TOUCHDOWN – HARPER ANGERS MEDIA BUT PRESERVES HIS MESSAGE

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: As a former reporter – and a former political press secretary – I can tell you that it’s never a happy time for either party when a politician refuses to take media questions at a public event. The reporters get angry, and the flak has to take the heat. But at the end of the day, it’s the broader communications strategy – and, ultimately, how the story plays out – that really matters. Case in point: yesterday in Brampton, Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave a speech that was entirely focused on the economy. He summarized the efforts of his government’s stimulus measures during the global economic crisis, and announced a new coming tax credit for parents. If they had been given the chance, the reporters who were there might have asked questions about some of that, but they most certainly would also have sought fresh comment on allegations of influence peddling by a former aide, and on the potential for Harper’s government to be found in contempt of Parliament. By refusing to engage at all, Harper ensured that there were no fresh quotes from him to fan the flames of those “off- message” stories. Sure, it’s still front-page stuff, but Harper’s not amplifying it further (at least in today’s papers). And what’s also in the papers are clean accounts of his speech and the economic message he wanted to deliver. Harper did what all smart communicators should: assess the story in play and ask yourself, do I really want to engage on this and add more fuel to it? Or is it better, as it was in this case, to take the much less painful hit for not being available for comment? You’ve always got to take the longer view of how your actions will ultimately play out in the story, and then choose your communications strategy accordingly.