Getting played - the Conservative 'Bias' of Canada's Liberal Media

Fans of the West Wing, or just political junkies generally, know there are a few time-honoured ways to manage the press. For instance - releasing bad news on a Friday was called 'taking out the trash' on the West Wing. In the UK in 2001, a real politician was fired for stating that the attacks on the World Trade Center provided a good opportunity to hide bad news stories.

There are, no doubt, many other such games. Whether you view them as legitimate political gamesmanship or an 'abuse of the democratic process' will usually depend on whether the party playing the games happens to be your team.

What is currently annoying me is the frequency with which the Conservative government plays one of these tricks, and the so-called 'Liberal Media' (and the Conservative mouth-breathing crew too, of course) fall for it hook, line and sinker. Last year at around this time there was suddenly a whole lot of manufactured outrage about the banning of the niqab during the citizenship oath. A great little story for the Tories, as it plays to their core support, and it is guaranteed to fill up column inches as the progressives and conservatives overflow with moral outrage.

It dominated the news cycle in the same week as a much bigger story that was negative for the Conservatives. I remember that distinctly. Unfortunately what I don't remember is what the more important story was. BUT THAT WAS THE POINT. The niqab story knocked the actual important news off the front page, and we can be sure that was exactly what was intended.

I don't mind the Conservatives trying that game - but do the press have to fall for it so easily?

This week we have the 'storm' of 'outrage' over Justin Trudeau's 2010 comments about Alberta.

2010. So ... public comments, made in a television interview, on the public record for two years, are news this week? Now why might that be? Might it be because the Conservatives have been sitting on it for two years, or went looking through old speeches last week to coincide with David McGuinty's resignation, and they found an optimal moment to release it? Sure.

Again - you can't blame the Conservatives for trying this stuff, but what gets my goat is how the press simply swallows it without ever asking the next question: 'why now'? And then ask the question 'are we getting played'.

Sure, after all that, if you still think it's newsworthy that Mr Trudeau pointed out that the current government is dominated by politicians who originate from the Albertan Reform movement (a movement notorious for its antipathy for Eastern Canada and its need to build a firewall to protect Alberta from the rest of the country), write the story, but at least make a nod towards the larger picture while you're doing it.

The problem I have is with the lack of inquisitiveness of the media. The failure to 'ask the next question'. Maybe it's the lack of staff and lack of money from which the media now suffers in the age of the internet. Whatever. Combined with the media's fear of being labelled 'liberal' by the government, and the culture of fear and paranoia that pervades the entire CBC, it creates a situation where the 4th estate can be easily and swiftly put to work en masse by the government against its enemies.

Is it stupidity or something worse?

The most disturbing facet of the Conservative fight-back against the 'Robo-Calls' scandal is the one that says 'this is a storm in a teacup because no result was affected'. That's the argument being made by the hilarious-if-it-wasn't-so-disturbing Sun Media today by Ezra Levant and Michael Coren.

To summarise, the sanity-deniers over at Sun Media are arguing a) that Liberals and NDPers are making a storm out of nothing and b) this is actually a conspiracy to discredit the election and somehow 'steal' a result for that Tory bogeyman, the 'coalition' of the left.

It's disturbing because they can't tell the difference between, on the one hand, general political sleaze (which is bad enough, but not illegal), such as an unfair or distorting attack ad, or the political 'economy with the truth', of which, although undesirable, every party is guilty, and on the other hand the serious criminal offence of voter interference. Worse - perhaps Levant and Coren can tell the difference, but they just don't care. Of the two possibilities, the second is infinitely worse.

Let's get this straight - whether the election result was affected by voter interference is completely irrelevant. The ability to vote unimpeded is the basis on which democracy is built. There is no more fundamental right, not even freedom of the press, or freedom of expression. The idea that there were 'a few bad apples' within the Tory ranks who thought misdirecting likely opponents was worth doing is bad enough - in fact it's already a very serious accusation. But we know it went further than that.

1. We know by Elections Canada's own evidence that multiple ridings were affected, and that automated calls were used.
2. Ipso facto, the fact those calls were made requires at a minimum a party worker with database access beyond riding level to the national database of canvassing results.
3. We know, and I know from experience working campaigns, that only party insiders have that level of access - no small-time riding operative is trusted with data like that - for obvious reasons. In fact, only a handful of people can typically access canvassing results, even in their own riding.
4. We know that ordinary people can't just set up robocalls. You need to do them through specialist companies, with specialist software and equipment. You need to work with party-trusted suppliers, probably from a list of approved companies. You need to have quite a lot of money.

So something bad is at work here. Something illegal, and something in a different league from the vicious, counter-productive and stupid smearing of Vic Toews.

All of which is not the same as calling the election into question, it's not to question a single result in fact. It is however to point out, as Andrew Coyne did on the CBC, that there is preliminary evidence to suggest a scandal that would put the Sponsorship Scandal in the shade.

Far from the 'jury being out', the evidence is only just beginning to be presented, but if - and it is a big if - evidence is found that points higher up the party hierarchy, then yes this is a scandal of Nixonian proportions.