Leader of the Conservative Party Pierre Poilievre rises during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Oct. 3.PATRICK DOYLE/The Canadian Press
So apparently the boycott is off: Pierre Poilievre has announced he has lifted last week’s fatwa on Conservative MPs speaking to CTV News.
Lest you think this is owing to any sudden outburst of magnanimity on the Conservative leader’s part, it is not: CTV had earlier announced that two employees responsible for a misleadingly edited clip of Mr. Poilievre speaking are “no longer members of the CTV News team.” The sacrifice appears to have placated him, for now.
Still, one is struck by two things in this affair. One is the unmistakable note of terror in CTV’s apologies, the one issued the day after the event, the other after the defenestration of the offending journos.
The first was abject enough: “we unreservedly apologize … we regret this report went to air,” etc. But the second took things several octaves higher: “we sincerely and unreservedly apologize … violated our editorial standards … unacceptable … we will continue our work to earn the trust …” etc., etc., etc.
The other is the absurdly over-the-top reaction of the Conservatives. To hear their complaints, you’d have thought the CTV report involved the most vile sort of propaganda, and not the substitution of two words: where Mr. Poilievre actually said, “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election,” CTV had him saying “That’s why we need to put forward a motion.”
True, the clip was placed in such a way as to suggest the motion was in response to the Liberal government’s dental care plan, and not its general objectionability, but come on. It’s one quote in one story on one network on one day.
It’s not just the tone that’s disconcerting. It’s the target. Mr. Poilievre’s harshest words were reserved, not for the staffers who made the edit or the network that aired it or even CTV’s parent company Bell Media, but – bizarrely – for Mirko Bibic, CEO of BCE Inc., of which it is a subsidiary.
In Parliament, the Conservative Leader, not content with attacking Mr. Bibic as “overpaid” and questioning his business practices (among other things, for paying “an unacceptably and unrealistically high dividend”), also insinuated that Mr. Bibic had taken a hand in CTV’s coverage of him, as if he were dictating edits down the line to the CTV studio.
“The reason why he and his other cronies at that company are going after me,” he claimed, “is because he knows that I’m standing up for the people against the crony capitalists and insiders like him.” On social media, he took the conspiracy theory further, contending that “Trudeau protects the company against real and complete competition to gain favourable coverage on CTV.”
There would appear to be two things going on here.
It’s not uncommon for politicians to try to “work the refs,” complaining about media reports in hopes of receiving more favourable coverage in future. The Conservatives seem to be trying to take the refs out of the game altogether. You see – they say to their supporters – you can’t trust the media. You can only trust us.
But Mr. Poilievre seems to have another game in mind. It is to get at the media, not directly, but through their corporate owners. No wonder CTV’s statements sounded so fearful. Should he become prime minister, as seems probable, Mr. Poilievre would have the power to make life miserable for the network, and for its owners, dependent as they are on government regulation, protection and subsidy.
As, nowadays, are most of the media. Mr. Poilievre has no need to make the threat explicit for the suits in corporate headquarters to get the message – though some of his supporters were not so shy. “Pierre Poilievre will restore journalistic ethics and integrity,” Tory MP Michelle Ferreri posted, menacingly, in response to the CTV debacle.
That’s disturbing behaviour for a politician, in a democracy. But media executives must bear their share of the blame. Had they not so eagerly sought the government’s patronage – had they not, in fact, so vociferously demanded it – they would not be so exposed to accusations that it had coloured their coverage, or to threats that it might be withdrawn if they do not change their tune.
The Conservatives, it should be said, are not the only ones to play this game. Wasn’t it Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed who was recently seen admonishing a National Post columnist online that “your paper wouldn’t be in business were it not for the subsidies that the government that you hate put in place?”
We are in a very bad place, and headed to a worse one: an election in which the same media covering it are also one of the central issues in it. As an industry we can complain all we like, but we are reaping what we sowed.