02 Apr 2011, Posted by Joshua in Canada Election 2011,Conservatives, No Comments.

If Stephen Harper won’t speak to the media then maybe the media should cut him off

Do you have a friend who always wants to be at the centre of attention? And what do they do when you stop giving them your attention? Maybe this is something that Canadian journalists should think about as Stephen Harper expects them to disseminate his message while controlling their questions at news conferences. Maybe its time that the media cut off Stephen Harper until he decides to give them reasonable access.

By now you have probably heard about Stephen Harper’s attempt to control every aspect of his campaign message; and that the extremes he has gone to this election to accomplish this has sent reporters reeling. But the Conservatives have been playing tight message control for years – maybe its not good enough to finally complain about it, perhaps journalists should actually do something.

Canada has a very limited number of news organizations so theoretically cutting off Stephen Harper wouldn’t be difficult. News outlets and reporters could just go on strike from covering Tory announcements.

Even in the age of the internet this would force the Conservative’s hand – the party can use as much social media as it wants, but the voter demographic they are targeting still watches the news and visits mainstream news websites. A media absence of Tory announcements and policies this election would sting enough that Harper and Co. would have no choice but to quickly reevaluate their position on media access.

This is not being suggested so Harper’s opponents have an unfair advantage over his campaign; the media has a responsibility to provide the Canadian public with the best information possible so they can make informed decisions when they go to the polls. There is no way journalists can do this if they aren’t allowed to adequately question and prod the Harper regime – using this rationale, striking against the Tories could be a legitimate means of making them play fair.

Other than the moral obligation why would the media even consider this? Some outlets might be concerned that if the Conservatives form the next government they will punish them with no access, but if all the major outlets band together this would be very difficult for a Tory government to accomplish. Government’s need the news to get elected, but they also need the news to help them stay in power. If the media remained contractually united there wouldn’t be much of a downside for them. There is plenty of content during an election so they wouldn’t go wanting and any increased Tory access they might win could only help with ratings. Not to mention the increased ad revenue that could be earned if the Conservatives don’t quickly cave since they would have no choice but to pay to get their message across.

Ironically for Stephen Harper, because of the public mandate of the CBC it would probably have no choice but to be Harper’s only mainstream coverage at press conferences. But — because of their public mandate you can almost guarantee that every Harper news story would be followed by another one explaining why the rest of the media has chosen not to cover it.

Most Importantly: any boycott would have to be handled carefully. The worst thing that could happen would be if the Harper Conservatives didn’t give in the the public gradually felt sympathetic towards them being shunned out. This scenario would benefit the Conservatives and do unjust harm to other candidates. This result would run counter-intuitive to the boycott’s goal of increased access and transparency in an election.

If you haven’t already seen the video of reporters grilling Stephen Harper over his media control this election, watch it by clicking here.