A Bridge Too Far

A very subtle line in journalism was crossed in the past few weeks that needs to experience some push back. Journalist Andrew Cohen and pundit Norman Spector both provided observations that Stephen Harper and his wife Laureen are experiencing anything but marital bliss. In doing so, they journeyed a bridge too far, undermining their own credibility in the process.Without naming the Harpers directly, Cohen puts in public a rumour that's been floating around for months on their marriage as though it's a fact. Spector took it a step further, reasoning that Laureen's purpose in joining the PM for a year-end interview was to counteract any rumours of marital trouble.For many of us in the political spectrum this has become an important moment. Journalism in Canada has tended to follow a separate path from its American and British counterparts, most often respecting the private lives of public individuals. But these two writers didn't just veer away from that Canadian tradition, they actually did so without offering any valid proof whatsoever of their claims. It was for this reason that the Globe and Mail pulled Spector's column from their website, as was only proper. In a weak defence of his claim, Spector responded by saying: "if the PM’s marriage was in trouble, that was something that could affect his performance and lead to bizarre decisions." Come on! If Ottawa is like the rest of the country, 50% of the marriages are strained but bureaucratic and political life moves on. This is sheer conjecture and unworthy of good journalism.This isn't to say that the Harpers aren't experiencing difficulty, but the simple fact is that we just don't know. It's their life, and stressful enough, without people poking around in their private lives. Almost 18 months ago, this rumour was swirling around the House. I have no doubt that many in the opposition parties - this being politics - took a certain delight at the PM's discomfort. Yet I never talked to any MP or senator who expressed it that way. There was a genuine sense of empathy. And yet we couldn't fully believe it because there was no proof. The PM was performing as normal in the House, and when I saw Laureen at various charitable or cultural events, she was always curious and engaged. We learned to just let it go and get on with daily life. Sadly, a couple of writers didn't do the same.A few observations. If there's news in this, it's the surprise that so many marriages do hang together despite the brutal pressures of politicians' lives. Nothing prepares one for the demands made in both Ottawa and the home riding. One of the aspects that makes it more bearable has been the media's respectful distance from the private lives of those attempting to lead the country. It has been one of the things journalists got right, Spector and Cohen aside, and most politicians will affirm it.Seeing numerous Conservative supporters and friends over the holidays, one is struck by how offended they have become over this intrusion into their leader's life. I agree, but whether they like it or not, there is a tinge of hypocrisy in all this. The tone in the House of Commons is set by the present government, and no party in recent memory has assaulted other leaders in such a brutal fashion. This mockery finds its source in the leadership of the very man they are defending - the PM himself. He condones it and, at times, practices it with a hurtful acumen. He has no proof at all that Michael Ignatieff is "just visiting," or that the Liberal leader will raise taxes and bankrupt the country. Worse still, the PM resides over a Question Period in which the motives of Ignatieff are castigated by the Conservatives, claiming he doesn't care for the country; he just "in it for himself." To assume motives is also a principle broken. So, if some claim that the PM gets what's coming to him, it's easy to see where they're coming from. But it's not true. The principle of private respectfulness was violated by two writers, whatever the PM's actions towards other leaders.Laureen Harper joined her husband for a year-end interview and I, for one, am glad she did. He is a father and a husband, and the challenges he faces delivering on both these fronts must be enormous, as must hers.  I want to personally thank the media for not just talking the right line on this instance, but for they way they have respected private lives in the past. Overall, they have behaved honourably in these areas and it should be acknowledged.To Stephen and Laureen, thanks for putting yourselves on the tube, despite the risks you knew to be there and which inevitably emerged. I wish both of you a happy and more intrusion free New Year.