Maclean's blogger Aaron Wherry finds the practice, established by PMO communication director Kory Teneycke when he assumed that job in July, of holding periodic off-the-record with senior PMO officials to be odd:
For some months now, the Prime Minister’s Office has been conducting periodic briefings for reporters—usually bureau chiefs, but generally one representative from each of the major media outlets. … The topics discussed typically range from the Prime Minister’s itinerary to upcoming government action to the PMO’s spin on whatever happens to be making news at the moment.
There is only one rule at these briefings: the government official conducting the briefing must not be identified by name.
Everyone in the room agrees to this. And, in the myriad reports that follow, any information gleaned subsequently cited to a “senior government source” or some such.
This is now widely accepted practice. But, er, why?…[Read the rest of his post]
If you read the comments section after Aaron's post you will see yours truly chiming in on this issue to note that it is Canwest's policy to get an official on-the-record after these briefings — and in my experience that's never been a problem — and then after my comment Teneycke himself has a thoughtful note on this practice. I reproduce it for you here:
The use of extensive use of unnamed sources is not the most flattering feature of journalism in Canada. However, this is not new or unique to this government, and has very little, if anything at all, to do with briefings held by our office.
Macleans – or any other Canadian media outlet for that matter – would be virtually empty, if they were to remove stories quoting an unnamed source, or written on the basis of information provided on background.
Comparisons to the US approach are out of context. Our executive branch is held accountable by an elected opposition in Question Period, not by the media in a daily briefing. The media have an important role in our system, but it is not the same as in the US.
The purpose of keeping briefings off-the-record is to allow for a more informal exchange of information with the gallery. Often this information is technical and relates to scheduling of events. This is done to assist media in planning where they will need to send satellite trucks, how many reporters should be on-call over a weekend, etc.
As David correctly points out, the opportunity to ask “on-the-record” questions does exist after briefings have concluded. In many cases, however, it is more appropriate for journalists to contact the Minister responsible for “on-the-record” comment. Having PMO answer all questions may be easier for the gallery, but it is not really consistent with our system of government.
As for Macleans participation in future briefings… I have been assured by a “senior Macleans official” that they will continue to attend.
Kory Teneycke
Director of Communication
Office of the Prime Minister
My response:
What is absurd, in my oppinion, is the lengths to which Mr. Wherry is going to rationalize his complaint. It seems very clear to me. The PMO sends someone, anyone, from their staff to read off a list of information and or updates. This person has had no part in the background of this material and therefore shouldn’t be quoted as the “source” when they are nothing more than a reporter (per se) themselves.
As Mr. Akin has pointed out, further supported by Mr. Teneycke, officials in the PMO are available after the briefing for “on-the-record” discussions of the material presented, but if the journalists choose not to avail themselves of that opportunity because they’re in a hurry to get somewhere else, that’s their problem. Also, Mr. Teneycke quite rightly points out that further on-the-record discussions should come from the appropriate Minister or their office, not the PMO. I would also surmise that much of the detail is left out of the “general briefing” since not every shred of information can be hashed over during the briefing. Hence, the availability of PMO staff after the announcements.
Contrary to the position that the PMO isn’t being “transparent” or “accountable” to the citizens through the media, I will argue that the PMO is pursuing transparency and accountability by decentralizing the reporting away from the PMO and asking reporters to go directly to the “source” of the information; that being the office of the Minister involved, or the Minister themselves. Further, I would argue that the mechanisms and availabilities are in place for the kind of transparency and accountability that journalists such as Mr. Wherry would like to see, but many simply aren’t willing to do the legwork necessary to obtain that information, preferring instead that all the necessary information should come from the same trough; that being the PMO.