But contributor DonGar’s offering … and the North Shore News story he points to …. deserves special attention.

Here it is … very telling, well written …and hilarious (for most!):

“The truth be told.

Gabe Garfinkel, Executive Assistant to the Premier

“When the premier speaks, we would rather her comments not be reported.”

Read more: http://www.nsnews.com/news/Clark+words+some+ears+only/6427441/story.html#ixzz1rUF9ANTQ

Now that’s keeping it real.”

DonGar

Thanks Don.  You made my day!

Harv Oberfeld

This week I watched Clark’s latest director of “communications” (LOL!), Sara Macintyre,  standing there on camera, telling reporters the premier would not be taking any questions that day. (LOL!)  While Clark was there for all to see, in a kind of faraway fuzzy photo-op, as if she was pretending to be premier… but avoiding “the riff raff” public’s messengers  and their questions (LOL!).

I actually laughed out loud watching that bizarre scene! (LOL!)

But the on-going message, witnessed by a couple of hundred thousand British Columbians,  is quite a serious one…

Clark is becoming a joke.

A provincial premier, never elected to that post, now decides she just won’t take any questions except when she wants to  …even when she’s out doing “public” appearances.

Who does she think she is?  Queen Elizabeth?  Oprah? Lindsay Lohan?  Or Stephen Harper?

LOL!

Why Harper? Because in her previous incarnation, Macintyre was press secretary for Harper … one of the most unapproachable prime ministers I can ever remember … who not only rarely takes questions, but also forbade public officials from answering media questions or doing interviews without getting approvals … and the party line…from Ottawa HQ.

Almost a total disrespect for the public’s right to know..or the media’s right to ask questions.

Another funny thing, though: before joining the dark side, Macintyre worked for the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, which has a long history of supporting the public’s right to ask questions, get all kinds of information and demand answers from politicians.  And she was a great spokesperson for them IN VICTORIA!!!

A hypocrite?  Or just a joke?

No matter.  It’s not her who will pay for the highest price for this latest stupidity: it will be Clark.

Clark and Macintyre and anyone else who supposedly is in the business of managing the premier  know BC is NOT Ottawa. In the nation’s capital, there are so many spread out ministries and constantly changing issues  as well as all kinds of regional affairs …not to mention a huge security bubble …  that the PM and his ministers can easily avoid the media and the people. Not so in BC: both the media and public here are a lot closer to the politicians on a daily basis.

Does the acting premier actually believe the people of this province will be impressed when they see her media manipulators pronouncing “The premier will take no questions today!” ?????

Who is plotting her communications strategy these days? John Cummins?

I hope the media will show that and report that EACH AND EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS.

That will put an end to the practice …or show just how badly Clark’s handling of herself in the premiers job is deteriorating day by day.

Harv Oberfeld

The trouble is most of us …and most of the BC media (who should be professional enough to know better) … look at life and issues individually, so we often fail to put it all together in a bigger picture.

Let me help you.

First … a very troubling fact: we have a premier and a government that have NEVER received a mandate from the people of the province.  That is old news, but it’s now becoming very apparent of what that has since wrought for the province.

As I have previously discussed on this blog, Christy Clark herself has made it VERY CLEAR … especially when questions about BC RAIL, the original disgraceful way the HST was imposed etc. etc … that her government is NOT Campbell’s government.  So totally different, in fact, that she vowed, when running in the Point Grey by-election for a a seat as an MLA,  to hold a general election AS SOON AS POSSIBLE if elected.

Then she was elected as an MLA … and promptly ignored her promise. And since then, democracy has clearly proved to be an inconvenience.    I guess if you don’t hold an election, you don’t have to follow all kinds of other rules or traditions either.

That’s where the dots started: with an unelected premier, leading an unelected government and introducing all kinds of legislation without any public mandate to do so.

With that kind of governing standard, how could we be surprised when, de facto, the Clark government decided to ignore the vote of the people on the HST.  Does anyone really believe they couldn’t get rid of the hated tax (that’s bringing the government hundreds of millions in extra revenues) before 2013???

The Clark administration reminds me of the oil companies: ever notice how FAST prices go up when “world conditions” can be used as an excuse …but how SLOW they fall when stability and supplies are doing fine?  That’s exactly how the will of the BC voters is being ignored, for so long,  allowing Clark to exploit every last possible gouging dollar out of the taxpayers.  (Filling the goody bank to buy votes next spring?).

