Was Pierre Poilievre being "responsible" when he referred in the House of Commons to media reports of a terrorist attack at the Rainbow Bridge? Did he bully a reporter who later asked him that question? And why does any of this matter?
Politics reporters continue to struggle with the Poilievre phenomenon | MSN.com | Chris Selley, National Post:
November 27, 2023 - "On Wednesday, Pierre Poilievre stood in the House of Commons, noted 'media reports about a terrorist attack at the border in Niagara (Falls),' and asked if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had any information he could share. The prime minster did not, to no one’s surprise, the incident having only just occurred.
"Later in the afternoon, American officials said they were pretty sure the fiery one-car crash had just been a bizarre accident. And back we all went to finding serious solutions for Canada’s many serious problems. Ha, ha, no. The Liberals charged that Poilievre had tried to 'rile people up' by assuming the incident had been terrorism.... The media ran with that angle. But furthermore, as a CBC online subheadline put it, Poilievre’s 'timeline (was) in question.'
"In one of his trademarked Testy Exchanges with Reporters, ... [a]sked if he thought he had jumped to an irresponsible conclusion, he shot back at the reporter: 'Do you think the CTV was irresponsible in putting up that tweet?'.... Ah, but did Poilievre’s alibi stand up? 'The timestamp on the (CTV) article indicates that it was published at 2:39 p.m. ET on Wednesday,' CBC reports. 'Subsequent tweets from the article’s author and CTV itself were published at 2:40 p.m. and 2:50 p.m. respectively.' (Keith Morrison-esque pause here for dramatic effect.) 'Poilievre asked his question at 2:25 p.m.'. What could explain it?... And why could any of this possibly matter?....
"What seemed to matter most to many journalists, however, was how frightfully rude Poilievre had been to the reporter. 'I had the privilege of jousting with dozens of prime ministers, premiers and opposition leaders from all parties over 25 years, and I don’t remember one of them acting like this, and certainly not on repeated occasions,' long-time Globe and Mail reporter Les Perreaux, now editor of Policy Options, tweeted. Veteran political columnist Chantal Hébert agreed. Globe columnist Elizabeth Renzetti marvelled at the 'utter condescension and contempt' in Poilievre’s tone of voice.
"Poilievre remains a real conundrum for the Ottawa Press Gallery. As I say, if a politician tells a reporter something that seems to be false, then it needs to be checked out. But when political leaders are always bending the truth — which pretty much all of them are — all that checking can make the gallery look petty and obsessed with minutiae. Poilievre and his people know this very well. They bait journalists into looking silly for sport, and most journalists haven’t yet figured out how to deal with it. In the very unlikely event they would ask me for advice, here’s what I suggest.
- First of all, dial down the drama. If you can’t handle being dressed down by Pierre Poilievre, journalism is not the field for you. No disrespect to the man, but 'intimidating' is not a word that comes to mind in reference to him. If you’ve done your homework and you ask a good question and he pitches a fit about it, you’ll look good and he’ll look silly.
- Secondly, accept that Poilievre sometimes has a point about journalists not doing their homework. He was entirely within his rights to reject the premise of the British Columbia journalist who recently demanded to know why he’s so much like Donald Trump.
- And thirdly, consider what I see as a crippling bias in Ottawa toward perceived niceness. If Poilievre is different [from] all the leaders who came before him when it comes to dealing with the press, I would argue (as Renzetti suggests) that it’s much more in tone than in substance. But substance is vastly far more important than tone."
Media goes into overdrive to attack Poilievre | True North | November 24, 2023:
No comments:
Post a Comment