News

Stephen Harper says journalists on Parliament Hill are biased against his government and have decided to become the opposition to his Conservative administration.

So he'll be avoiding them.

Mr. Harper has outlined two complaints.

First, he told a London, Ont., TV station Wednesday that he is having more problems with reporters in the capital than a Liberal prime minister would never face.

Second, the Parliamentary Press Gallery has "unfortunately . . . taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government," Mr. Harper told London's A-Channel.

So Mr. Harper said he will take his message out on the road and deal with the less-hostile local media.

The prime minister was pressed on the issue again yesterday in Vancouver — by the very same local media he's courting.

As Jeff Sallot reports in today's Globe PM presses on in feud with media , Mr. Harper did get one question from a local reporter about whether the Ottawa-based media are "elitist." However, another local reporter asked him if he was being "childish" while a third responded to one prime ministerial answer with the observation "with respect . . . that's simply not true."

The prime minister tried to play down the dispute by saying: "I don't think this story is really of much interest to most ordinary people."

The evidence on globeandmail.com suggests a different story. A story about Mr. Harper's remarks in London, Ont., was the second-most widely-read story on our site yesterday. As well, it provoked a strong reaction with more than 300 comments , pro and con, posted on globeandmail.com

Is Mr. Harper right? All prime ministers complain about their treatment by national media. Is there anything different about this administration?

To help answer those questions, Peter Donolo, left, a former Liberal strategist, and Michel Gratton, a former president of the Parliamentary Press Gallery who later worked as Brian Mulroney's press secretary, were on line earlier Friday to take your questions.

Scroll down to read the questions and answers.

Mr. Donolo was director of communications for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien from 1993 to 1999, where he oversaw communications strategies for a number of the most important government initiatives and most contentious political and public policy issues of the past decade, also directing the prime minister's personal communications.

He is now executive vice-president of The Strategic Counsel, one of Canada's most respected market research and strategic communications consultants. He leads a consultancy practice that provides strategic communications advice, issues management, crisis communications and long-term reputation counsel for some of the country's most prominent corporate leaders. His specialty is working on projects of intense public and media exposure with compressed timeframes.

Mr. Gratton was former prime minister Brian Mulroney's press secretary. He wrote a book about the experience in 1987 called So, What Are the Boys Saying? A Candid Look at Brian Mulroney in Power and a follow-up in 1990 called Still the Boss: A Candid Look at Brian Mulroney.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Peter and Michel, thanks for joining us today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com about the current dispute between Prime Minister Harper and the Parliamentary Press Gallery. I guess the first thing most readers want to know is pretty simple. There have been disputes between the Ottawa-based media and every PMO that I can recall dating back decades. You've both seen this first-hand. So, is this just the latest variation on that theme? Or is there something different about either the way the Ottawa-based media is treating Mr. Harper or about the way the prime minister is treating the Ottawa-based media?

Peter Donolo: There's a natural tension that always exists between any PMO and the Gallery. The PMO wants to be strategic in its communications: to advance its agenda, get across its message, on its terms. The media, of course, has a different obligation: at best, to inform the public and provide a transparency essential to a properly running democracy, and sometimes, truth be told, to stir things up and fan controversy. That's the reality. It's not new. And it's not unique to Canada.

At the same time, however, just to make matters more interesting, there's also a symbiotic relationship between the PMO and the Gallery: they need each other. A government needs the media to communicate with the electorate and the press gallery's raison d'être is to cover the workings of government and Parliament.

The key to a successful relationship is balancing these two facts of life. Being strategic and disciplined enough to do your job and get your message out, and savvy and practical enough to cultivate and maintain a professional relationship with the Gallery.

Michel Gratton: Like the great philosopher Yogi Berra said: "It's like déjà-vu all over again..."

One thing I would like to say at the outset is that, as a press secretary to Brian Mulroney, I certainly learned what not to do with the media.

Journalists have a job to do. If they perceive you are deliberately trying to prevent them from doing their job, they will turn on you fast. How much access the media should have to a Prime Minister in a democracy is a question we will answer when hell freezes over. That is not the real issue.