No doubt easy to do for a premier who disdained even getting a mandate from those same taxpayers.

Another dot … the cavalier trampling of BC teachers’ democratic rights … without even allowing the appointment of an INDEPENDENT mediator.

Sure, no one wants BC kids to suffer; no one wants working parents to suffer through the dilemma of finding daycare for their children with schools closed; no one wants the government to give in to all the demands of the BCTF.

BUT there  are decent responsible ways to solve the dispute when negotiations fail: with an INDEPENDENT mediator to get both sides to try to work things out… or binding arbitration through an INDEPENDENT arbitrator.

Even that apparently is too much for the current governmewnt ..and given how THEY themselves achieved power … why should we be surprised!

So first came the newest dot: shooting down the decision of the BC Labour Relations Board to allow limited and restricted job action by the teachers.

By imposing another HUGE dot:  legislation outlawing any strike or lockout in the dispute, and IMPOSING a GOVERNMENT-SELECTED AND APPOINTED mediator.  Any bets on how successful that process will be???

Then there was the dictatorial dot: even cutting short debate in the legislature to ram the legislation through.

Are you starting to connect the dots .. and see how politicans who don’t respect the voters also don’t respect tradition or citizens’ rights, and apparently feel they can just impose their will through Draconian legislation, enforced with massive penalties to be imposed by the courts … and pretty well accommodated by a complacent media, most of whom dropped the “outrage” from their journalistic backbones a decade ago.

With all this, it’s also now easy to understand how Clark is getting away with one of the biggest dots in the emerging picture of how she governs:  delaying TWO by-elections as long as possible … denying taxpayers not only a VOTE but REPRESENTATION for as long as possible.

The people of Port Moody/Coquitlam haven’t had an MLA since OCT 1, when their LIBERAL MLA resigned to take a job in private business.  It’s now MARCH: has there really been not enough time yet to call a by-election.  Of course, there has …unless you fear losing to the NDP , or even worse, the Conservatives!  So ignore democracy and voters’ rights!

In Chilliwack-Hope, the MLA (another Liberal) announced in November he would leave in January..and did.  Still no by-election date there either. Surprise!

Enough dots yet to see the  real picture?

Well how about a couple more to frame the BIG picture or where democracy now stands in BC.

Even though Clark hasn’t called the two by-election dates (she has until Spril 7 in the first and July 30 in the latter) that hasn’t stopped her from campagning in both!!!

When you ignore democracy in your own case, it’s easy to also shunt it aside in the cases of others … and even have cronies who act illegally.

In Chilliwack, the aspiring local Liberal hopeful has even had election signs up …until those were ruled illegal, because no by-electon had yet been called and no permits (otherwise required) had been applied for or obtained from the municipality to erect advertising signs.

But when the leader ignores that which she finds inconvenient, why shouldn’t her supporters!

This is BC today.

Connect the dots … and the picture that emerges is NOT a pretty one.

Harv Oberfeld

CKNW dropped ot THIRD place in the Nov 28-Feb 26 …behind the new top-rated station, CHQM-FM … and also trailing CBU (CBC Radio 1 AM), according to the broadcast website www.RadioWest.ca in the overall category “All Persons”.

The fall from grace … and  popularity … is all the more significant since the ratings showed that NW led the ratings in the same category for all SIX previous surveys of ratings period, going back to May 31, 2010.

And the gap should be enough to have Corus execs stand up and take notice: CHQM scored 12.4 ratings points; CBU 10.7; and NW only 10….well down from its once high 12.4 ratings points in 2010 or even more in its heydays.

In fourth place was CFBT (the Beat) followed by CKZZ (Virgin Radio) in fifth.

And, I’m not surprised that one of my previous favorite stations, CISL, that played “oldies” … and had a very specific, dedicated listening audience… has also dropped like a rock since some genius convinced them to go to a “new” format of music easily heard other places as well: ratings now down to 14th place, with  a measly 2.3 ratings points …where it used to score as high as 5.8.

What these particular ratings points give is overall score: they don’t break down is the hour-by-hour daily performance. Wouldn’t we ALL love to see those!!!  But stations guard them tightly …unless someone is good enough to send them on??? Privately!  Not for attribution! Please!  LOL!

