|
|
|
Commerce Monde |
|
|
|
Commerce Monde |
|
SOMMAIRE Page éditoriale sur le Québec dans le London Free Press
People ask me regularly if they must respond to a journalist if asked a question. The simple answer is no. There's no obligation for anyone, anywhere, anytime to say anything to the media. But it's not so simple. "No comment'' can be the right thing, the wrong thing, or irrelevant. Sometimes, "no comment" can sound as if you simply have no comment or wish to make no comment. That's fine; everyone's happy. Sometimes it can sound as if you have lots to say, but refuse. That can sound like you're being secretive, or worse, guilty of something. Sometimes, "no comment" may not be the best alternative, but it can be a lot safer than anything else, especially if you tend to talk too much or shoot from the hip or if you are prone to regretting things you say. Sometimes, if you say "no comment," journalists simply don't bother to mention you. Sometimes, if you say no comment, it becomes the headline. Sometimes, you can talk with a reporter for an hour and the story will make no mention of it at all. But often, especially if you are somehow employed by the taxpayer, journalists believe readers deserve some kind of answer. If you are, say, the former prime minister, and you're asked a question about the biggest political scandal in decades that just happened to have occurred on your watch, it's pretty outrageous to refuse to say anything meaningful. But that's exactly what Jean Chretien did this week: "I don't think anymore," he said in response to questions about the auditor general's report. He said he was no longer a member of the government, so he didn't feel obliged to answer any questions. Then, as if to rub it in: "We should be skiing today. It would be better." It was the height of arrogance and it was typical of Chretien during his time as prime minister. His successor, Paul Martin, has taken a different approach, making himself accessible to radio call-in shows and to the media and in the House of Commons. He's promising to get to the bottom of it, he's promising action, he's promising results, and while many Canadians are skeptical, he's getting a lot of credit for at least being available to answer questions. The fact that it's in such marked contrast to his predecessor can be lost on no one, not the least Martin's handlers. Whether it's working or not is a matter of increasing debate among Liberals, the media and voters. Is Martin merely keeping the fire alive by adding fuel to it every day with his comments? Would it simply be smothered by Chretien's tactics? Time will tell, but it's clear this issue is a minefield. There are bombs waiting to go off in every direction. We haven't yet heard all the details. Now, to be fair, Chretien is no longer an MP. He resigned his seat in December. He's not being paid by the taxpayer. But for me, that's really besides the point. He ran the place for 10 years. We signed his paycheque. He should be accountable, and he should answer the odd question and he should answer it seriously, not flippantly. Canadians are rightly outraged by the sponsorship scandal. There is $100 million of our money missing and the best he can do is "I don't think anymore." This is a man who doesn't seem to care what we think. He doesn't seem to feel any responsibility to us. It's all the more galling because Chretien made such a big deal of his predecessor's apparent overindulgences, which appear to pale in comparison to those since. When he first became prime minister, Chretien made a big deal about riding in a Chevy instead of a Cadillac. He was trying to demonstrate his government's -- and his -- frugality. So it was distressing to learn from the auditor general that his government bought (without proper approval) two top-of-the-line jets for themselves, even though they were deemed unnecessary. No comment indeed. Copyright © The London Free Press 2001,2002,2003 Parcourez aussi l'article à l'adresse suivante : http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/berton.html |
|
Commerce Monde #39 |
