On dysfunction

I'm sure there's plenty of fallout to come from the fiasco that was Stephen Harper's limited press appearance today. But let's see if there's any disagreement on what strike me as the most obvious problems with how the event played out, both the direct result of Sun Media's actions.

First, there's the fact that David Akin's question fell painfully short of deserving the time of a Prime Ministerial press conference. Sure, Akin's later deflections about the limited number of questions accepted by Harper ring true enough - but isn't that reason to make sure that every question is directed toward some meaningful point (ideally subjects that are agreed to be important by all media outlets), rather than being directed toward self-serving trivia?

And second, there's the taunting of other press outlets after the fact from both Akin and Kory Teneycke. Of course, that looks to be par for the course from the Sun chain - but it only contributes to the breakdown of any sense that the media's goal at such a press conference should be based on gathering information in the public interest, rather than one-upmanship.

Which leads to what seems to me to be the most likely outcome of today's press conference. If the message is being sent that Sun will plan to ask its own frivolous questions rather than working with the rest of the press gallery in the future - and will enjoy a privileged place when they do opt out thanks to Corn Cob Kory's Con connections - then that figures to reduce the incentive for other media outlets to act any more responsibly in agreeing on questions, rather than simply taking their chances on being able to use PM media availability to push their own preferred storylines.

In other words, while the signs have been accumulating for some time, today may have been a watershed moment in making the Cons' style of dealing with other political parties into the default form of treatment between Canadian media outlets: refuse to cooperate, consider only your own interests, and twist every moment for maximum damage to your perceived opponents. And that hardly looks to be any more desirable among journalists than it is in a political scene that's already raised public cynicism to disturbing levels.

The simplest explanation

I've wondered for quite some time why media coverage of the House of Commons has centred so regularly on Question Period to the exclusion of other debates which seem to involve a far greater likelihood of MPs saying something interesting. But I'll be hoping the answer is as simple and mundane as David Akin suggests, since there won't be any excuse anymore:

For the first time in Canadian history, reporters covering the proceedings in the House of Commons today will find power outlets near their seats in the Commons press gallery, above the Speakers chair. You may think this is trivial but I think this is a momentous thing. Having a power outlet here means you can stay in the House of Commons and keep enough juice in your portable computer to cover those all-night "take-note" debates. You may think I'm being facetious but I"m not. While there's no doubt that media coverage often focuses on the antics of Question Period, I suspect some reporters would spend more time in the House -- and in committee rooms -- covering the serious business of this place if they could stay electronically tied to their desks.