The real issue is one of perception. Why won't Prime Minister Harper collaborate a little more with the Parliament Hill press corps? And, sooner rather than later, the answer to this question is, rightly or wrongly: Because he is hiding something. One thing for sure, Mr. Harper wants to control his message.

The problem with this approach is that it's an assured boomerang communications strategy. If the media thinks you are out to get them, they will be out to get you. If every time you put out a message, they look for the flaws in the message, you're constantly placed on the defensive.

Like it or not, the Parliamentary Press Gallery members are the main messengers a Prime Minister has to deal with. Furthermore, to imply that local reporters will go easier on you is not only wrong, it's insane. Does anybody in his right mind think that so-called local reporters like being told that they like to play softball? First, many of them want to become national reporters. Those who don't want to be national reporters still pride themselves in being real reporters who are not impressed by power and those who wield it.

In fact, many of the slip-ups we made in Mr. Mulroney's office came out of local interviews.

My concern is not so much for the preservation of a free press and democracy. I don't think those values are threatened by feuds of this kind. I am simply dumbfounded that, after all the documented failed attempts by previous politicians to blatantly try to control the message by shunning the national media, there are still sorcerer's apprentices in high places who think they can get away with it.

A psychologist would tell you that to constantly repeat the same actions and expect that the end result will be different is the recipe for folly.

And, heck, it never misses.

Allison Dunfield, globeandmail.com, writes:To our readers: Please note: There are fewer answers throughout the discussion from Mr. Gratton than from Mr. Donolo, because Mr. Gratton encountered technical difficulties this afternoon. Thank you.

D.N., Whitby, Ont: A timely and interesting topic. Thanks for making yourselves available for questions. I must admit that this whole imbroglio baffles me somewhat . . . The only rationale I can see for any of this is that most ideological small c-conservatives see a "liberal" media it as an article of faith and Mr. Harper can't resist trying to knock them down a peg. Plus, he's playing to his core supporters, who believe the same thing. What do you think that the medium-term to long-term effects of this impasse are, especially if it continues? And what do you think the rationale is behind the hardball tactics? Thanks.

Peter Donolo: I think a lot of the rationale for Mr. Harper's behaviour lies in his party's 2004 election defeat. First it convinced him of the need to exert tight message control — he remembers that his mid-election juggernaught was sunk by the friendly fire of his own candidates' public comments. He also feels that the media played up these problems a lot more with his party than the Liberals. And I also understand that the fact that a couple of the most critical journalists joined ministers' offices in the Martin government in the aftermath of the election, only confirmed (fairly or not) his views.

As for the consequences, I don't think they can be positive over the long term for Mr. Harper. He's riding high now. But all governments have cycles. There will be a time — either before or after the next election — when he and his government will need the benefit of doubt from the media on a particular issue. And they won't get it.

It's a bit like picking a fight with your mother-in-law. It may feel great at the moment. But she's around for the long haul. She has a million ways of getting back at you, and making your life miserable. It's just not worth it.

Political Junkie: To what degree is Mr. Harper's resentment of the press caused by the media coverage of such issues as his failure to hug his son and his waist line and dress code in Mexico? To me, this type of journalism would really irritate a serious policy wonk.

Michel Gratton: I have no idea what motivates Mr. Harper. His handlers are probably a good part of it.

But I don't think it's that mysterious or complicated. Every single politician I know and have known (that would be in the hundreds) think the media is fundamentally unfair. They have consistently refused to accept a basic reality: fame never comes on your own terms.

The only attitude is to learn and accept that you have to roll with the bullets. Keep your chin up, keep smiling, don't get angry over inanities and, most of all, don't think you're smarter than everybody else... including the media.

Peter Donolo: We may not like it, but it's like the weather — you can whine and complain about it till you're blue in the face. Far better to buy an umbrella and go out there and get on with your business.

Moreover, this kind of trivial pursuit on the part of the media is not new. Politicians have had to put up with it for decades. If a person's constitution is too delicate for this kind of work, I suggest they've chosen the wrong career.

