How Not to Argue in Favour of 2-for-1 (Cuatro)

(updated below)

Join me again, won't you, for another harangue about the two-for-one sentencing coverage (previously here, here, here and here).  This post isn't about the merits (or lack thereof) of the pro-credit position (I'm assuming we're all a little tired of that by now) - this is about something almost as important: the media coverage of the proposals.  Specifically, this is about how atrocious that coverage has been.  I think this all has something to say about the troubles in which news media outlets currently find themselves.

I'm going to pick, again, on Christie Blatchford and Dan Gardner.  Not because what they've provided has been worse than the other coverage, but because they're better than this.  Both are intelligent, popular, well-respected and award-winning journalists and commentators.  Certainly I enjoy reading both of them and respect their work for its insight and the new information and perspectives it provides.  But the coverage and commentary on this issue has just been staggering.  The uniform awfulness of it is indicative not of individual failings, but systemic failure.  Blatchford and Gardner write under the imprimaturs of major Canadian newspapers (the Globe and Mail and Ottawa Citizen, respectively) which are supposed to be indicators of accuracy and objectivity - but clearly are not.  Neither Blatchford nor Gardner seem to have much stomach for defending two-for-one sentencing credits on their own terms (since there's hardly anything there with which to support them), so they rely on second-order arguments - mostly about how awful the Conservatives are.  They pivot into a discussion about how nobody (but particularly the Conservatives) is doing anything to address the clogged court system.

Blatchford: "The extra-credits practice is just a symptom of what everyone who works in the courts knows very well is the real problem - the egregiously glacial pace of Canadian justice - but which no one much wants to discuss, let alone fix."

Gardner (in his column): "So why aren't the Conservatives talking about how to unclog the arteries of the justice system and make it work better? Because that's administrative reform."

Gardner (in comments at this blog): "If a federal government is upset by sentence discounts, they can bring the provinces together to identify the sources of administrative congestion and work together to resolve them. Simple, pragmatic, sensible. But not politically sexy in the least, which might explain why the feds aren't doing it."

It's difficult to overstate just how absolutely, incontrovertibly, undeniably incorrect those statements are.  Does Blatchford honestly believe that "no one wants to discuss, let alone fix" slow criminal trials?  Is she honestly not aware of the numerous federal and provincial initiatives which have taken place in order to address this very issue?  Is Gardner seriously saying that the Canadian federal government has never "[brought] the provinces together to identify the sources of administrative congestion and work together to resolve them"?  Really?  Really?  So when the federal government convened a meeting of all attorneys general across Canada (in September 2008, no less) to discuss this very issue, and announced new funding and programs to tackle this very issue, and then put out a press release about it, what exactly was that all about?  When provincial governments across Canada implemented programs (see Ontario's here) to address this very issue, how did it get missed?  How did that not get taken account of in either the straight news coverage or the commentary about it?  I have not seen a single news item or comment on this matter which acknowledges, at all, that the provincial attorneys general, of every political stripe, agreed in 2008 to support the elimination of the two-for-one credit as one component in a package of comprehensive reforms which aimed at speeding up trials, under the tutelage and with the additional funding provided by the federal government.  Worse, the commentary has ignored that and accused the government of doing the opposite.  We're not talking about uninformed screeching on partisan blogs.  We're talking about professional journalists, who write about this topic constantly, evidently not knowing basic information on the matter which a few seconds of Google searching would have turned up.  How is this possible?  We're not talking here about a mistake, like getting a date wrong - we're talking about negligence.

Please, anyone who's interested in the answer to that bolded question, please read Nick Davies' Flat Earth News.  These are systemic problems.  Too few reporters, too many "commentators", too much demand for content being produced under too-short deadlines.  It would be really, really nice if either of Blatchford or Gardner would revise their accusations about the federal (and provincial) governments "not talking about" this issue, or "doing nothing" about this issue, but I think that, regrettably, won't happen.  Which is a shame.  Because the cynicism that such failure breeds, the resentment about the product which is being produced, does nobody any favours.  Many political problems seem so intractable simply because the arena of public discourse is flooded with so much misinformation that as much time is spent wading through the morass as is spent engaging the actual issues.  And when professional journalists are contributing to the problem, we all, journalist and reader, are rendered the poorer for it.

Update - In the comments, Dan Gardner has objected to the last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph, which he deems a "scuzzy slur".  Having re-read the paragraph, I'm inclined to agree with him - so I apologize to Dan and to anyone else who I offended.  When I wrote the paragraph, I was hoping to convey my judgment that the news industry as a whole, by virtue of its cutbacks, shortsightedness and general emphasis on "punchy" news delivery rather than indepth analysis was producing coverage which is less than accurate, to the detriment of public discourse.  The argument goes something like this: the news industry has a duty to provide accurate coverage, they fail to carry out that duty by means of reasonable efforts, ergo they are negligent.  Whether that argument is accurate or not, it is certainly not fair, absent much more compelling evidence, to level that charge at an individual journalist, which my language certainly did.  Again, my apologies.

