The debate debacle

It is great to be recommended for endorsement by the website Catch 22.  But that’s not what this blog is about.

This blog is about the media consortium.

Catch 22 was a 1961 novel by Joseph Heller. The setting was a military bureaucracy where whatever you did, you were wrong.   

Here’s a taste of the book:

"Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating." Another character explains: "Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing."

The media Consortium keeps playing Catch 22 on the Green Party.  In 2008, when Blair Wilson was a sitting Green MP at dissolution of the House, the Consortium said that since there were no rules, having a seat didn’t matter.  Greens were not invited to participate.  Now, they say, you have never had an elected MP.  Two Catch 22s in one sentence.  Last time we didn’t have an elected MP, but they relented after public pressure.  Second, in 2008 they said that having an MP at all was not a rule.

Last time media said I should have run somewhere else and concentrated on winning a seat.  This time, according to one report on CBC news, the consortium thinks I cannot be in the debates because the Greens are not running a truly national campaign because we are making the leader winning a seat a priority. Chantal Hebert embraced this idea as well. She suggested we are only really running in one riding.

Not a national campaign??  We are running 308 candidates.  We have a $2,5 million campaign budget nationally (contrasted with $80,000 in Saanich-Gulf Islands).  And I am going to be touring the country on a national leaders’ tour, only it will be a bit shorter than last time.

And since when is running a truly national campaign a criterion?  Clearly, Gilles Duceppe will not set a foot out of Quebec, but I am penalized for spending relatively more time in my riding than in 2008. 

The Globe interviewed the Consortium chair, Troy Reeb, who said Greens will get plenty of other coverage.  “If you look at all the English news casts Wednesday night, Elizabeth May was front and centre in all of them.”  Well, yes.  Because it was news that they were trying to keep me out of the debates.  But check any other nightly newscast and search in vain for Green coverage.  We have made a major policy statement every day. Have you heard about any of them?   Yesterday, we had a very newsworthy press conference with the former President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.  We called for an inquiry into the nuclear industry.  Covered on the evening TV news? No.

On Monday, Stephen Harper’s campaign came to Saanich-Gulf Islands. It was the second time in a month that he had visited my community.  The national media bus marshalled the captive reporters approximately five blocks from our office.  Media coverage sought out Opposition leaders’ comments on the Conservative announcement  -- NDP and Liberal.  None of the national news coverage I heard mentioned that the visit was to a riding where the Greens have a reasonable prospect of defeating the incumbent Conservative.  No one contacted the Greens for response, or covered the response we posted. 

But according to the Consortium, the debate is just one way they provide coverage and they provide lots of other ways for our views to be heard.  If they want to cling to that argument, then they may actually have to cover what positions and policies we advocate.

The media Consortium seems very determined to keep us out, but surely the CBC Ombudsman’s comments should have given them pause.  So too should the fact two former Prime Ministers support my inclusion in the debates (The Rt. Hon. Joe Clark and The Rt. Hon.Paul Martin). 

Author of the best-selling A Short History of Progress, Ronald Wright commented:

"Democracies are rare in history; they are easily hijacked by tyrants, and lost by neglect.  Harper has got away with far too much already.  Many Canadians have little idea of the damage he has done to our constitution and our country, though Elizabeth May has certainly been keeping score.  Now media barons are trying to shut her out of the campaign debates.  This decision is an outrage.  All Canadians, whether Green or not, are being cheated.  May's clear and thoughtful voice must be heard."

Against that, Mr Reeb has explained, “We are trying to make good television here, after all.”

That explanation stands as wholly inadequate when measured against the comment posted by the CBC Ombudsman, Kirk LaPointe:

I accept that this decision is not CBC and Radio Canada's alone to make. But it is difficult to discern how the public interest is best served by exclusion or to find congruence in the decision and the public broadcaster's mandate.

There might be no better time for media to demonstrate their commitment to democracy than in an election campaign. An integral part of that commitment is an exploration of ideas and platforms, and a valuable ingredient within that is an opportunity to present debate: many-on-many, one-on-one, on various issues in various places at various stages.

In a relatively short campaign, every element of coverage magnifies that commitment and every decision to include or exclude has a magnified impact.

The consortium has not elaborated on its decision, apart from asserting that it involved journalistic principles, but presumably press independence was a key. When media regularly park that principle to provide content with little other function than prurient indulgence, though, it is curious that the solemn stand suddenly surfaces.

The more I think about it, the Consortium, as novel, is less like Joseph Heller, and more like Ring Lardner, who wrote a classic summary of my situation:  “ ‘Shut up,’ he explained.