No matter what people tell you, there is nothing that is ever really, truly off the record.
In the case of this e-mail exchange between Craig Westcott and the Premier's communications director over the course of a couple of years, you'd think that the most simple rule of media relations would be foremost in her mind.
Apparently not.
Then there is this comment from an e-mail dated in the middle of 2006. it leaps out for two reasons, both of which are discussed below.
I feel compelled to point out that for two and a half years, you did not seek the premier out to gain his perspective on issues (despite the fact that the premier personally called you to offer himself up for a chat).
First, this comment is clearly incorrect - and the comms director knew it was wrong - since there is a clear record of Westcott seeking interviews with the Premier and being told flatly that the Premier would not be accepting any of Westcott's interview requests. Consider this line from the e-mail sent the day before the comment quoted above: "As per previous correspondence, the premier is not available for your interview requests."
How could Westcott have failed to seek out the Premier's comments when the same person knew that the office was rejecting all interview requests from the reporter?
Second, take a look at the comment in brackets, namely that the Premier had called Westcott personally for a "chat". There's no discussion of the chat, like what it was about, why the Premier was calling and why they didn't connect. Given that Westcott was trying to get the premier on the phone, but the Premier's Office was refusing Westcott's requests, this seems highly unusual.
Of course, cynics out there would be familiar with this "chat" thing. A recent, former Premier used to practice "the chat" approach when there was a reporter or editor whose work the Premier of the day didn't appreciate. "The chat" may have started with a bit of charm, but usually it was usually a tongue-lashing that was intended to intimidate the editor or reporter into getting on board with whatever media line the government was pushing at the time.
At the very least, "the chat" made it clear that the highest political office in the province was personally displeased. That's a powerful thing and only the ballsiest of the ballsy wouldn't be impressed by the call. That's why the call gets made. It's intended to intimidate.
In other instances, the recent former Premier would berate reporters in the course of a scrum. he lashed one reporter for daring to ask if it was true that the Premier's wife had recently been hired in a government-related job during the time of a hiring freeze and layoffs. It was a fair question, but the emotional reaction it gained was a purposeful way of marking territory and showing dominance in a very aggressive fashion.
Media relations (MR) is no place for amateurs, the naive or the faint of heart. it's also often not a job for former reporters, but that's another story.
At times, MR can be an extremely unpleasant world. Nasty things get said. Underneath it all, however, must be some kind of mutual respect or at least a mental framework in which the individuals can deal with each other professionally.
The biggest thing is to keep personalities out of it; sometimes even when you have to deal with arguably the biggest idiot on the planet (either as the comms person or the reporter/editor) you have to find a way of getting on with the job.
Take a look at the list the Premier's comms director cites as examples of Westcott's supposedly "malicious" reporting. They are editorial comments where opinion is accepted. The biggest thing, though, is that the comments are personal. The Premier's comms director no doubt took her cues from her boss as to what constituted "malice". That's fair. People on the receiving end of personal criticism usually get upset.
The comms director's job in that case is not to act as the instrument of the boss' rage. Rather the director is a buffer between the understandable, emotional outbursts and the larger interests that need to be managed. It's the director's job to sympathise with the boss but talk him or her off the ledge and keep them from doing something monumentally stupid like picking up the phone and having a 'chat' with the object of his or her anger.
You see, the more personal and the histrionic dominates MR, the more likely it is that one day the long sorry history of the exchanges will wind up in print or on the air somewhere.
And, as in this case, it isn't the reporter who comes off looking like a twit.
-srbp-
