Article content continued

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.

—

Andrew MacDougall is a London-based communications consultant and was director of communications to former prime minister Stephen Harper.