Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

I was pretty gobsmacked yesterday when I heard Richard Fadden, the head of CSIS (Canada’s intelligence agency), tell CBC’s flagship newscast The National that his agency knew of cabinet ministers in provincial governments and members of municipal governments who were “under the influence” of “foreign governments.”

Fadden didn’t point to a specific country, but dropped a serious hint by mentioning that about half of CSIS’s budget is devoted to China. He also said that his agency had informed the federal government at its highest levels of their concerns — the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Privy Council Office (PCO).

The reverberations haven’t stopped yet — and yesterday’s 5.0 earthquake that was centred near Ottawa was just a physical manifestation of those ripples.

I’ve not worked for CSIS, either as an employee or a consultant, and I’ve never played in the sandbox of federal politics . So I’m looking at this from the outside, as a PR guy.

At some time in the past several weeks, our chief spook does an interview with one of CBC’s most respected journalists (winner of multiple awards, and some say the inspiration for Live Aid) in which he subtly points at China as an influencer of Canada’s political class.

The day before China’s president arrives in Canada for an official visit, CBC airs the interview as part of a package looking at Canada’s intelligence operations. This is also just before the G8 and G20 meetings are held in Ontario, bringing multiple heads of state to Canada for discussions at the highest of levels.

Fadden then retracts some of his comments in a statement:

“Recent comments I made in the context of a special report by the CBC on CSIS have given rise to some concerns about foreign interference in Canada.  The following statement is meant to place those comments in context.

All of the activities of the Service take place within the law and the CSIS Act in particular.  The CSIS Act requires the Service to investigate threats to the security of Canada – including foreign interference.  The Service has been investigating and reporting on such threats for many years.  Foreign interference is a common occurrence in many countries around the world and has been for decades.

I have not apprised the Privy Council Office of the cases I mentioned in the interview on CBC.

At this point, CSIS has not deemed the cases to be of sufficient concern to bring them to the attention of provincial authorities.

There will be no further comments on these operational matters.”

It didn’t take long for a frenzy of reaction to start. Premiers, mayors, intelligence analysts — all were weighing in on what Fadden had said, and then on the retraction.

Calls for Fadden’s resignation began to surface, while others (such as former senior public servant and current columnist Norman Spector and right-wing blogger Adrian McNair) called for heads to roll at CBC for their journalistic practice.

So from a PR perspective, what can we draw from this?

1. It’s pretty rare for CSIS to open itself up to media scrutiny as it did for The National. So I find it hard to believe that this was done without a great deal of forethought. And even if it was given little prep time, given the time lag between the taping of the interview, some negotiation should or could have been undertaken to mitigate the damage of Fadden’s remarks. At the very least, I hope they brought in some outside interview prep; if they didn’t, then that explains a lot in terms of the miscues.
2. Is CBC at fault here? Should they have broadcast the interview at an earlier time? It’s hard for me to agree with that. What’s CBC’s job? To deliver news and to get ratings. They maximized their exposure with this story. Brian Stewart and Peter Mansbridge didn’t make Fadden say what he said. They ran with it. As they should have.
3. If we agree that this was deliberate, then the most important question to my mind is: what does CSIS gain by having this information come out publicly? If we believe it was a mistake, then the question becomes: how could CSIS get this SO WRONG? Is it a case of an agency and a person unused to dealing with media fouling up? Or is Fadden just loose-lipped (NOT a characteristic he’s known for, apparently, or one that’s desirable in a spymaster).

It’s been interesting contrasting this with the McChrystal affair in the United States. In one case, a general known for his outspoken, maverick image stops too far over the line and resigns; in the other, a senior bureaucrat barely known in the media at all speaks frankly, backtracks, and appears to be waiting out the storm.

(Photo credit: Charlotte Morrall, CC licenced on Flickr)

There are certain stories that you can guarantee will get covered each year. Each February in Canada, RSP season brings stories about the lack of preparedness for retirement we Canadians are demonstrating. Each Canada Day, the Dominion Institute releases a poll that shows we Canadians don’t know our own history very well.

