No photos, please – you’re Liberal
Prime Minister Stephen Harper shot a sketch with Rick Mercer at 24 Sussex Drive this weekend, and according to Harper’s press secretary Dimitri Soudas, they “had a great time” (though presumably there was no skinny dipping.)
A good time was not had, however, by Ottawa photographer Dave Chan. Mercer had hired him to take pictures of the event, but according to the Toronto Star, Chan was uninvited by Soudas because he had been a “critic” of Harper (he had also worked for Paul Martin.)
Instead, Soudas said the PMO would provide its own pictures.
That strategy had already caused an uproar in the press gallery, which met yesterday to discuss the issue of access to the Prime Minister.
Perhaps the PMO would like to shoot the Rick Mercer Report as well, if they have cameras?
Actually, they do – or at least Parliament does. You can watch all the comings and goings on the Hill, for free, on your desktop with ParlVu. If you dare.
There’s also Member of Parliament Television (MPtv), a joint venture of the House of Parliament and Garth Turner… but I think he got uninvited for being a critic too.
Picking on Mercer seems like a bad strategy (it didn’t work out that well for Conrad Black.) And it’s not like Mercer would invite people to Photoshop his face, or anything.
Still, the Prime Minister took a jab at Mercer earlier this month, when he discussed his government’s environmental plan:
Canada’s Clean Air Act wasn’t developed on the fly at a press conference. It wasn’t written at an international meeting being held in an exotic location. And we’re certainly not going to hire a comedian to promote it.
He was referring, of course, to the One Tonne Challenge, which the previous Liberal government had paid Mercer to promote. (That program was also unceremoniously uninvited, as I blogged elsewhere.)
Mercer said he wouldn’t respond to the shot, but later commented, “Never heckle a comedian.”
|
Email This Post |
| The Media Landscape |
And who defined the responsibility of a comedian in the face of hecklers most clearly in recent weeks, I wonder…?
You are such a bunch of pussies.
Mercer has admitted his anti-con bias in the Post. Ever since he has made it an near exclusive task of using his blog to attack only conservative MPs. Shit he even went cybersquatting on Jason Kenney’s site.
BBC has finally admitted its bias.
The rest of CBC, and you paid CBC lapbloggers in particular should do the same and get it over with.
Imagine the gaul if someone from Fox showed up at CBC and demanded to use its own photographer to snap gotcha pictures of Tony Burman for a hit piece.
The nerve!
I’ll publish that comment, because it’s on topic, but I’d hope the language would be more respectful in the future.
Your Fox question is interesting, though I don’t think it’s a parallel. Harper had already invited Mercer in to do a piece, and invited CBC camera people – but then vetoed the still photographer. Just seems weird.
Gian, the PM has no problem with Mercer. According to the article, Harper’s press secretary told the RMR that they “flatly objected to [Chan] as a critic of Harper.”
That is, for suggesting that if he were the official photog on last summer’s plane rescuing Canadian citizens from war-torn Lebanon, he would have given up his seat. Pretty mild.
But what also bothers me is according to the article, Mercer and his producer went along with this and “seemed reluctant to talk about it.”
Why didn’t they stand up for Chan?
Garth – “uninvited” for being a critic?
Here’s a parallel:
You work at the CBC. You know insider exclusive sports rights being negotiated. You blog those details out for everyone, including your competitors to read.
You get warned repeatedly but continue to blog on confidential topics.
An when you get “uninvited” though a permanent pay withdrawal, someone else can do a heckling hit post on CBC for acting in an unreasonable fashion. And as a non- team player, you wonder why you don’t get a job blogging for an upstart broadcast network. Strange that.
Do you not have someone to bounce these ideas off first before posting them? This is how the CBC communications department works in Maffin’s extended absence.
Mercer to CBC comms: Whah, whah we didn’t get our way so you lapbloggers cry for us.
BTW, I found “lapbloggers” very clever (at least, the first time.) But just in case you aren’t clear, read the About this blog section – Communications has no say over what gets posted here, and neither they nor Mercer told me about this story (it was buried in the clippings file – I learn a lot about CBC from the newspapers.)
And that was my source for Turner’s ousting, too. The caucus chair said Turner was removed for issues of confidentiality, tone and personal attacks (i.e. being a critic), though Turner denies the confidentiality part. The party itself isn’t citing specific reasons, and I didn’t see any obvious breaches in his blog, nor do others – but perhaps you have sources that I don’t. Unless you do, your second hypothetical is as iffy as your first.
But back to the original issue, and your first hypothical: should government officials (or Crown corporations, or anyone for that matter) pick and choose media access based on their assumed political beliefs? And picking up on Ouimet’s comment, how should the media respond?
(I tried to find info on the press gallery discussion on media access, but came up empty. The press gallery site is useless.)
No, the original issue was whether a paid employee of the PM’s former opponent should be led by a taxpayer funded comedy crew (not journalists) into the PM office. You clearly think yes!
You then linked it to Garth Turner, who has been caught changing his blog by Stephen Taylor, rather than being merely “critical.”
Even with all thine muchly offered protestations regarding independence, it is highly unlikey that you would engage in similar anti-team play as Turner, short of safe team Rabinobitching.
When it comes to satirical comedy, dont go (using taxpayer funds) lecturing and confusing Canadians about what constitutes “media access.” Satirical comedy is not journalism. Dont go making apples into banana peels!
Rick engages in partisan anti-con activism. He is neither a journalist nor an objective party.
It is you who created a false situation in your post there lappy, not hypothetical.
Sure you have the freedom to blog, but you appear to lack the balls and objectivity to actually do it with any critical feck.
As for Ouimet’s complaint that Mercer should have stood up for the photographer. Rick is a whore and will do anthing to get the sketch, or the One-Tonne gig…
The PM’s jab wasn’t at Mercer, but the Liberals for using his whoring skills-for-hire to promote a plan that they signed onto, but never made one effort to seriously implement.
Finally, when it comes to a CBC comedy crew, they may be getting your only ratings of late, but dont call them “the media”!
But then again, you probably think you are “the media” too!
What is anti-con Gian? Define it for us please. Oh no wait, don’t if your going to go on and on and on. Sum it up, Is it a political thing or something against convicts?
I think Rick is equally funny against all politicians and all convicts…
Gosh Barbara, it *is* a good thing you aren’t paid by the Hour. But its not like the ratings could get any worse.
Gian I think it’s nice your are passionate about something.
It would be great if you could fight for the environment or the poor with such passion.
It’s nice to see Paul just gave up and moved on to another post.
As for Babs enviro and poverty suggestion, go back to your cheesy blog and rant about it for an hour or two. All three readers will no doubt agree and complain that the government isn’t spending enough on those areas.