Mike Leyne, Victoria, B.C.: This is unbelievable. Is it not the Press Gallery's explicit job, to be an opposition to the government? Does Harper seriously expect to see sycophantic puff pieces and glad-handing editorials every day? Anyone with a passing knowledge of Politics 101 knows the media's role in an ostensibly democratic nation like Canada is to hold the government accountable, ensure their actions remain transparent, and inform the public so they can make intelligent choices on the one day every few years when "democracy" necessitates actual physical participation.

Peter Donolo: I see this as less a question than a comment. However, I will point out that Mr. Harper is someone who seems both thin-skinned and prone to heated words in moments of pique (remember the "Alberta firewall"). He'd be advised to toughen up a bit. I worked for a guy (Mr. Chrétien) who had rhino-hide. He knew he had to in order to have staying power. He also knew what was worth fighting over and what wasn't — and the issue of who gets to compile lists for press conferences would definitely be in the latter category.

Michel Gratton: The people have to hold the government accountable. To do this, they need someone to tell them what's going on. No government on Earth can be entirely trusted to do this. This information has to come from an independent, honest source with freedom of expression. The media is certainly not perfect in its role. But it is the best we've got. Any politician who claims the media has designated itself as an opposition to the government does not know the media, including the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Media gang-up incidents on a Prime Minister do happen. But I have always believed that the first culprit is the person who thinks the media is being unfair. Politicians who cruise for a bruising will get it. It is only a matter of time. This is true for Mr. Harper too.

Randal Oulton, Toronto: Is anyone interested in politicians and the media except for politicians and the media?

Michel Gratton: Yes. Those who expect jobs or contracts from them.

Peter Donolo: You're right, Randal. My guess is that if you did a straw poll right now, most Canadians would probably side with Mr. Harper. For now.

What's most interesting about these things is what's going on under the surface. And I think that Mr. Harper's combativeness is likely part of a larger problem that doesn't bode well for him over the long term. Namely, his uber-control streak. He's got to learn that a prime minister does not have complete control over every word uttered from his government and that there will be unforeseen situations that come out of left field. He's got to learn to roll with the punches. And to focus on what's really important.

Leonard Eichel, Montreal: This is a question for Peter and Michel: In your view, what is the influence of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in distributing news about Ottawa versus the influence of political commentators who run their own Internet blogs? Is the Prime Minister's strategy somewhat "old school" and naive in the current media context?

Peter Donolo: I think blogs — while important — play a much different role from broader, mainstream (including on-line) news media. People don't turn to blogs for news. They seek them out for colourful opinion, and usually, frankly, to reinforce their own world views.

The mainstream media (newspapers, radio, television, and Internet sites such as this one) is still the primary means for communicating what is happening to the broadest audience. The best proof of that is that blogs (other than those dedicated to conspiracy theories) usually riff off news that has been reported in mainstream media.

Michel Gratton writes: I see blogs very much as open-line shows. It's kind of a sickness you become addicted to.

That said, I favour any form of communication that will contribute to freedom of expression. And, from what I've seen of them, blogs can be interesting.

By the way, isn't this a blog? Well, if it is, it's fun.

Brian Lowry, Fredericton, N.B.: When democratic governments shut down elements of the media, the message always comes across as a desire for uninformed support. It seems ill-advised to divide society into those who actively seek information and those who passively receive it. Could it really be that Stephen Harper sees his support base as largely blind followers?

Michel Gratton: I don't think so. If he is the least bit realistic, he sees them as people who had no other choice. I have deplored for some time now how low our politicians fare compared to those of other industrialized countries. The best of them would not come close to the worst of them in, say, the United States or France. At least, you get a feeling from politicians elsewhere that they tell you what they stand for. In Canada, we have had no vision, no true leadership, no sense going anywhere with anybody for a very long time. I tuned off the channel a while ago.

Miles Lunn, Vancouver: For whatever reason, Mr. Harper seems to be climbing in the polls and now in majority territory. With all his mistakes including his arrogant attitude towards the media, I am wondering why he is going up, not down? And do you think this arrogant attitude will eventually hurt him?