Every time Apple releases a new product you’ll see stories about the lineups and pictures of Steve Jobs in his turtleneck and jeans.

And at the end of March, Ontario media cover the Sunshine List. Not to be confused with the Sunshine GIRL (an exercise in a different sort of transparency), the Sunshine list was the result of a law passed in the mid-1990s by the provincial government . Pretty simple as laws go: anyone on the public payroll in the province — provincial public servants, employees of universities, colleges, towns, cities, hospitals — who makes over $100,000 gets put on the list and the employers are responsible for making the  list public by the end of March.

Back then, the Mike Harris government was in power in Ontario, and they loved the idea of populism, being in solidarity with the “little guy”, Joe Sixpack. So this sort of vague public shaming — providing a list of people who you could tsk tsk or wag a finger at — worked for them, quite nicely.

So every year, talk-radio hosts fulminate, columnists critique (Christina Blizzard: “There are 63,761 people on the provincial list this year. That’s up 10,000 over last year…April Fool’s? I guess the joke’s on us.”) and journalists write about how the ranks of the $100K earners area swelling. This Brantford Expositor editorial notes:

Five years ago, The Expositor published a local “Sunshine List” with 78 names. The list published in Saturday’s Expositor has grown to 349 names.

Here’s what I say. The Sunshine list has some serious flaws. First, $100K in 1995 is not the same as $100K today. In fact, just on inflation, it’s more like $133K. Assuming pay raises followed Canada’s inflation rate, someone making $77K in 1995 would be above $100K today just from cost-of-living. And freaking out because the list grows every year makes as much sense as freaking out because prices go up every year; that is to say, none.

Second, it doesn’t expose “fat cats” – there are all sorts of people who are normal working people who end up on this list. Police officers, firemen, bus drivers, nurses — they’re all there, mostly because they’ve worked enough overtime to hit the magic number.

Third, it doesn’t measure VALUE. The top public servant on the list is the head of Ontario Power Generation, who makes $2.5 million, apparently. What does that number tell us? Damned if I know. It’s a lot of money. Is it well spent? Does he make more than others in similar jobs? Does he outperform his compatriots?

Fourth, it reinforces our sometimes-perverse attitudes toward public-sector compensation. We pay our Prime Minister about $300,000 to run a G8 country. We pay the president of the Bruyere Continuing Care Centre $30,000 more than the PM to run an organization with 753 beds and 1,000 employees. The minimum salary for an NHL player is $450K. Formula 1 Driver Kimi Raikonnen made $45,000,000 last year (US!). Nortel‘s CEO made more than seven times as much as the PM last year.

So until we compensate people more in line with the VALUE they add to society, I humbly suggest that we kill the Sunshine list. As an exercise in effective communication about  compensation and the contribution to society, it is an utter failure.

Photo credit: Dru! on Flickr, creative-commons licensed.

After watching his resignation news conference (video below from CITY TV), I have to say that my overwhelming reaction to the now-ended Adam Giambrone mayoral campaign in Toronto is one of sadness for his partner and for him.

Yes, it’s politics. Yes, it’s communications. But you know what? I watch this video and I see someone who looks pretty shattered; someone who’s been punched repeatedly in the head and is at the point where he can’t quite  understand how he’s put himself into this horrible situation. And I feel for him.

We all make mistakes. Most of the time, thank God, they aren’t as severe, as public, or as damaging to others as this one was. And while I think Giambrone did the right thing by leaving the mayoral race — a race which I suspect he wasn’t ready for anyway — I just look at the video and think that this is a guy who’s going to need some serious rebuilding.

I don’t really care about his political career and whether he can ever put it back together. But I do hope that he takes this experience, finds what is possible to learn from it, and uses it as a spur to change his patterns of behaviour. It would appear he needs to do that. And sometimes you can’t rebuild while you’re still limping along; sometimes you need to totally crash in order to put ourselves back together.