Comments

[Dan Gardner]

Bob, you're being tendentious.

Of course the feds are working with the provinces on this. They're ALWAYS working together. I know civil servants who spend half their working days in fed-prov meetings.

But everyone knows that HOW a minister backs work matters enormously in a democracy.

If the minister gives public speeches, calls press conferences, pens op-eds, and otherwise tries to raise the public profile of the issue, he lets the bureaucracy know that the issue is a priority he is prepared to put political capital behind -- and that matters enormously to getting things done. But if the minister merely talks about the issue in an annual meeting with other ministers as point #13 on a 27-item agenda... well, that matters, too.

In fact, Bob, I'm quite sure pro-forma press releases of the sort you link to have been issued at a rate of one per year for many, many years -- years in which the problem of sclerotic justice got worse and worse and worse because ministers (Conservative and Liberal) have balked at the hard work and hard decisions needed.

And, Bob, calling me "negligent"? It's a scuzzy slur, nothing more. You're better than that.

[Singles]

Mr. Tarantino, has it been brought to your attention that you are so legal tender, and that you appear oblivious to this?

[Dan Gardner]

Bob, thanks for the apology. I know I've overstepped the bounds of civility at times. I also know how hard it is to be self-critical and apologize. It speaks well of anyone who does it.

[Bob Tarantino]

Dan - the post has been updated with an apology. But with respect to your argument, you're engaging in goalpost shifting. First, you (and Christie) said nothing was being done. Now, presented with evidence that something is, in fact, being done, you balk and say that it isn't sufficient. Since the federal government lacks constitutional authority in this area, the heavy lifting has to be (and is being) done by the provinces. Having the federal minister of justice call press conferences and write op-eds complaining about how slow judges are being would be a serious... let's call it an "innovation"... in protocol. The feds are providing funds. The feds are, as you demanded they do, working together with the provinces. Asking that they now do even more, in an area outside of their legislative competence, seems a bit much.

[olaf]

I'm quite clearly out of my depth here, but I'd just like to make a general point for what it's worth. Regarding the idea that it is the federal government's responsibility to push provincial administrative reforms forward, and that they should be focusing their energy there instead of areas where they have a constitutional mandate to affect change - when has this ever worked?

Provinces (some "beautiful provinces" in particular), guard their jurisdiction jealously, to the point of paranoia. In some provinces, that the federal government wants them to do something is often used as an argument to not do it.

The only examples I can think of where the federal government has successfully and substantially affected provincial policy isn't through exhortation, but through offering up gigantic wads of cash. Even the latter case is only marginally successful, as provincial agreements to act in a certain fashion in return for massive federal transfers is often lacking in any accountability mechanism (see the 2004 health accord, for example, also known (non-ironically, at the time) as the Health Care Fix for a Generation).

Indeed, the very fact that such discussions take place on a regular basis, and haven't appeared to have any discernible effect, seems to support the idea that the feds should focus their limited time where they can be most directly effective.

[Dan Gardner]

Bob, literalism may work in contractual disputes but it's not so helpful in the real world.

You name the issue and "something" is being done about it -- meetings, statements, whatever. Politicians routinely use this as a defence against charges of inaction. "Doing nothing? Why, no! It was Item #5 on the agenda at some obscure meeting. Look, it's mentioned in line 37 in this press release!"

Taken literally, this isn't "nothing." As a practical matter, however, it is nothing and deserves to be called such.

As for the notion that the provinces are taking care of what is a national phenomenon...well, they've been saying that for a couple of decades and the problem's gotten steadily worse. Which is to say, I'll believe it when I see it.

[Bork For Chief Justice]

I forget: is it section 91 or 92 of the Constitution Act which forbids provinces from raising any revenue whatsoever if it is earmarked for the court system?

The constitution isn't a list of suggestions, the powers are divided for a reason. If Ontario is OK with a lengthy waiting list, fine, if NL wants to use some of their oil revenue to cut court wait times then good for them. We all celebrate diversity here, yes?

The buck stops with the provinces on this one, not the feds, it's the law. Canada is founded upon principles which recognize the rule of law, says the first sentence of the preamble to the Charter, and flaunting the most organic of laws every time a policy discussion crops up suggests to me a failed state.

[Bob Tarantino]

literalism may work in contractual disputes but it's not so helpful in the real world

Yeowtch. And here I thought we were having such a pleasant conversation... ;o)