Peter Donolo: I think it's fair to say that Mr. Harper's rise in the polls has taken place in spite of his strife with the Gallery, not because of it. When it's smooth sailing, at the beginning of a new government, you think the sunny weather will go on forever. Believe me, I've been there. But when the seas start getting choppy, you want to know you've got enough life vests and lifeboats. That's why I can't understand Mr. Harper's lack of foresight here.

A good example is Mr. Martin's experience. His PMO was, by all accounts, brutal with the Ottawa gallery — threats, rants, fits of pique, the whole nine yards. The polls leading up to the last election call suggested he might win a majority. What kind of media treatment did Mr. Martin get during the campaign? I rest my case.

Michel Gratton: What goes up must come down. He will come down after the honeymoon and he will have a rabid press on his back to make sure he hits the bottom of the barrel. In other words, we'll wait until he messes up his life, and then we'll see how good Stephen Harper really is.

W. William Woods, Toronto: Hi Peter and Michel, Yesterday evening, I watched the press conference in the Whitehouse with Bush and Blair. Questions were invited from reporters in an orderly — and clearly pre-agreed — manner. As I understand it, the procedures that Harper has called for are not without precedent either here in Canada or in other democracies. So my first question is this: Who the hell do these PPG reporters think they are? They walk out on the duly elected Prime Minister of this country and they refuse to co-operate with the duly elected government of Canada. They are the ones who are acting "childishly" and they are not doing the job that they are employed to do. Which leads to my second question: Why have their employers not summarily dismissed them all? Are they not being paid to attend the PMs press conferences and ask questions? If I unilaterally refused to do the job I was being paid to do, I would expect my employer to fire me. And please ask the PPG not to insult my intelligence by telling me that the orderly procedures the PM proposes threaten the "freedom of the press."

Peter Donolo: A little background might be useful here. There is a long-standing practice in Ottawa on the conduct of media availabilities, and they fall into two categories.

The first is a full-blown press conference in the National Press Theatre. The Press Gallery provides the chairman (usually their president), who oversees the event, keeping a list of questioners. The PM makes an opening statement and takes the questions as they are jockeyed by the chair. All pretty straightforward and civilized.

The second option is a scrum. In my day, we would often set up a roped-off mic in the foyer of the House of Commons — this would avoid the messy look of many scrums, with the politician surrounded, like cornered prey, by a sea of microphones and reporters. At the unimic, the PM would handle himself, picking the questions and deciding when to leave. There were no pre-arranged lists or other deals.

These two-long accepted practices are certainly adequate. I really don't understand why Mr. Harper had to set out to reinvent the wheel — particularly when he happily operated under these conventions as opposition leader.

Michel Gratton writes: The media is being childish ... You can't be serious.

Truth is, Parliament Hill as a whole is a very childish place. Very full of itself too.

I spent 15 years of my life on the Hill. And during those years, I thought it was the most important place on the face of the planet, that everything and everybody revolved around it.

That is not far from believing that the Sun orbits the Earth.

To my utter surprise, although I miss some of the people I knew there who became great friends, I have discovered since leaving that there is a real life and real people out there. And that, too often, what happens on the Hill is so irrelevant, it's sad.

Irene Cornwell, Morinville, Que.: Isn't this attempt to divide and conquer the media, via an urban and "smaller" centre media, a blatant attempt to "control" the media? ... Didn't these same "liberal" reporters strongly and rightfully attack the Liberal Party over the sponsorship scandal? Didn't they coin the "Mr. Dithers" label?

Michel Gratton: Divide and conquer? It may be. But as a strategy, when it comes to the media, it is simply impossible to achieve. A good story is simply a good story. And it's usually bad.

Peter Donolo: Again, I think the basic premise here is correct. The media, in my experience, does not serve any particular party. They generally question government and authority. That's not altogether unhealthy.

