Public Accountability

This long weekend's to do list, for my own organization -- nothing to see here. If you catch me not doing any of these things and want to throw rocks at me, that might help too.

( The Big Weekend To Do List )

Media, Politics, and the Recent Tushingham Debate

ETA: Followup post on this here.

Okay, so it's hit the news this week that an Environment Canada scientist, Mark Tushingham, had to cancel an appearance to speak about the science behind his newly-released science fiction novel at the direction of the Environment Minister's office. Shit has hit the fan, internet posts are flying, etc. If you haven't read up on the case, news reports linked here:

Climate Change Expert Muzzled - Toronto Star

Mark Tushingham's new book is called Hotter than Hell, but yesterday he was plunged into the icy reality of the new Conservative communications regime, where ministers, MPs and the media are encountering strict new controls over the flow of information to the public.

Minister Stops Book Talk By Environment Canada Scientist -- CBC News

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose has stopped an Environment Canada scientist from speaking publicly about his own novel.

[...]

A spokesperson for Ambrose said the speech was billed as coming from an Environment Canada scientist and even though his book is a work of fiction, he would appear to be speaking in an official capacity.

Tushingham was ordered to cancel the speech because he didn't follow the proper process, the spokesperson said. He also has cancelled some TV and radio interviews about the book.

Can. Minister of Environment censors scientist/sf writer's talk -- Boingboing April 13

A Canadian scientist and science fiction writer who wrote a novel about global warming has had his speaking gig cancelled after Environment Minister Rona Ambrose intervened. The author, Mark Tushingham, works as a scientist for Environment Canada, which makes Ambrose his boss. He's also been ordered to cancel radio and TV appearances about his book.

In an effort to find out a little more, I did some nosing around for context on the policy under which the appearances were cancelled. That context says a lot more is going on here than the usual fusses about government and artistic expression: essentially, the subtext to this has little to do with Mr. Tushingham, and more to do with Stephen Harper and his Conservative government's communication policy.

Since the Conservatives took power in January, there's been quite the Cone of Silence hanging over Ottawa. Harper has implemented a policy that requires all ministerial and civil service communciation with the media not be authorized through the ministry offices, but through the Prime Minister's office. Things such as appearances at local environmental groups to speak about generic issues can and have been denied based on this policy, which is billed as a mechanism to make sure that all statements issued by government employees are consistent and factual. Now, making all your statements consistent and factual is not precisely a bad idea. It's the more extreme ramifications or odd side cases that get us into trouble.

Let's get back to Mark Tushingham: he was invited to speak about the science (as cited in the CBC article) behind the book, not just the book itself. This overlaps issues dealt with in his day job -- the book is about global warming. According to general context given me on the internal workings of this policy, what Mr. Tushingham has fallen afoul of is not an act of personal government censorship, but Prime Minister Harper's communications policy. This is not a muzzle on an artist. This is part of the larger regulation of what's being said by any government employee.

So? You ask. What's the difference between personal censorship and institutional censorship? According to a lot of media sources, not much:

Canada's Largest Media Union Calls on PM Harper to End Gagging of News Media -- Mar. 29/06

Canada's largest media union is calling on all members of Parliament to hold Prime Minister Harper accountable for his "undemocratic" and "frightening" attempts at gagging the news media by denying them access to Cabinet Ministers.

"Stephen Harper is threatening the critical democratic flow of information by closing doors to Canada's news outlets," said Peter Murdoch, secretary-treasurer and media vice-president of the 150,000 member Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP) in a statement today.

"Mr. Harper has decided to gag our national media. As representatives of Canadian journalists, we are alarmed at this tactic. It smacks of totalitarianism, not the democratic process we are used to in this country," Mr. Murdoch said. "We think all MPs should be equally upset and arrange for the appropriate Committee of the House of Commons to call the Prime Minister to task.

Controlling The Message
How Harper's government is walling off the press--and why Canadians should be concerned -- TIME Magazine, Apr. 3/06

Why the cat-and-mouse tactics from a ruling party that won the Jan. 23 election promising a more open government? The PMO says the media are overreacting, that it was just trying to ensure an orderly process. Because of an arcane parliamentary rule, journalists can stake out the third-floor Cabinet room only if the PMO announces that a meeting is about to take place. Instead the PMO wanted reporters to wait in the grand foyer one flight below, arguing that the larger space would be safer, would allow ministers who wanted to talk to the press more space to do so and would provide a better backdrop--the entrance to the House of Commons--for prime ministerial press conferences. "As long as Canadians can hear from their government, it shouldn't matter what floor they hear it from," says Sandra Buckler, the PM's new communications director.

To parliamentary reporters, however, it smacks of a government that wants to keep the press at bay. They have been stationing themselves in a gallery opposite the entrance to the Cabinet room for at least 30 years. Journalists say that being barred them from their regular third-floor perch means they no longer have a chance to approach (i.e., shout questions at) the meeting's participants and that ministers who want to avoid the press will be freer to do so. "It's a concrete example of how the Prime Minister's Office is trying to restrict and control which members of the Cabinet talk to Canadians and about which issues," says Parliamentary Press Gallery president Emmanuelle Latraverse of Radio-Canada.

As critical readers and critical thinkers, it behooves us to ask what's really the conflict here. One guy and his book published through a small press in New Brunswick are not going to make national and international news on their own -- something in the political, the social climate acts to make this news. Someone writes this story for a reason.

From where I sit, the subtext is really pretty simple. Ottawa's been practically under media interdict for months, with the only news coming out approved, stamped, and verified by the Prime Minister's office -- might as well call it the Ministry of Information, right? The media is going bugfuck about this. In public. They are not wrong to do this. I mean, who knows what's going on over there that we're just not hearing about? How can things be lobbied, discussed, protested against, supported, anything without the public knowing the issues and where government stands on the issues? The thing is, people are complacent. People assume no news is good news, and we have had no news since the end of January.

So when a poster boy like this comes along to rouse the public, to remind them that the silence isn't peace but media control, to draw massive public attention to the struggle the Prime Minister's office and the news media are working through right now in Ottawa, the news media will damn well take it.

Of course they should. That's their jobs. I don't think they're wrong.

Let's just not engage in the literal reading and assume this is about a guy and his book.