Politicians hiding behind emailed statements

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 02/11/2023 (868 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

If Premier Wab Kinew truly wants to run a more open and transparent government, the NDP should scrap the use of email statements governments commonly use to respond to interview requests.

Sending out email statements when asked for comment by the news media is now a regular feature of government communications. Most, if not all, governments in Canada have drastically reduced the availability of elected officials to speak publicly on issues, whether through news conferences, media scrums or individual interviews with reporters.

The default is to issue a one or two-sentence statement written by political staff.

It used to be rare for cabinet ministers to be “unavailable” for interviews. It’s now commonplace, even when politicians are available — or could be made available — but choose not to speak.

That’s not to say cabinet ministers don’t do interviews or hold news conferences. They do, but it’s far less frequent.

In today’s political climate, the strategy is to mitigate damage by keeping politicians away from microphones and TV cameras as much as possible. Reducing their exposure is a tactic to control the message. The less often elected officials answer questions from reporters or appear on radio or TV broadcasts, the less likely they are to make mistakes and embarrass their government.

Email statements keep the government on message and prevent ministers from getting into trouble, especially the weaker and less experienced ones. It allows politicians and staff to sleep better at night, but it doesn’t serve the public well.

The growing trend of hiding behind email statements has contributed to the erosion of democracy. Its insidious use has increased over time and has been legitimized, especially in the eyes of younger journalists and communications staff unaware of the tactical shift that has occurred.

In the past, it was almost unheard of for cabinet ministers to turn down interview requests unless there were legitimate reasons to do so, such as illness, or if a minister was legitimately unreachable. Even then, there were concerted efforts by staff to try to get ministers on the phone.

Press secretaries bristled at the thought of seeing “unavailable for comment” in news copy because it gave the impression their ministers were hiding and not doing their jobs. That no longer seems to be a concern.

Media scrums outside cabinet ministers’ offices at the Manitoba legislature used to be almost daily affairs. Answering reporters’ questions following question period was as common as a snowy day in January. It wasn’t unusual to see two or three cabinet ministers at a time doing interviews in the hallway.

No more. Today, official requests are required to access cabinet ministers, who may or may not agree to answer questions in person. More likely, an email statement is issued by staff instead.

The sense of duty by elected officials to speak directly to the public when called upon has largely evaporated.

Email statements prevent reporters from asking politicians followup questions and seeking clarity on important issues. There is an organic exchange that occurs between journalists and elected officials during in-person interviews, scrums and news conferences that brings out information that is otherwise repressed. Many of the news stories the public sees are the direct result of journalists asking politicians questions.

The more cabinet ministers turn down interview requests, the less the public is informed about the activity of government.

It’s too early to know how the new NDP government plans to communicate with the public, but Kinew has said he wants to operate a more open and transparent government. He could do so by rejecting the current trend of issuing email statements and declaring the days of hiding behind electronic correspondence are over. He could make it a priority that being open and accountable to the people means cabinet ministers must get out from behind their desks and face the public (like they used to).

That would entail a certain amount of risk. The government would lose some ability to control the political message when cabinet ministers drift off-script, which they sometimes do. But there would be political benefits, too.

Governments often underestimate the value of openness and transparency. There is an upside to putting a face on communications. Effective communicators can sell a government’s message far better than a bland statement written by an anonymous spokesperson.

Kinew has an opportunity to present a different style of government to Manitobans. In many ways, he’s well positioned to do so since he’s still a new kid on the block, having only been in politics seven years. He doesn’t have to toe the line of the past.

He might be surprised at how well such an approach could work.