David Ashton, Cloverdale, B.C.: Peter and Michel, thank you for taking our questions. Is there any way the national press can win this battle without also fulfilling Harper's prophesy of their bias? If they were to "strike back," wouldn't it be read as proof that they are in fact acting as the "opposition" and that they are anti-Conservative?

Michel Gratton: The media will win this battle. The only question is: When. People don't care if you strike back if they would like to strike back too. The media has a keen sense of when and where to hit. Years and years of practice. They smell blood, and they pounce on the weakest in the pack. The bigger the prize (say, the Prime Minister) the greater the accomplishment. Is this the way things should be? It simply is.

W. William Woods, Toronto: The PPG are opposing the PM's proposed procedures because they claim it "may" enable him to call on only those journalists with "softball" questions. My question is: Why won't the PPG at least try the PM's procedures and see how they work? If the PM acts responsibly and accepts questions across the board, then no harm done. If on the other hand he starts filtering, well then — and only then — the PPG can start walking out, sitting in, boycotting etc. At least we would understand why the PPG is doing it in that scenario. What they did this week, and their rejection of his proposal without even trying it, is childish and extremely disrespectful of the duly elected PM of Canada.

Peter Donolo: Again, what amazes me about this set-to is how unnecessary it is. There is a basic system in place that works. Why not use it?

Michel Gratton: Do we want our press to be respectful? It's all a question of degree, isn't it?

By and large, I have found Parliament Hill reporters to be extremely respectful in their approach. What is less respectful is a Prime Minister saying I will go to your house only if you get rid of your ugly furniture, that awful colour in the living room, and, oh yes, your terrible kids too. Is that a deal?

B. Mac: Do you agree with Mr. Harper that the press has abandoned their role of investigative reporting and has become the country's unofficial opposition. This is not something they were elected to do. Government-bashing, rather then intense research and accurate reporting seem to be the order of the day.

Michel Gratton: In my experience, effective government-bashing stories speak for themselves, and they are usually based on good investigative work.

Peter Donolo: There is a general drift toward dumbing down news stories, increased sensationalism and trivialization of the news. But that's way beyond the ambit of this discussion. And it's a phenomenon that certainly not limited to Canada. In any case, it's not something that will be solved by arguments over scrum mikes or questioners' lists.

Jack Ryan, Toronto and Calgary: Mr. Donolo, you were in the middle of the HRDC issue where, as you have pointed out in the past, a qualitative audit was taken as a financial audit, sensationalized by the media, then seized by the opposition and rapidly developed into a (phony) scandal. To this day, the majority of people — especially Conservative supporters — continue to cite the HRDC as evidence of corruption and still take the "$1-billion" figure as fact. Do you care to comment on the media's role in the HRDC affair?

No doubt Harper was taking notes every time the Liberals took a beating from the media (like HRDC) and he has often used this media to his advantage. Do you think Harper's allegations of a "biased media" is what he actually believes, or is it more of a strategy to insulate his government from the same media he gleefully watched tear the previous government(s) apart over and over?

Peter Donolo: Actually, I had already left Ottawa by the time the HRDC imbroglio took place. But your basic point is correct. The so called "scandal" was nothing of the sort. But by the time the media had done their demolition job, it was all over.

There's no excusing this kind of torquing or other media sensationalism. And your observation that the Opposition feeds off of it and contributes to it is also valid. So there is certainly some irony in Mr. Harper's current stance.

That said, needlessly antagonizing and insulting the Press Gallery is not going to "insulate" any government from aggressive coverage. Quite the contrary; it is likely to further distrust from the media.

Harry Froklage, Waterloo, Ont.: I am trying to understand if Mr. Harper's behaviour is evidence of hubris — the fatal flaw that is his obsessively controlling nature — or a clever tactic based on research into widely-held mistrust of the media. I pose the question: Is it one, the other or both?

Michel Gratton: No. It's just ridiculous.

Eric Olympico: Would it be fair to say that this issue is related to the Conservatives mimicking of the Republican party's media relations?

