More from Andrew Mitrovica available More fromavailable here

Seems that some members of the parliamentary press gallery need an intervention.

I arrived at this understanding after reading and watching the near-universal and derisive response to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair’s lively exchange with reporters during a scrum last week.

With a few exceptions, journalists working on the Hill have a tendency towards groupthink. It was certainly on fawning display in the aftermath of Jim Flaherty’s death, when even a hint of criticism of the former finance minister’s record was uniformly dismissed as the product of insensitive jackals.

Prior to that, the consensus among Ottawa scribes was that Conservative MP Eve Adams was a haughty type prone to “tantrums” because she “demanded” — rather benignly, I think — a refund at a car wash. Questioning this facile, media-propelled caricature was considered heresy by much of the parliamentary press gallery. For evidence, visit my Twitter account and read some of the hysterical responses penned by reporters to my tweets challenging the newsworthiness of Adams’ “tantrum.”

They may be loath to acknowledge it, but the press gallery is a tribe. And like any other powerful tribe — police, doctors and lawyers spring to mind — there are formal and informal rules by which members-in-good-standing are expected to abide. Chief among them is the rule that no outsider must ever be allowed to publicly challenge or slag another member of the clan. When it happens, the response must be swift, sharp, unambiguous — and wildly out of proportion.

So it was when Mulcair sparred with CTV reporter Laurie Graham over her coverage of the NDP’s questionable use of public money to underwrite the party’s ‘satellite’ offices. (I have to admit that the details of this alleged scandal elude me and hardly seem to merit the apoplectic headlines associated with it.)

Watch the duel online and draw your own conclusions. In my view, Mulcair gave as good as he got — as did Graham, who was stung by Mulcair’s frustration-fueled ripostes. I thought the verbal joust was mildly entertaining, refreshingly honest — and, frankly, pretty tame.

Clearly, my interpretation of the Mulcair-versus-Graham ‘slugfest’ isn’t shared by her easily-offended colleagues, who predictably came rushing — sometimes incoherently, often embarrassingly so — to the veteran correspondent’s defence.

Rather than commend a politician for answering questions for 30 minutes and abandoning the PR-cleansed sound bites and stale talking points that are the staple of so many scrums, Mulcair was derided for his ‘petulant’ tone and ‘aggressive’ manner. (Ironically, aggressiveness is a praiseworthy quality for parliamentary journalists — not so much for the leader of the Official opposition.)

Once a political meme takes hold in Ottawa, it’s hard to break. Hence Clark and the National Post’s John Ivison parroting the simplistic, cartoonish notion of Mulcair as ‘a smiling Dr. Jekyll’ who invariably turns ‘into crimson-faced Mr. Hyde.’

The Globe and Mail’s Campbell Clark turned white knight in an epithet-filled reprimand of Mulcair. Clark described the Opposition leader as “itchy,” “angry,” “prickly,” “snarky” and the ever-reliable “thin-skinned.”

Like a churlish headmaster, Clark admonished Mulcair for spouting a half hour of “condescending vinegar” — in part because he referred to Graham as “Miss.” It escapes Clark that his picayune complaint is the very definition of “thin-skinned.”

According to the Globe columnist, Mulcair was guilty also of patronizing Graham and “(cutting) off reporters and (asking) others to pose questions instead.”

The audacity. Who does Mulcair think he is, “cutting off” a reporter? It’s outrageous. Oh, I’m sorry, am I being condescending?

I think Clark needs to dismount his high horse and remember that politics is a rough and tumble trade that requires a tough hide and, occasionally, a short memory — on both sides of the fence.

But once a political meme takes hold in Ottawa, it’s hard to break. Hence Clark and the National Post’s John Ivison parroting the simplistic, cartoonish notion of Mulcair as “a smiling Dr. Jekyll” who invariably turns “into crimson-faced Mr. Hyde.”

In his rambling column, Ivison suggests that during his tussle with Graham and a crew of other reporters, Mulcair apparently underwent “a supernatural transformation.” OK … if you say so. Personally, I didn’t see any evidence of Mulcair’s metamorphosis.

Ivison also suggests that Mulcair’s phantom tantrum “reinforces the narrative the Conservatives and Liberals have been trying to write — that Mr. Mulcair is too irascible to be trusted with government.”

In other words, Mulcair’s tiff with Graham has effectively disqualified him from becoming prime minister.

Wow.

You’ll note that Ivison sought cover for this absurd idea by implying that he’s not one of the architects of the “angry Tom” stereotype: The Tories and Liberals are. What a convenient, self-serving bit of hyperbolic, exculpatory nonsense.

Ivison wrote that Mulcair’s spat with reporters was “instructive.” I agree. Parliamentary reporters, it appears, want politicians to stick faithfully to their prescribed, pablum-spewing roles. Mulcair et al are expected to be bromidic, deferential and solicitous, particularly to reporters.

To step even momentarily outside this comfortable construct only invites scorn and ridicule from Ivison, Clark and many other commentators who crave routine over spontaneity and a little authentic — if flawed — humanity.

It makes their jobs a lot easier — and a lot duller.

Andrew Mitrovica is a writer and journalism instructor. For much of his career, Andrew was an investigative reporter for a variety of news organizations and publications including the CBC’s fifth estate, CTV’s W5, CTV National News — where he was the network’s chief investigative producer — the Walrus magazine and the Globe and Mail, where he was a member of the newspaper’s investigative unit. During the course of his 23-year career, Andrew has won numerous national and international awards for his investigative work.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.