To that end, while I know the urge to make jokes and to dissect this series of events in terms of politics and communications is almost irresistible, let’s not forget that this is also a human story, affecting human lives. If for no other reason than to show Giambrone’s partner a bit more empathy than she received from him, let’s be classy.

UPDATE: According to multiple sources, including former mayoral candidate and current talk-radio host John Tory and the Toronto Star, Giambrone found himself in front of the media with one page of a two-page speech, which explains his odd departure from the stage yesterday. A sad ending to a short run for mayor.

Here’s what Tory said: CFRB’s John Tory on Giambrone

I’ve been watching the Danny Williams health-care saga with a bit of consternation. And I’ve been thinking about how this controversy started and has continued to swirl when the energy of Newfoundland’s premier should be focused on treatment and healing.

Two provisos first off for this discussion:

• I don’t much care whether he went to the States or not or why
• I don’t much care whether he’s paying for his health care out of pocket

The problem here has been and is one of communication.

The story about Williams broke on Newfoundland CTV affiliate NTV on Monday, February 1. Good on them for breaking a big story. Other media quickly followed, but it wasn’t until Tuesday morning that Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale laid out some of the facts in a news conference.

The facts revealed then included:

• There had been weeks of consultations
• The “option” of surgery in Canada was not “on the table”

The facts that weren’t included? Lots:

• The nature of the procedure
• The date when the procedure would be performed
• Where the procedure would be performed
• Who would perform it
• How long the expected recovery would be (beyond an estimate of 3-12 weeks)

There’s not even a news release on the Newfoundland and Labrador government’s media room with information available — just a media advisory (dated 8:25 on February 2) announcing the news conference by Deputy Premier Dunderdale which took place 65 minutes later.

While Williams, like anyone else, is entitled to privacy, there’s a problem here, and that problem is in the strategy. Not saying anything has given this story a huge energy boost. There’s nothing more attractive to journalists than a secret, and this is a whole gift basket of them waiting to be found out.

And the recent history of health in Newfoundland, with a crisis of confidence caused by botched tests for breast cancer, means that a health crisis for the Premier is GOING to be news. For the most part, the story hasn’t been too politicized — even opposition leaders are being mostly supportive — but there’s no guarantee that it will stay that way.

The results of all this have been — and will be — an ongoing laser-like focus on the story by Canadian media, while I would suspect the US attention will subside once Williams gets back to Canada. It’s just sad that Williams didn’t take the bull by the horns, provide the basic information, and then ask for privacy. A man of his considerable forcefulness likely would have gotten it.

The biggest surprise to me is that the strategy the Premier, and consequently the Newfoundland Government, is following must have been developed during the weeks of consultation Dunderdale mentioned to the media. This was the best they could do? Oy.

I’ve been a flack since the 1990s, a lover of politics for longer, and I have to say that this news conference as captured by Gawker is about the strangest thing I’ve ever seen.

Apparently, South Carolina’s governor disappeared on Thursday, saying he was going to hike the Appalachian Trail. Turns out he went to Argentina to visit his mistress.

Talk about watching someone’s political (and personal, probably) life unravel on live TV.

Sure, you have to wonder what he was thinking to have an affair. But could nobody have kept him from doing the news conference this way?

This makes Eliot Spitzer look like a media master:

Ciao,
Bob.

We’ve had a heck of a winter here in Ottawa, and the whole Eastern Ontario / West Quebec region snow-wise. We’ve had over 400 cm of snow — that’s coming up on 13 feet for you imperial folk.

I was at a lunch earlier today, and a friend who’s an avid skier told me that ski runs are open this year that have NEVER been open before. People are skiing ALL over the hills, apparently, there’s so much snow.

Of course, this has a tragic side as well — there have been a number of roof collapses and the like, and some have resulted in death.

But fortunately for most of us, the effects have been more irritating than dangerous.

There have been way too many evenings spent shoveling and sweating, either on driveways, or in my case, the roof of our sunroom (or as we call it, the BobCat Dome).