Peter Donolo: If they are, they're missing an important ingredient. The Bush Administration seized on the crisis of 9/11 to very strategically seize the communications initiative in the U.S. They were able to count on an American media which — like the rest of the nation — was deeply traumatized by the terror attacks and was prone to appeals to patriotic solidarity. The media self-censorship that took place for four years was used effectively (and relentlessly) by the Bush Administration — especially in the 2004 election.

That context is missing in Canada. And efforts to emulate it (barring the media from covering the returns of coffins from Afghanistan, cancelling the Royal Military College honouring Anthony Zinni, the retired Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has been critical of the Iraq War) just seem heavy-handed.

The fact is we're dealing with a different reality and a different political culture. A Canadian PM can't behave in the same imperial manner as a U.S. President — picture George Bush in Question Period.

Nick Klassen, Ottawa: Who's to blame for this mess? Or is it both?

Peter Donolo writes: I think this is a case of a new government convinced that it can have its cake and eat it too. That it can succeed where others have failed.

You've got to understand that new governments and media strategies are like teenagers and sex — they think they invented it all on their own. The fact is that the basic immutables in the relationship between government and media don't change. It's all about managing the relationship. And showing the right amounts of mutual respect, determination, flexibility, good humour and professionalism to make it work.

I was very lucky that my boss, Prime Minister Chrétien, by the time he achieved the highest office, had seen it all. He had the maturity and judgment to know what was important and what wasn't. And not to sweat the stuff that either (a) you can't control or (b) doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

Mr. Harper is learning on the job. In fairness to him, it's worth remembering that although he's been in politics all his adult life, this is his first time exercising the reins of power. His challenge is to ensure that these beginners' mistakes are caught and corrected — and that they don't inflict any permanent political damage on him. And the greatest risk in that regard is twofold: (1) that the media will gain an attitude about him and use subtle opportunities for payback and more importantly (2) that Canadians don't cement this view of him as chippy and control-crazy — the exact kind of image that might give people pause about handing him a majority government.

Alex Sudy, Toronto: Mr. Harper's advice regarding the press and his position in government appears to be coming from ex-Harris advisers from Ontario. Do you agree? Is that an issue?

Peter Donolo: I don't know to what extent it's an issue. I sense that Mr. Harper's attitudes toward the media are very much his own and very deeply held. It looks like he's brooded over them for quite a while.

Trevor Fenton, Ottawa: I read today a suggestion that Mr. Harper wants to circumvent the Ottawa press corps because it tends to be better-prepared to ask tough questions than, say, a local reporter at A Channel in London. If this is, in fact, his strategy, what chance is there that it could work?

Peter Donolo: Going after regional media is always smart. They tend to be more deferential to the office of the Prime Minister. And the PM is always big news.

The thing is, it isn't an either-or proposition. It's not as if the Ottawa Gallery is going to lay down tools or cover the Tulip Festival while you're in Sarnia or Moose Jaw. I know. In Opposition, Mr. Chrétien couldn't get the time of day from the Ottawa Gallery, so he set off in regional bus tours which got socko coverage in different parts of the country. However, we didn't ignore the national media while that was happening. We tended the relationships and kept trying hard. In fact, we pushed stories on them on how well Mr. C was doing in the regions — and they reported them out of Ottawa.

Last point on this — the same people who consume the "local" media also consume the "national" media (websites, radio, TV, especially). And if the two don't jive, you're not being very effective at getting your message out.

Allison Dunfield, globeandmail.com, writes: Thank you very much, Mr. Donolo and Mr. Gratton, for taking time to answer questions from our readers today. It's very much appreciated.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: To our readers, this was an extremely popular discussion. Thank you for being so interested in this issue. Mr. Donolo and Mr. Gratton both stayed way beyond the hour they had agreed to in advance. But of course, even so, we couldn't get to all the questions you asked today.

If you have any further comments on the issues raised in this discussion, please feel free to post a comment here. If you wish to see what other readers are saying about this issue and this discussion, their comments can be found here .

Finally, if you have any thoughts on the overall format of these on-line discussions, or if you have guests to suggest for future discussions, please feel free to e-mail me your views .