But once again, the sentiments and criticisms levelled at NW in the blogosphere sure seem to be a more true reflection of public sentiment than the p.r. pap and spins various station executives often throw out to hype their performance … or explain the declines and failures.  (Like, We are still tops in the 54-65 group of married people, standing on one foot and eating unbuttered toast while listening!)

Maybe they really SHOULD start paying attention to what we say, so often and so loudly.

Or face even further consequences.

Harv Oberfeld

(Reminder: You can get FIRST ALERT notice of all new postings on my Blog, free of course, by following me @harveyoberfeld on Twitter.)

I also support BC Paramedics in their ongoing battle to wrest a fair contract, with decent compensation and working conditions from their employer and ultimately the BC government. And this blog, more than others, has kept the paramedics’ fight, and their mistreatment at the hands of the government, front and center.

So it’s easy to see why some blog readers think I’m just automatically a pro-union or ”lefty” every time, no matter their demands.

Not really!    (And I suspect many NDP and Vision supporters and regular blog readers could testify to that!).

So where do I stand?

Simple:  not necessarily a union; but a union where necessary.

Many people know I supported the unionization of BCTV’s newsroom in 1998, became the Vice-President after we succeeded and was union spokesman during our subsequent 33 day strike.

And I paid a price for that … taken off the air for three months afterwards (along with volunteer union negotiator and reporter Clem Chapple)… and, for the eight years after we unionized,  right up until I retired,   those once-so-popular chit chats, preceding and following my stories, that I had with anchor Tony Parsons (who was also a BCTV Vice-President) were suddenly ended. But while some of my co-workers resented that….I didn’t mind, because I never had much of the TV ego thing, and the ”snub” allowed me to head home as soon as my stories were cut (sometimes early afternoon , instead of hanging around in studio or out somewhere on the road till 6:30 p.m. or so! More a bonus than any insult, seemed to me …although I’m sure it wasn’t intended that way! LOL!

And my union role at BCTV was not my only “activist” labour role during my working years.

At the Vancouver Sun, I was covering the Legislature in 1978-79 when the paper, along with The Province, went through an eight-month strike. And as a Victoria rep for the union, I not only wrote for the alternative union newspaper,The Express,  but also twice a week picked up and distributing 200 copies to stores and hotels in the capital …. collecting the money from sales and sending it in to bolster the union strike pay coffers.

For some reason, Sun management were not amused.  And once again, after the strike ended, it became clear that my days covering the legislature could be numbered and I could be moved back to Vancouver to do general news … and maybe even worse.

So when the opportunity came, shortly after the strike ended, to jump to the BCTV Press Gallery desk … two seats away from the Sun’s … I jumped. (Okay , I walked. ) And how ironic: the best move I ever made in my career I actually owed to the Pacific Press strike’s aftermath and lousy Sun management.

So how could I then help organize the BCTV newsroom? What an ingrate?

No, not really.  As I said earlier: not necessarily a union; but a union when necessary.

And during MOST of my days at BCTV, from 1979 right until the late 1990s. I was NO union supporter.

The company demanded high performance and hard work, but it seemed to me also treated employees very well under Chairman Frank Griffiths, President Ray Peters, its several Vice-Presidents and News Director Cameron Bell.

And I always found management tried its best to say “yes” to any request, if they could reasonably accommodate. And most of us felt well appreciated. For many years.

Of course, not everyone felt that way, though, as the company grew and the pressures to constantly lead, to renew and produce the best took their toll. And murmurs of a bid to organize the newsroom began to spread in 1989.

I opposed it.

Surprised?

I believed the company deserved a chance to deal with staff grievances, criticisms of management style etc. etc.

And I  was also concerned about some of the problems that can go with unionization: promotions may not always go to the best qualified, but based solely on seniority instead. I also feared strident union militancy, where the whole crew can walk out because someone “unauthorized” touched a microphone. Scary … although,as it turned out, untrue at BCTV.

But most employees agreed: the unionization bid was rejected.

Unfortunately, events overcame improvement: Griffiths died, and the company blew its chance to learn from the discontent.  Old managers were let go, a new “breed” was brought in and sadly, three reporters who had supported the unsuccessful drive were sent their way out the door.

