Maybe it's just that I'm following too many Ottawa people on Twitter. But this is starting to strike me as the fall in which our media's obsession with the backrooms went way over the top.
To be clear, it's extremely useful for those in my profession to know as many staffers as possible, and to know as much about them as possible. Those are the people who know what's happening in the political wings of government, and they're often more likely to speak candidly about it than their bosses.
What's less clear to me is why any normal member of the public would want to know much about them at all. I get that Peter Donolo is an engaging character, and that his return to Ottawa is an interesting storyline for political junkies. But the degree of focus on the machinations of the leader of the opposition's office just seems disproportionate to Canadians' level of interest, or to those events' relevance.
Not to say that there shouldn't be a few journalists keeping track of these things; there's enough of a market, certainly online, to sustain some coverage. It also bears noting that there are all sorts of relevant matters getting covered in this newspaper and elsewhere as we speak - from the Prime Minister's Indian adventures and the Environment Minister's Copenhagan preparations to the Finance Minister's bid to dampen spending expectations and the Privacy Commissioner's cautions about the insecurity of our financial data.
But from the outside, at least, the backroom stuff seems to be commanding a disproportionate amount of Ottawa's attention.
For the politicians on the front lines, that's counterproductive. Message control is tricky enough without having your own employees competing with you for attention, not to mention highlighting the amount of image-structuring that goes on behind the scenes.
As far as I can tell, Donolo is keeping his head down. That's a smart move, and he'd do well to tell other staff to follow his lead. It's debatable what exactly triggered the era of the celebrity backroomer; it seems to be an American phenomenon that crept up here during the Chretien-Martin wars and never went away. But for all parties, and for the public, it's not especially healthy.
Most of the staffers I deal with at the provincial level operate on the premise that it's best if their names don't appear in print, and I'm happy enough to keep their names out if it means I'll find out more about what the government is doing. I'd be shocked if many Ontarians could name Dalton McGuinty's chief of staff, or Tim Hudak's, or frankly any backroomers at all around Queen's Park. Is anyone poorer for it?
