2008 Atlantic Journalism conference FOI panel discussion : exchange between Keefe & MacIntyre

In May/08 the Atlantic Journalism conference included a panel discussion on freedom of information legislation.

 

Doug Keefe a former deputy Minister of Justice and Linden MacIntyre, a host of the CBC's investigative program the Fifth Estate exchanged comments about the pros and cons of freedom of information legislation.  Both are well qualified to debate this. Doug worked on the current Nova Scotia freedom of information act which was passed by the legislature in 1994; Linden is a regular user of freedom of information legislation particularly at the federal level.

 

Both of them recognized that panels do not always offer enough time for individuals to make their cases as well as they could or would have if there was time.  So they elaborated by e-mail after the conference and I thougt you would enjoy reading the exchange.  I have their permission to reprint.

 

Darce Fardy, President, Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia.

 

...

 

Linden, near the end of the session on Saturday you suggested that we were better off in the old, pre-FOI days, when journalists and public officials would sit and talk. I am afraid I barked at you and even at the time I wasn't sure why. On reflection, I agree it would be better if journalists and public officials chatted about issues. It would provide more of the context that is so lacking today. So you were in part addressing one of my big gripes. But I chose to attack what can, at its worst, become a cozy relationship where a charming rogue can do more harm than a dull plodder can do good. I'm right to worry but you were correct to point out that a good journalist checks facts etc and I ought to have acknowledged that. I still think there's a danger but, on balance, it would be worth it. I believe the tone of my reaction was fueled by some of the coverage of correctional services here in Nova Scotia recently but that's not your doing. Where I still disagree with you is the thesis that FOI and POP is responsible. I think the government climate that killed, or at least, maimed conversations with journalists is the same cultural shift that created the FOI & POP — the rise of an individualistic rights-based approach to decision making and a business school approach to public policy. Everything must be measured and documented. In short, I think you are right about the game but you are blaming the scoreboard for the result. I also believe that what many of us in government at least perceive as a rise in "gotcha' journalism" also contributed. My opening statements about government not enjoying the objective vindication of business's bottom line was an attempt to explain the risk aversion that is now so common. That, not the simplistic "culture of secrecy", is the a better explanation for a lot of what I heard on Saturday.I'd intended to quote Einstein "everything should be as simple as possible but no simpler" as a complaint about the bind public servants and journalists find themselves it as the public demands complex stories in pellet form. But I should also add "not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts" when we talk about MBA's driving public policy I think we are offending the only two of Einstein's laws I understand.Doug

 

Hi Doug:I hasten to assure you that I took no offense over any aspect of the commentary. Had my own comment been less spontaneous I'm sure I could have found a way to more clearly articulate my opinion which, I believe, isn't radically different from yours.I didn't mean to lay the blame for misinformation and misunderstanding on FOI/POP. But I did want to make the point that, from what I have observed, FOI/POP creates an illusion of transparency which can actually obstruct the free flow of information to the public. In reality, the imperatives which have always created tension between the custodians of "public intelligence" and those who facilitate the transfer of intelligence to the public exists to a greater degree now than ever before. This is due in part to the sheer volume of information available, thanks to advances in technology, in part to the increased sensitivity of factors such as privacy and security, and --- in my opinion, to a significant degree --- the degeneration of civility in political discourse which, by extension, intoxicates the environment in which public servants work. The consequences for a public servant for the careless handling of politically sensitive information can be catastrophic.That same illusion, in my experience, creates a false sense of empowerment among reporters who perhaps rely too readily on a mechanistic process instead of working to create organic relationships among people who, for the most part, are as committed as we are to helping sustain a healthy society. We merely differ on the components of a healthy diet.Regarding "gotcha" journalism ¼ I'm sometimes unclear as to whether the phenomenon is a cause or a consequence of the "gotcha" politics which now prevail, it seems, in every jurisdiction. In any event I believe that mature, honest, consensual and public-spirited rapport between reporters and (other) servants of the public can only diminish the prevalence of shallow, exploitive reporting ¼ and, perhaps, the paranoid distrust of the mass media.I appreciate your follow-up and this opportunity to clarify.Linden