Even the “lazybones” who hired people to take care of the nasty white stuff haven’t escaped scot-free.

The owner of one Ottawa snow clearing service has been charged with 17 counts of fraud after essentially defaulting on hundreds of contracts. (more on Tony’s snowblowing at Canuckflack, as well as the ever-popular Youtube…)

I was “lucky” enough (irony here) to fall twice on my right wrist in the last few weeks, damaging my hamate bone enough to put me off the shoveling detail. And Cathy can’t shovel either, so we’ve been making do with the help of friends and neighbours.

All of this leads me to this CBC Ottawa story, outlining the fact that our mayor is proposing a tax surcharge to pay the bill for snow removal.

Apparently, according to Larry O’Brien, the city is likely to go overbudget by about 40 per cent on its snow clearing budget. So he’s suggesting that we will all have to cough up an extra $50 to cover the shortfall.

I’m as cranky a property owner as the next guy, so this feels like someone is rubbing some road salt in my open wound. Isn’t it enough that cycling season is going to take FOREVER to get started? Isn’t it enough that the snow and ice injured me and made my sunroom leak?

But here’s another idea for Mayor O’Brien — if he wants to put in a surcharge, why not offer a rebate for seriously below average snow seasons?

Imagine getting a cheque from the city when the winter was mild! How about:

• 1 standard deviation above the average snowfall = surcharge
• 1 standard deviation below the average snowfall = rebate

Or something similar. Actually, I don’t like that one — I just counted up and found that that formula would have provided only one rebate and three surcharges. Math nerds — help me out here.

And if there’s a blogging consultant out there with free time right now, did you want to help our mayor out — in February, he told a local radio station that he was going to start a blog “in the next week or so” to bypass biased print media — which was essentially code for the Ottawa Citizen. Nothing yet, though.

I’ll stop moaning about winter now.

UPDATE, March 19: Ottawa Citizen blogger David Reevely makes some suggestions for how to make a surcharge like this somewhat fair here; meanwhile, one of Mayor O’Brien’s staff has resigned after apparently calling in to a local talk radio station to defend the surcharge. Miss Vicky despairs.

Ciao,
Bob.

Thanks to the astute (and now Paris-based) Paul Wells, I have seen something that I don’t think we Canadians will be treated to by Stephen Harper any time soon:

A head of state with a full load on going in front of the press. On the other hand, it sure would make political life more entertaining, wouldn’t it? Wonder where Sarko’s flacks were?

Ciao,
Bob.

UnSpun from the Annenberg Political Fact Check. Must-read.

Ciao,
Bob.

Jeff Jarvis points out an interesting example of the YouTubeization of political discourse on Buzzmachine today.

He writes:

“Fascinating back-and-forth over Mitt Romney’s positions happening in YouTube. First came a video from a 1994 debate between Romney and Ted Kennedy in which Romney issues a number of positions that are different from those he holds today on abortion and gays. Now Romney appears on the Glenn and Helen Show, the Instapundit podcast, to say that he has changed his mind on those issues, that he was “wrong” in ‘94. The Romney campaign taped him talking on the phone G & H and put it up on YouTube. (See also a CBSNews.com story here.) This is amazing on so many levels: YouTube allows an opponent to find a candidate’s words and play them again. But Romney chose to use podcasts and YouTube to respond. And big media has to pick that up.”

What do I think will be the next step here in terms of political messaging?

• War rooms will become expert at finding inconsistencies and getting them YouTubed;
• Inconsistencies will be torqued and played with by selective clipping;
• So many inconsistencies will be found and so many will be torqued that voters will become confused by them, immunized against them, and possibly more apathetic than before (if that’s possible)
• Services like the excellent Annenberg Political Factcheck will become even more indispensable for media and voters alike.

On a related topic: why hasn’t anyone in Canada come up with a maple-leaf version of Factcheck? God knows I’ve moaned about how we need one for long enough…

Ciao,
Bob.