And things went further downhill after that with new owners, again new management …each seemingly worse than the previous. There were wholesale department operations cuts, layoffs and, in my view,  just miserable treatment of staff.

Remember: not necessarily a union; but a union when necessary.

Now, in 1998, many, many staff …including several who had earlier rejected the idea of organizing, felt it was time: and I agreed!

Some believe, although I did NOT lead the drive, it was MY support that helped push the vote over the top.  And make no mistake, I was well aware that if the bid failed, I would be out the door soon afterwards: but I just could not stay silent in the face of what I was observing around me.

And we succeeded.  Why?  I believe because of lousy management …who forced employees to join together to fight to keep any remaining dignity, self-respect and decent working conditions.

Just like today’s teachers, paramedics and others facing miserable management styles, attitudes and greediness at the top.

I support workers in those situations. And I abhor any moves by government to just force workers back to the job and impose a work order without binding arbitration.

We should ALL stand with those facing those dictators … whether we are union members or not.

Harv Oberfeld

But soon after two big name seeds took to the court … CKNW’s radio studio ….  I felt like I was listening to an ‘NW Orphan’s Club charity event.

This match-up began with a 10-minute speech by the visiting opponent.

Huh?

Ten minutes of  ”How good (pun intended) I am” by Clark … displaying her terrific skills: self-aggrandisement, selective memory, tried and tested cliches (“There is only one taxpayer!” and “We’re getting government out of the way of job creation”.)

And once more, the oft-repeated past promises: jobs, helping families, seniors, reduce court backlogs, and …wait for it …. The Evergreen Line!

The opening ceremony over, Good then took to the court … and served up a good question about Clark’s promise of speedy action to bring the Stanley Cup rioters to justice. But Clark sliced the question, changed her  initial vow of  speed to now just prosecuting “to the full extent of the law”.

And Good pretty well let her get away with that … moving on to the issue of televising the court proceedings etc. … instead of nailing her over and over again about her own FAILED “accountability” factor of FAST ACTION.

And so it went … lobbed questions and skillfully returned serves on a whole variety of issues … and then I understood WHY Clark had chosen the Good show for such a rare question-and-answer media appearance: Good is NOT a political reporter.

He does his best; he asked topical questions; he tried to deliver serve up the odd backhand or forehand. But Good is no Michael Smyth …or Harvey Oberfeld ….and Clark was able to easily put her own spin on everything without having to counter many hard volleys.

For example, when Clark said the government couldn’t afford ANY pay increases for teachers or public servants, I would have asked how she then expects them (and the rest of us) …. without any pay increases …  to pay for all the HIGHER FEES, LICENCES,  MSP RATES, TRANSIT FARES, FUEL TAXES, ICBC HIKES, HYDRO COSTS ETC. ETC. the government and its agencies are constantly and increasingly downloading on us????

And when Clark said REPEATEDLY, in response to a question about her low poll ratings,  that we’re still a year and a half away from an election…. I would have JUMPED on that!  WHY? WHY? WHY? 

After all, this is a party leader in power without ANY public mandate as premier or for her government (Remember she herself  has said HER government is totally NOT Campbell’s government … so how can it govern without a mandate of its own?) and she herself  had vowed to seek a mandate within six months of taking office  …so I would have delivered an ace on this one ….  demanding to know WHY she has broken her own vow, WHY she disrespects the public’s right to vote for their government, and how dare she insist she can hold on for another year and a half without seeking a mandate???

And then there were  Clark’s repeated assertions the government can’t do more for many or address issues it wanted to because it’s so difficult to balance the budget ….     I would have asked her: “You sure you’re not just building up revenues so you can deliver the usual  the pre-election news of  good government leading to more revenues than expected ….  and then do the usual  pre-vote give-aways?”

It’s called going for the gusto … tough questioning and even tougher follow-ups … and that was clearly missing from the NW match.

It was an easy match for Clark.  She barely had to break a sweat. Nor show any real respect for the voters.

 In fact, where was the respect for Good and ‘NW?    She wouldn’t even serve up the imminent announcement regarding two coming by-election dates,  in return for 90 minutes of free almost charitable airtime?

We should all get tax-deductions …just for listening.

Harv Oberfeld

The latest embarrassment surrounds a faked Citizenship Ceremony created in Sun TV’s Toronto studios last October, because for some mysterious reason, covering the 13 already-scheduled swearing in ceremonies around the city for new Canadians was not good enough.

