Harper's Biggest Blunder to Date

What are the Conservatives thinking, with this transparent assault on free media? Another day, another story outlining the new draconian measures imposed on the media, by a government bent on message control:

Security on Parliament Hill barred reporters from attending a pair of Stephen Harper photo opportunities Monday as the Prime Ministers Office flexed its media messaging muscles.

The made-for-TV confrontation between security and reporters outside Harper's office door graphically illustrated the deteriorating relations between a PMO seeking total message control and news media defending their hard-won access.

In outlining a series of new measures restricting media access, Harper is in effect digging his own grave. Instead of quiet reform, Harper seems bent on confrontation and alienation. Has the PMO heard of the word nuance? There is an underlying arrogance afoot, articulated already, in striking fashion, when Harper was challenged by Shapiro. This self-inflicted conflict brewing with the media belies an over-confidence, wherein a few men have deluded themselves into thinking they can dictate the agenda in a free country.

Many have already argued about the futility of trying to control the media. Message manipulation has been tried before, although not quite so publicly, and failed miserably. There are the comparisons to the Bush administration, where Harper clearly gets his inspiration(he is doing wonderfully in the polls isn't he?), although the Bush clampdown was far more subtle and covert. The Harper approach is unnecessarily in-your-face, to an institution that actually allows you to get your message out.

There is already lots of revisionist thinking about the last election. Harper ran a great campaign, stayed on message and spoke around the media. While there may be a some truth to the above, the media essentially enabled Harper. Harper had a relatively easy ride this past election. The media was soft on Harper, maybe as a result of the opinion that they were unnecessarily harsh during the prior election. My point, you can have all the slogans and messages you want, but you need a faciliator. You especially need the media when not in campaign mode, where paid media is even less of a factor.

Harper's director of communications Sandra Buckler demonstrates the lack of understanding, with this flippant comment about the scorned media:

"I don't think the average Canadian cares as long as they know their government is being well run."

And how does the average Canadian know anything? If the media gets its hackles up, and begins to feel the alienation as one, Harper will get bogged down no matter what the intentions. This entire issue is foolishness and in the end only hurts the Conservatives, while we undoubtedly still get the real scoop. In this age of new media, nano-second dissemination, how can you expect to manipulate the message entirely? The Conservatives were always allowed some "management" of message, simply as a function of the system. Why inflame tensions, make enemies, when you will ultimately accomplish little?

Here is an example- the Afghanistan trip. Scripted by Harper, meant to convey an air of leadership and resolve. Pretty pictures, shaking hands and instilling pride. The media responds to the Harper initiative, essentially benign, no tough questions. Mission, largely accomplished. Now, what about that visit after six months of friction and acrimony? Would the media roll over, or would they become combative and push the images? Whatever the answer, why chance negative coverage with horrible public relations. Harper has demonstrated his tin ear again, isolating himself within some warped sense that he controls all. I suggest the Conservatives will be in for a rude awakening as they deal with a media scorned. This blunder will keep on giving and giving.