that the Conservatives cite the rising costs of subsidizing media when they have raised more than $40 million and the Libs are still able to underwrite some of the costs when they have raised considerably less. Hmmmm.
Me thinks the costs which they were concerned about were not monetary given Pierre's love of MSM (especially when you can't run away).
There is very little MSM in my house. One need only look at the Munk debate on media, featuring Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi, who eviscerated Canadian MSM's neutrality for taking Liberal subsidies. I haven't bought a newspaper in a decade, and I haven't seen a television news broadcast in a similar amount of time.
Should I turn on a news show, I get clips. Those clips do appear on X or YouTube often with some accompanying excellent commentary. Modern news has a forebearer in pamphleteering. Substack, such as Mr. Wells and others, reflect a digital return to pamphleteering.
What happens on a campaign bus is largely irrelevant. Much of the important information won't be on the bus but at some event. Suspect the Conservatives have a good grasp of modern media.
I read the CPC message this way: “We do not want considered questions asked in an environment where a detailed answer could be expected.”
While I get that any answer could be meaningless pap from any party, but at least the others seem to be willing to put on a show. The CPC position is a metaphorical middle finger salute to professionals who, by and large, do that “fact checking” thing.
"Air quotes as big as a barn door" Paul, you do have a way with words☺️
*giggle*
Certainly Does not suffer from Writers Block?
I know people who wish I would
Touché
Sounds like a campaign that is in free fall due to the severe drop in the polls. Sad!
Wow. A masterclass in bullshit and spin. Our politicians and business leaders are really, really averse to third party accountability and scrutiny, aren't they.
The obvious beneficiary of this kind and considerate “no media, thank you” is the CBC. The CBC may be about the only media organization who can dilute their campaign reporting down to the local bureaus but how about the CBC Parliamentary Crew (or Global, CTV NEWS et al) who have been dying for the election call, only to get thrown off the bus? That sure launches the Tory campaign with a goodwill gesture. I guess there is always Zoom.
Perhaps Mr. Wells could fill us in? Do the media outlets care? Is the cost of having reporters tagging along on the tightly controlled whistle stops worth the cost and bother?
So, Paul Wells, what do you make of this? Are you working on a defense? Will it be a comparison to the Libs?
Guess you'll... find out soon enough?
Not sure why this would be a problem for the media. Reduces costs at their end.
Interesting discussion here. I think my reaction is mostly ‘meh’. But sort adjacent to this topic… on media, liberal bias, what do these things tell us… I did a giant eye roll on Evan Solomon running for Liberals. Like no, please don’t. Not because I’m a L but it just seems to reinforce what people already think about media and that does not seem good?!?!? And all these social reshares with messages about what a great guy he is and how he’ll be an excellent MP. Just no. Stay out of it.
While I agree that he shouldn't do it. It is hardly only a liberal thing. Andrew Lawton and Sabrina Maddeaux ring any bells?
We now have the responses from the CPC and the LPC.
Given their impoverished state we can expect that if the NDP has an airplane tour there will be one of two options. First, the airplane will be a Cessna 172 (4 seater, including pilot) so no room for media. Second option is a DC3 (some are still flying) configured for freight (to allow cost recovery, of course) and the carrying of, oh, 20 passengers at a cost per day of $2,500 (again, cost recovery).
There, now we know what all the parties are doing in terms of leaders' tours.
On the other hand, precisely how many people REALLY want to know what the Singher is promising when HE becomes Prime Minister?
None
How many news organizations think that it will be worth $100k to cover just the leaders’ tours? (Assuming LPC, CPC, & NDP tours)
Remember that TV orgs send three to four people on each plane/bus, so it's quite a bit more than that.
And out of CTV, CBC, Global, Postmedia, and G&M, how many are spending that?
Jenni sounds quite amicable… are you sure it’s not fake?
My very occasional interactions with her have never been unpleasant. However, I do take the “Let me assure you, we plan to forge new frontiers of openness” handwaving before even saying what the deal is to be a tell.
Translation: We don't want to deal with journos who may ask questions that are uncomfortable or 'off our message'. Nor do we want any kind of consistency in reporting on the campaign. That way we can guarantee that all voters will hear is our message(s) (on social media) without the imposition of any nasty 'facts'.
I guess this was a calculated assessment of the potential benefits and liabilities. I suspect the CPC thought that there would be journalists attempting to pick a fight with Mr Poilievre in order to get their 30 second clip noticed. That could still happen of course during scrums at events, but at events you always have an exit planned ahead of time to quickly get out if you need to.