It didn’t start out as a faked event ….but became one when not enough “real” new Canadians could be found to take part.  So six federal bureaucrats stood in, along with three legitimate newcomers, taking part in the Sun studio ceremony and faked taking the Oath of Citizenship.

Incredible!

To be fair, at one point the network was going to cancel the ruse, but then decided to go ahead after the federal officials said six stand-ins had been found to take part and make it look real.

“Let’s do it. We can fake the Oath,” wrote a still unnamed buy apparent Sun media official in a sunmedia.ca  e-mail later obtained by The Canadian Press.

Lately, the whole disgraceful event has been the subject of political charges and accusations, pitting the Opposition against Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and embarrassed federal officials.

But frankly, MY main concern is with SUN MEDIA.

I find it outrageous that the newtwork went along with the ruse and aired the faked footage.

How could ANY news organization do that????

What it shows me is a complete disrespect for journalistic ethics, their own news product and, most of all, their viewers!

And according to the Toronto Star, this was not the first time Canada’s newest news network has been caught leaving truth and ethics out of its reports.  In November, a photo of Sun employees posing with Toronto’s mayor was PHOTOSHOPPED to take out an anchore who no longer worked for the network and ADD in a new Sun TV host.

Geez!

And making it all worse, although the politicians are all flailing about over the government’s role in the latest faked news item, Sun officials have had very little to say about their disgraceful action.

Or perhaps they don’t even think it’s newsworthy.

Just the new norm we can expect from Sun TV … unless some other media blows their cover?

Harv Oberfeld

I’ve been thinking… always a dangerous and sometimes a quite cheeky intellectual exercise … and I’ve come up with a few new program suggestions for CBC’s next television season … featuring a “Revised”  Program Standards Policy to fit with its new reality.

First, Hockey Night in Canada can now have a new Sports Reporter, Jennifer Mather, ”imbedded” to  cover the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Mather, as former BCTV fans can testify, is a fine reporter.  But more than that old-fashioned journalistic qualification, she’s also married to Brian Burke, Leafs’ General Manager, reflecting the new apparently acceptable standard at CBC for reporters.

Vancouver Canucks fans (not to mention Montreal Canadiens supporters) may have some doubts about the validity of her stories, especially if she just happens to honestly find something to  rave about ….., for example, if the Leafs string together two consecutive wins …. but CBC management are confident that likely won’t happen, so it should not pose any problems.

And Jennifer could promise that, if after another losing game, hubby Brian puts his fist through a wall at HOME, she will NOT take advantage of her unusual access to scoop other media with the story.  BUT if he puts his fist through a wall at the OFFICE, where other reporters can also see the results, she WILL report it … complete with ALL his &%*$ quotes.

And in light of the CBC Pacific Region managers’ recent decision that legislative reporter Stephen Smart can continue to cover BC politics and the legislature, even though his wife is the premier’s deputy press secretary, there can now be other changes in CBC news as well.

The National can now feature a new At Issue panel member: Laureen Harper.

Ms. Harper has extensive experience in both national and international travel and has skillfully written many memos to her kids’ school, meal menus and messages on Christmas cards … none of which have ever had a partisan bias.

Ms. Harper will bring a new perspective to the At Issue panel: being close enough to the corridors of power walked daily by her spouse Stephen, but she has assured CBC managers she will never take advantage of that unique situation by having the Prime Minister or any of his staff suggest stories, write scripts or insert OR delete quotes…. EVER.  Except, of course,  maybe in the 38 days immediately preceding an election … an occasional exception that should be no problem for CBC management, especially in the Alberta and the Pacific Regions.

And then, there’s the popular  CBC show Quirks and Quarks, currently looking for a new host.

Apparently, TWO well-known British Columbians have the inside edge as co-hosts: Adrian Dix and John Cummins.

With their extensive knowledge of politics, CBC management might find them perfect candidates to explore the quirks and quarks of BC and Canada’s political “sciences”  …exploring unproven and untested theories for Canada’s future,  in the light of current and historical failed experiments.

Apparently, the possibility of previous political connections are not a problem.   Although neither currently have close family members working for the government (or National Research Council),  CBC management can assure them that will not be a problem if any or all of their relatives  win major lucrative jobs or contracts.

