Tory MP Cheryl Gallant’s anti-media rant part of a troubling trend
The most polite thing one can say about Cheryl Gallant’s bizarre “Gallant News Network” video is that it’s no more bizarre than most of the things Cheryl Gallant says or does.
The six-term Conservative MP for Renfrew-NipissingPembroke has a well-earned reputation as a wild card, and so a 10-minute, hostage-quality Facebook video hounding the “elite-stream” media over their coverage of the Omar Khadr settlement isn’t out of character.
Although it’s best to not delve too deeply into Gallant’s mindset, her video does allow for an examination of the pathology behind a disease infecting too many C/conservatives: the mistrust and/or hatred of the media.
Now, a lot of politicians don’t think the media gets it right. Most governments certainly don’t. Don’t like it? Don’t go into public life. But many Conservative politicians do honestly believe they get it worse than their opponents because they think media are either big- or small-‘l’ liberals who aren’t down with their agenda. While there is some truth to this, it doesn’t explain — to pick one glaring example — why Stephen Harper picked up endorsements from most major news outlets when he won his majority in 2011.
No matter how much you ply them with booze or flattery, the media aren’t stenographers. Nor would any right-minded conservative want them to be. It shouldn’t need mentioning that Canada doesn’t aspire to be China or North Korea.
This didn’t stop Gallant from claiming the “elite-stream” media were in the Trudeau tank on Khadr. Or from claiming the media went schtum after they found out most Canadians opposed the settlement. Or that the media tried to pin the blame on Stephen Harper. Does Gallant have a point? I’ll bet you Renfrew, Nipissing and Pembroke the bruised and battered Prime Minister’s Office doesn’t think so.
To start, how does Gallant know about the Khadr settlement? Because it was discovered and reported on — ad nauseam — by the “elite-stream” media.
How does Gallant know most Canadians are opposed to the Khadr settlement? Because Angus Reid published a poll saying so and it was reported on — extensively — by the “elitestream” media.
Did the media say that Justin Trudeau had “no choice” but to pay Khadr and that it was all “Stephen Harper’s fault”? Some human rights groups and editorialists made the first point, and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale certainly made the second one. Is Gallant suggesting the media shouldn’t report these views or partisan attacks?
I don’t know (or want to know, really) what’s popping up in Gallant’s Facebook feed these days, but most of the coverage I read, while acknowledging the Harper government’s role in the Khadr affair, took pains to apportion a significant chunk of the blame to Jean Chrétien. And that’s fair.
So, no, Gallant doesn’t have a point. Her beef is that — tiny violins at the ready, folks — she doesn’t like everything the media are writing.
And while it’s tempting to write off Gallant’s rant as a hamfisted attempt to keep the Khadr payout controversy alive (which every smart Conservative should be doing), it’s more pernicious than that.
Gallant went on to ascribe her perceived Khadr media silence to the cash-strapped news industry’s need for a bailout from the federal government. She laid the blame for this need on the news media for being out-innovated and out-performed by the likes of Facebook and Google.
One hopes — but can’t assume — Gallant is aware that Google and Facebook largely don’t produce (and hence compete with) journalism and that their innovations on the algorithm front, while making it more likely for you to find something to buy, also make it less likely you’ll come across a viewpoint with which you disagree.
This blinkered view of the world probably explains why Gallant thinks Omar Khadr has been a godsend to the Liberal government.
And while Gallant is correct in that there are a few new media players who are “rebelling” (wink, wink) and making a go of digital life by telling it like it is, they’re not doing it by gathering and reporting the news. They’re doing it by preaching to the converted.
Indeed, if all you want is someone to shout your own views back to you for a few minutes, that’s now easy to do, as Gallant demonstrated with her amateur-hour broadcast. But it holds no one to account. Nor does it necessarily serve the public interest.
Politicians like Gallant might not like the news media, but she’d like the world without it a lot less.
If Gallant thinks playing into the growing cynicism about the bias of the media is good for public life, then she’s not fit to serve in public office.