The networks, the parties, and the debate, continued

Posted by cwaddell under Election 2008, Election 2008 Media commentary

Ira Wagman

One of the benefits of sharing the same building with current and former journalists is their ability to mine their sources for information.  Paul Adams’ post on the piece by former CBC head Tony Burman on the Globe and Mail web site in regards to my earlier entry on this blog is an excellent case in point.  However Paul’s posting and the comments of “Final Spin”, the first person to comment on the blog (do we have any cool gear we can send to this person for being the first one to comment?), miss the point of what I was getting at there.  

The point is not whether the nets wanted Elizabeth May to participate in the debates.  This is of little consequence to my argument and frankly, since it doesn’t look like we’re going to find out how the discussions were actually undertaken, who was involved, and how the decision was rendered, we are shadow boxing on this one for the time being.   

The point is not what the broadcasters didn’t do or didn’t want to do.  These are questions of motivation which are great for speculators but offer little analytical value.  It is was they did do that is important.  By citing party participation as a factor in the decision-making process, the consortium effectively took the parties at their word.  Even if broadcasters adopted the party’s arguments for their own interests—and maybe they did think 5 people on the podium would be difficult to manage — it doesn’t change the optics that the political parties are telling the media what to do.  Even the idea that one person would have “veto power”, as Mr. Burman suggests places the power where it shouldn’t be.  

The Consortium’s position should have been as follows :

1. The debates are an excellent opportunity to gain national exposure for your party and to engage with the other party leaders.  

2. The debates take place on October 1 and October 2. 

3. The decision about participation at the event rests with each political party.

4. The debate will take place with those who choose to participate.

In other words, the question of participation should not be related to the question of whether the debate should take place.  If only one of the parties chose to participate, then it’s an hour of free advertising for them.  Once someone learned that there was only one horse in the race, another would enter the fray.  And if none of the parties participated, then the broadcasters could run a 2-hour special, one using the investigative staff of CTV News, The National, and Le Telejournal which would focus their efforts on the decline of real debate in the deliberative process of elections. That would be fine with me.   

I’m obviously guilty of overstatement here, but the fact remains that it is not the broadcasters responsibility to get in the middle of things.  And this is precisely what they have done and it is highly problematic, whether Elizabeth May is in or out of the debate.  

That’s because for me the issue is not about Elizabeth May, but rather about the position Canada’s media needs to occupy in the election.  If it’s true that 24 Sussex really had veto power over this (or that any political party would hold that kind of influence over the networks) then this says something very serious — and indeed, very troubling — about the relationship between Canada’s media outlets and the political parties they cover.  

Ira Wagman is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Carleton University’s School of Journalism and Communication