For at least a few years, the media has regularly (and validly) complained that question period in the House of Commons is almost entirely a matter of show rather than substance. And in more recent times, a new problem has surfaced in the form of cutbacks limiting the amount of content that media outlets are able to cover.
Based on that combination, it seems downright bizarre that anybody would be assigning more resources to chronicling the goings-on in question period - particularly when the full proceedings in Parliament are televised and get transcribed as a matter of public record within a day anyway. But that seems to be the trend lately, as two blogs and a Twitter feed from major media outlets are now covering exactly the same events with barely a hint of difference in content.
Now, it may be that the current process is simply a matter of determining which outlet will ultimately win out as the main source of immediate coverage - or that the outlets involved see enough difference in content to justify having their own voice in the House of Commons. But am I the only one who thinks we'd be a lot better served if Canada's top political reporters were able to spend more of their time uncovering matters which would otherwise go unseen, rather than simply trying to be first in line to document a kabuki theatre performance?
No comments:
Post a Comment