And should the political leaders actually gain power and become Premier or Opposition leader … again, no problem under CBC’s new journalistic standards.

Since it’s apparently hard to survive in Victoria on just one salary, their spouses could simply replace them as Quirks and Quarks hosts …. unless, of course, they are scooped up by CBC News division to cover their hubbies at the legislature.

In either case, it will no longer be a problem.

What an amazing season the CBC can now have …. unencumbered by pesky rulings of its own ombudsman or any public concerns about perceived fairness and independent thinking.

Of course, I personally find this all particularly amusing: because when The Webster Awards dumped me as an unpaid, voluntary judge after I did it for two years following retirement  ( my own tribute to Jack, who helped me get my great job at BCTV), they told me the reason was this blog (on which there are NO ads, NO revenues).    I was told it was as if I was still “working” in the media. Huh?

Apparently THAT was a conflict.  Certainly NOT because I had written articles critical of declining standards and the quality of journalism in BC media!

I guess journalistic standards in BC have indeed now changed!

And I wonder what Jack would say about the new realities.

Harv Oberfeld

P.S.  And a reminder, if you want First Alert notifications of every new blog on here, follow me on Twitter @harveyoberfeld.  Again, FREE, no ads, no costs …not even if I ever get a lucrative government contract!

The integrity of CBC Television requires that ONE of those alternatives take place.. PRONTO!

What’s the problem?

Smart, who has covered the legislature for CBC since 2010, and Scott, appointed in 2011 as Clark’s deputy press secretary, are married …TO EACH OTHER.

There is NO WAY, in my opinion, that Smart can continue to cover the Liberal government and Clark while his wife works for it and her. Period. Simple. END OF STORY!

Or maybe not.

Certainly, the CBC’s own ombudsman, Kirk Lapointe … a veteran experienced former journalist and media manager … thinks there is a conflict here.

“There is a violation of CBC Journalist Standards and Policy,” the CBC ombudsman wrote in his review, after a private citizen complained about the apparent conflict of interest.

“Just because there is no impropriety does not mean there is no conflict,” Lapointe wrote. “Whether a real or perceived conflict of interest, no amount of managing it can do more than mitigating the impact of an impartial fulfilment of duties.”

He’s right.

Yet, incredibly, the real culprit in this situation …CBC regional management … decided to let Smart continue to cover the legislature.

“We feel the ombudsman’s ruling found no issues wuth Stephen’s reporting,” said Johnny Michel, managing director for CBC’s Pacific Region. “Without a shred of evidence that Stephen is offside in his reporting, we feel this is now just a personal matter and a corporate matter.”

Not!!!

There’s a lot more to journalism than just what actually appears in stories: what about things any reporter may know but decides NOT to report for various reasons?  What about possible public perceptions …. justified or not … of easier questioning of the premier or government ministers  or tougher questioning of opponents? What about the reporter himself becoming more the center of attention than the story being presented, as viewers, knowing of the conflict ruling, now will always  look for bias?

Problems like these do not relate solely to Stephen Smart: any reporter can face tougher scrutiny once even a POTENTIAL  for bias surfaces. And in covering politics, the sensitivity becomes even greater …to the point of viewer distraction.

The fact that this even has to be debated…. the IDEA that a political legislative reporter’s wife can work personally and directly for the premier and this could be considered acceptable … I believe speaks to the sad state of ethics at CBC Vancouver region; and the fact so many others in the business defend such ludicrous reality exposes the sad standard of journalism in BC today.

Are they so out of touch with real Canadians in Fortress CBC they think they can withstand their own ombudsman’s findings,  the public’s likely suspicions from now on and the decline in credibility among viewers for their news product?

How can Smart possibly cover the provincial election campaign without the question of his impartiality coming up?  And the closer that election comes …the more questions I suspect will be raised about his stories, his spin, his conclusions … handicapping CBC’s coverage.

This will NOT go away … as things now stand,  the situation will get worse: for Smart; for Scott; and for the CBC. (Clark’s credibility with many is already in the bin.)

Smart is a good reporter and Scott (by the way, they both worked at CKNW before) has never, as far as I can determine, ever been guilty of manipulating her hubby’s stories.

But that is not the point.

Let’s say Smart uncovers a great POSITIVE story about government plans to substantially increase funding in health care or housing or education: I submit just about every viewer would see that story as just a government plant, unworthy of deserving any journalistic credit or credibility.

