Does Ottawa's skip-the-media strategy get the message out?

Government critics of the media seem increasingly convinced these days that they can do the job of communicating a message better than journalists can and, as a result, they are coming up with their own approaches.

• Canada Revenue Agency seeking media response web page

Which would be fine, at least from the critics' perspective, if they were right. Unfortunately, evidence to date suggests that, for the most part, theyreally aren't. Efforts to eliminate the middleman often endup muddling the message.

As The Canadian Press reported over the weekend, the Canada Revenue Agencyisconsideringsetting up a special websitetocountermediareports that, in its view, fail to include the "positive messaging" provided to reporters.

Meanwhile, seemingly undaunted by the stubbornly lacklustre viewer numbers for its weekly "24-Seven" video recap,the prime minister's in-house webteamhas launched a daily version.

Theimage-heavy, tablet-ready site is dominated bylinks tostandard government policy-boosting boilerplatereworked into lists "Seven reasons to become an apprentice," "Four ways families will pay less tax in 2015" as well as such features as a 600-word essay on Sir John A. Macdonald and a timeline of the search for the Franklin expedition.

And right about here is where some readers, at least, are probably readying themselves for yet anotherfinger-wagging tirade against this government'srelentless efforts tofind new ways to communicate its message directly to Canadians, rather than be forced torun the gauntlet of the press gallery.

Surprise!This isn't that. Well, not exactly.

When it comes to comment, relevance counts

First, on theCanada Revenue Agency project which CP reports received a green light last fall but has yet to go live you'd be hard-pressed to find a journalist who wouldobject toagency officialspostingaresponsewhen hit with a flurry ofrequests ona topic.

That doesn't mean those same reporters wouldn't prefer a personal reply ideally,one thattakes into account the specific question and not a cookie-cutterstatement that may notmeettheir needs.

As the revenue agency proposal implicitly acknowledges, if thegovernmentwon'ttalk to journalists, there are any number of other voiceskeen to fill that silence, from opposition members toacademics to interest groups.

There is nothing problematic about the agencyposting what the memo describes as"relevant, approved material in instances where a journalist has written an article without reflecting the CRA's input."

For many reporters, the frustration intryingto extractinformationfrom adepartment or agency is that far too oftenthe "approved" material isn't "relevant."

Instead of clear answers, the media often get general comments so broadasto be all but meaningless.

That could be less the fault of departmental media relations officers and more the result of centralized message-control by the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic arm of the Prime Minister's Office.

If government bodiesregularly delivered "relevant, approved material"to reporters,it would almost certainly be included in coverage.

Maybe a more open-handed approach to media relations would negate the need for a section devoted to after-the-fact rebuttals.

• LaureenHarper getting plenty of screen time in government videos
• PM's '24 Seven' videos prompt more opposition questions

24 Seven in search of audience

As for the latest evolution in prime ministerialinfomercials,ifStephen Harper's communications staffersare keentoshare his activities with a wider audience, they could always start opening up more of his events to the press orat least, a pool reporter, la White House presidential protocol.

Many media outlets are reluctant to use handout photos from the Prime Minister's Office (or fromany party or government-paid photographer); allowing the media to take their own is a better guarantee they'll be used.

While it would mean giving up absolute control over the final product, it would almost certainly reach a wider audience through a medium that still holds some credibility with Canadians.

Aprofessionalbroadcast journalist, for instance,could likely edit down this 15-minute video from Harper's recent appearance at the British Columbia Institute for Technology into a highlight reel that would be watched by more than 71 diehard 24 Seven fans.

In the meantime, however, the 24 Seven media empire seems far more likely to be bookmarked by journalists keeping tabs on the taxpayer-funded initiatives the Prime Minister's Office is or isn't going outof its wayto tout during the lead-up to the next election.

And when the writs are issued for the next campaign, we can expect eachparty to follow the Conservatives' lead and post its own exclusive footage from the hustings, only to be frustrated when it ends up on the cutting room floor.