First off, I firmly believe MP's should let Fraser see the books, and politicians would be wise to stay ahead of this story, rather than resisting the inevitable. The issue aside, what I find entirely fascinating is the contrasting emphasis of most of the MSM, compared to another "grassroots" revolt, namely prorogation.
From the moment this audit story came to light, I sensed a rabid zeal amongst the media. Immediately, every outlet jumped on the story and gave it urgent and persistent coverage. Again, there is a genuine issue of transparency here, but I couldn't help but think part of the enthusiasm for this particular issue had a self interest component. I would also argue that part of the hesitation by politicians, is a recognition that full disclosure would result in the media swarming around the most salacious of details. I admit some concern that full disclosure would turn into a tabloid like witch hunt, rather than a sober, mature review. I'm sure there are some questionable practices, and I'm also sure that minor indiscretions would be blown up to biblical proportions. Not a stretch to think that anybody put under the microscope might reveal a wart or two- and I'm sure we could find a decadent desert on journalist expenses, if we looked hard enough. Conclusion, people aren't perfect, and some minor "abuse" is commonplace, in EVERY workplace.
We're hearing all this talk about MP's being inundated with angry phone calls from consitituents, Canadians talking about this issue in Tim Horton's across the country. We're also hearing about a grassroots revolt, akin to the prorogation question. Really? From what I've heard, a few calls to MP offices, but no evidence of a real uprising. To be fair, the facebook groups I've managed to find show PALTRY membership, comparing it to the organic, "despite the media" membership to proroguing is insulting.
When the prorogation issue began, it was largely dismissed by the MSM (with the obvious exceptions of course), as a inside the beltway, process laden issue that would never resonate. What was particularly troubling, the way our media independently passed judgement, and only when it became apparent, through a truly grassroots resistance, did any acknowledgement come- further, people remained sceptical up until the very moment that the rallies forced revision. Contrast that cynicism, with this enthusiastic embrace of the expense issue, and the immediate over blow on the grassroots front, and it's all very perplexing. I'm not intentionally belittling the reaction to date, but given the media thrust vs the media dismissal, it hardly compares to the prorogue unrest- at least to date anyways.
The reason why this particular issue has resonated with the media, and in so doing fueled any unrest in the land, is because of the DIRT, that's what you see when you peel the onion. I use the comparison with prorogue, because on that issue you had many fundamental democratic issues at play, one could argue of a far greater philosophical importance, and yet I didn't sense much in the way of media angst. Is it just that pouring over expenses is more sexy in a journalistic "story" sense? Human nature, being what it is, one can see the dog on a bone investment in this story. Is it really about transparency, or is it really about juicy details, maybe a scandal or two? Given the disconnect "reactions" within the MSM, on two issues, with entirely overlapping themes, one has to wonder what are the criteria which makes a story relevant, and why decidedly similar themes are arbitrarily and prematurely ignored.