And how could viewers ever be totally comfortable in the belief that Smart is telling us EVERYTHING he knows about skeletons in the government or Clark’s office? Simply not possible.

The regional CBC management response is an insult to journalistic integrity in general, Lapointe in particular, and to all CBC viewers and voters, who have the right to EXPECT there be NO CONNECTIONS OF ANY KIND between those who cover the legislature and those who have politically sensitive jobs working for the government and/or the premier.

Scott has to move from the premier’s staff to another ministry job less political and less directly related to the media.

Or Smart has to move to another beat… unrelated to covering provincial politics… so his stories, and not the reporter, once more become the focus of viewers’ attention.

Harv Oberfeld

It all started with covering Burnaby City Council meetings for The Vancouver Sun … clearly a gateway event …that eventually led me to cover Vancouver City Hall, the GVRD, the Legislature in Victoria, Parliament in Ottawa (see the progression?)  … and now lately, I’m even hooked on watching U.S. Presidential politics.

And trust me … stay away, unless you are prepared to be let down.  U.S. Presidential Primary Debates may attract viewers looking for an ultimate high … but what you get is an initial rush, followed by a high or two as lines are delivered,  but ultimately ending with a crash at the end of it all, leaving you empty, unfulfilled and exhausted … time after time.

Why?

Because the “reporters” asking the questions, probing the candidates have forgotten to be real journalists.

They all seem to be sticking to pre-scripted questions on pre-determined topics in pre-allocated segments ..all in an orchestrated, precisely timed order … which forces the whole debate into a pre-measured straight jacket formula that almost totally removes the essential questioning tool of cross-examination.

So we get assigned discussion segments on The Economy, Social Issues and Foreign Relations.

And admittedly, I do get my expected high from some of the questions and the responses from the candidates, or lack of responses, and parrying that follows between the aspiring Presidential candidates, and sometimes, the reporters on the panel.

But then comes the crash.

Why?

Because the journalists are so tied to their scripts, they don’t  think about previous answers tossed out by the contenders as they totally contradict themsleves 20 minutes later in another segment.

For example, in Monday’s debate on Fox News the candidates, in the section on The Economy,  were asked what level of personal income taxes they thought should be applied, even for the highest earners … and, of course, they responded calling for lower personal taxes …right down to zero in the case of Ron Paul. An easy lob to experienced journalists:  what would lowering taxes on EVERYONE do to the US deficit, debt, economy???? And down to zero??  Where would Paul make up for the HUGE loss of revenues?  Nothing.  Nada. Rien.

And of course, they all called for lower corporate taxes as well.   But even that didn’t lead to a single question about the impact this shallow rhetoric would have on the US government operations, its deficit and debt.  The journalism was as shallow as the responses.

And it got even worse.

In a later segment on Foreign Affairs, all of the candidates, except Paul, called for a STRONG US defence policy and did quite a lot of saber-rattling in the direction of Iran.  And even seemingly-isolationist Paul called for a strong US miliitary to DEFEND the country.

The OBVIOUS question ..how would they pay for all that …in light of their earlier pledge to lower or compeltely eliminate personal taxes, lowewr corproate taxes etc etc.?????

But apparently, when these illustrous journalists move on to a new segment …they MUST STICK to their pre-determined questions.

And they totally forget everything said by the candidates only minutes earlier … so there are no “wait a minute” moments, no questioning of how they intend to pay for a stronger military, a new war on Iran … while lowering taxes even more.

What would they cut … even eliminating two or three departments (likely impossible-to-keep rhetoric) and cutting foreign aid wouldn’t be enough to do all they kept promising to keep America “strong” without MAJOR service eliminations in huge already-committed social programs.  Which would they cut or eliminate? And what would happen to those people who can’t find jobs and depend on those programs.  Nothing. Nada Rien.

It’s actually quite a surprise to see such seasoned senior reporters failing to connect the dots between what a politician says now and what he said 20 minutes earlier.  And it was not just done in the latest debate on Fox.

Quite shameful.

But now that you’re on to it, if you too are a political junky like me, I urge you NOT to watch for it next time. Take it from me: that will just make your crash when it’s over even worse. And vow never to do it again.

Until the next one.

Harv Oberfeld