We realize the wonders of technology have caused sweeping changes in the way people communicate with each other.
Phones, email, texting, social media programs, etc. allow many people to keep in touch 24/7. It’s up to the individual to decide if that’s a good thing or not.
But when it comes to electronic/digital communication locally, at least as far as communicating with media goes, nobody has embraced email in quite the same way as Parks Canada.
Unfortunately, Parks Canada seemingly uses email as a way to evade direct communication with the media, and therefore, in turn, the public. For months now, Parks Canada has been fielding questions from the Outlook on a wide range of issues via email. Often, questions aren’t answered at all, just a statement given.
We imagine our readers have wondered why, so often, Parks has refused to comment on questions posed by Outlook staff, or are quoted with answers that have been travelling back and forth through the ether. Trust us, it’s not laziness on the part of Outlook reporters that results in “no comment at press time” additions to stories.
Clearly, the decision comes from well above, at national office level, sometimes even the environment minister’s office – this decision no doubt affects other federal ministries. Overall, a tight lid has been clamped on what Parks is allowed to communicate to the outside world through media outlets.
For example, it took seven months for an Outlook reporter to find out about Parks Canada’s efforts to keep the lid on a bear being struck by a CP train in Banff. Through a paper trail revealed through access to information requests, it was clear that Parks staff in Banff had encouraged the release of the news, while at upper levels – far, far away in glittery Ottawa – that encouragement was quashed.
You have to wonder why. The bear was not the first to be struck by a CP train on the tracks in our mountain parks; it may not be the last. But, rather than grab the opportunity to proclaim despair at the bear’s death and highlight the $1 million Parks Canada-Canadian Pacific Railway joint action plan designed to alleviate deaths on the tracks in future, Parks decided being mum was the way to go.
Most recently, Parks has very little to say about railway cars resting in 40 Mile Creek after a derailment, while claiming there are no environmental issues. It’s hard to imagine a railway car carrying soybeans, possibly with hyrdraulic lines still full of fluid, axle bearings packed with grease, etc. not constituting some kind of issue – the creek, after all, is home to fish species.
Parks has nothing to say, but at least CP responded to questions.
We’re not surprised – almost any question posed to the federal agency these days is responded to via email – a nice, safe way of answering questions, from Parks’ point of view, that doesn’t allow a reporter to jump in with a followup questions.
We would like to point out, though, that at no time have we received lame answers to queries from Banff, Canmore or MD council members, or MLA Ron Casey.
Another issue we have with Parks’ embracing of email as communications policy and a general unwillingness to comment on what is asked of it, is that the issue goes only one way.
If Parks, for example, wants to tout its oTenTik camping experience, or make it known what a hit red chairs have become, or that a fun or happy festivity like a Canadian citizenship ceremony is happening at the Cave and Basin – they suddenly bubble forth like a hot springs, with all kinds of information.
If that’s not controlling media messaging, we don’t what is.
From our point of view, a newspaper’s job is to get information out there, so we often flog Parks’ “good news” stories because we do know residents, visitors and much of the world in general finds all things about Banff of interest.
On the other hand, we also know that interest also finds a focus in bear deaths, train derailments, issues over tourism numbers and how special events affect roads, traffic, wildlife and Banff citizens.
And this is where we’re running into a Parks brick wall. And this is where you, the public, end up on the short end of receiving valuable information concerning our – everyone’s – national parks in this area.
