bout de papier, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1988) — Winter 1988 // Hiver 1988, pp. 21–22
On May 21, 1987, the Professional Committee held an evening seminar on the relationship between the media and the foreign service. Chaired by David Adam, then Chairman of the Professional Committee and now Minister-Counsellor (Commercial) at the Canadian Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, the meeting featured a guest panel consisting of four distinguished Canadian journalists: Jeffrey Simpson, national Political Columnist, Toronto Globe and Mail; Pamela Wallin, Ottawa Bureau Chief, CTV News; Michel Vastel, Parliamentary Correspondent, Le Devoir, and David Halton, Chief Correspondent, National TV, CBC English news. Although audio difficulties made the preparation of a complete transcript of the seminar impossible, we offer the following highlights.
Jeffrey Simpson: I believe on the basis of my experience overseas and my experience here…that in the world of relativity this Department, in terms of communications… stacks up rather well. You may be surprised to hear that. I can only go by what my own experience has been in many European countries and a few countries scattered in other parts of the world and with the Department here. And that experience has by-and-large been with a few exceptions very positive. But the reason it has been positive is because I think insofar as you are capable — and you are under certain constraints from the chap or the chaps or the women who run the offices up on the top floor — you recognize that in order to get your message out, and in order for the policy of the government to be understood, it is necessary by definition to deal with the journalistic communities, since we are for better or for worse the principal — to use one of your favourite words — interface between the bureaucracy and the public.
If I can speak in more general terms, it is on something that I am always perplexed about. That is to say the attitude that governments have — and here I speak about the political arm of the government – which does not recognize that the public service in all of its different manifestations is potentially any government’s best ally, sometimes its only ally. I say that because politicians when they speak, rightly or wrongly, are viewed by us with skepticism. They have certain political axes to grind, and the ministers or the MP’s may or may not know what they are talking about.
In the case of the public service, the benefit of the doubt is in more cases than not given. That is to say the assumption is made rightly or wrongly that you are without particular political axes to grind and that therefore you have a kind of prima facie credibility which will be sustained and maintained as long as you do not try to dissemble or mislead or give clearly incorrect information. And Governments, were they wise, would understand that this dynamic is one that indirectly plays and can play in their favour. I know that from time to time public servants will say silly things. They will on very rare occasions have something in for the government, and they will try to make the government look bad. But it is my general impression, without stroking your egos too much, that most public servants I know do not want the government to look bad…In my dealings with this department I can honestly say I have never run across anybody who, whatever his or her personal views about the government of the day — and you like all of us have views about the government of the day and the people who were involved — consciously set out to tell me something that would obviously make the government of the day look irretrievably bad….
Question from the Floor: To move to another issue, our Association is often observed as having a bit of a PR problem. When people think of Foreign Service Officers, they think of being nudged off the terrace at the Aberdeen Club; they think of rushing to make it to the next cocktail party and so on, and it seems that we don’t really have much of a public constituency. As a result, when as an Association we come forth with a statement, our message is not as sympathetically received as it might be. To turn to the theme of this evening’s event, how do we get our message across more effectively? I wonder if you can give us any tips on developing a public constituency, on the one hand, so we might get a slightly more balanced view of what it is like to be a civil servant working abroad and, secondly, in terms of communicating the message to the broader public…Do you have any remarks about how foreign service officers might do something to enhance their own image in the community?
Jeffrey Simpson: I think you are underestimating the degree to which people read and reported and used the material you submitted on the question of patronage appointments. The very fact that the Minister was so mad at you was the function of fact that there had been so much coverage of it.
David Halton: I don’t think that there is a deeply held or engrained perception out there that foreign service officers are high rollers abroad. The Aberdeen Club story I guess had a certain amount of print, but I certainly haven’t encountered any sense when you get out of Ottawa and visit the regions that there is a perception of foreign service officers as high rollers. How do you get your message across more effectively? I think you have to use the national media. Fortunately, your own newsletters, which we get and do read, are the most effective way, and if something is important and meaningful enough, that isn’t purely seen as advancing career concerns of foreign service officers, it will get played.
Michel Vastel: … You may know that there is an executive of the Press Gallery, and I think that it wouldn’t hurt for your Executive to have a good discussion with the executive of the Press Gallery. The other way is to develop your network. Relations with national correspondents are awfully frustrating for everybody. Today you are going to catch the attention of the journalist. Tomorrow, for a much more important topic, you won’t catch him just because he is busy somewhere else. It is a very long, painful and difficult process of creating a network. Just for an example, this morning I had breakfast with a group of Philippine women visiting Canada for a couple of weeks. I won’t report on that, but that was a very educating breakfast and very interesting. And I think I improved myself at least as a human being and most probably as a journalist. I went there just because I knew the person who invited me, and this morning I had something to do at 8:00 but I finally rushed to go because I felt some obligation. That came from a personal relationship with the person who invited me. So I think developing a network between yourself and journalists is very important. Some of my colleagues complain that the Press Gallery executive just takes care of the parking lots. I think that could be part of the role of the mandate of the Executive of the Press Gallery.
Pamela Wallin: It does require you to take a little bit of the initiative. Jeff touched on it. you have something to say about an issue that is relevant to the events of the day or the events of the week, we are going to listen. When a story is going on and if you have something to say about that, it doesn’t matter if you put out your press release four days later. Having thought about event X or event Y and issued a thoughtful statement, we don’t care then. We care that afternoon and we care at 11:00 that night. So that is a problem. We are not averse to having people phone us up out of the blue. As long as you state that your intentions are honourable and leave us a phone number so we can check that you are not some wild, mad maniac. Or to say, would you like to have lunch? Or can I drop in for ten minutes in your office some Tuesday morning and just tell you that we are thinking about doing this, and it actually ties in or coincides with some other international event? Anybody has got ten minutes. You might not have two hours and you might not read the press release that comes at four in the afternoon with a stack of sixteen others. But that kind of a call is worth a whole lot.
David Halton: There does still seem to be some perception that no media coverage is the best coverage you can get. It means that in a number of areas, arms control I guess is a classic example. Just about every day John Lamb’s outfit calls us up about a briefing by an American specialist and so on. They get their point of view out very effectively. It is arguably a one-dimensional point of view on some issues, but we are not really hearing from the government what we are doing in this area. Why not make Doug Roche available more often? Why not make your arms control experts more available to us to get across the government point of view on the whole range of arms control issues?
Michel Vastel: I am a firm believer in corrective action. Your Association has some role to play because it’s your professionalism which is at stake. And individually you may not be able to do it, but I think every time your Association feels it has got to get out a message about political appointments or whatever issue, they have to be out in the public and react collectively. I think it’s very important for your own credibility that you have an Association which stands on that… You have a good reputation. I think you are letting it be spoiled and you have got to react.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1988) — Winter 1988 // Hiver 1988, pp. 21–22. Read the rest of this issue →
