Gotcha: The Roads Not Taken

This week, several candidates from various parties in Canada are learning of the power of search engines and a motivated populace. Their past statements, mis-interpreted or not, taken out of context or not, have come back to haunt them. At least one has been "fired" from her party.

So, is this what the Prime Minister dismissed as "gotcha journalism," and therefore unfair? Or is it simply due diligence on the part of print reporters and bloggers? Shouldn't all public figures be held accountable for previous actions and statements?

Anyone without a youthful indiscretion, go ahead and throw that stone. My own behavior in my late 20s pretty much guaranteed that I wouldn't be spending my life in the public eye--even if I wanted to, and even if the public wanted me to, which were perhaps the larger stumbling blocks. (By the way, though I am sorry for causing pain, I don't necessarily regret what I did [though I wouldn't do it again] or missing out on the roads I was therefore unable to take.)

Further, it should also be possible for people to change their minds without having to play verbal Twister. Remember "I smoked it but I didn't inhale"? (Doesn't one require the other?) Recent semi-famous verbal Twisters include "I was for it before I was against it" and some form of "I based my vote on the lies I was told."

The proper follow-up to both of those statements is a very serious, respectful "WHY?" Why did you change your mind? Why didn't you try to find out the truth yourself? Both are legitimate questions that let the candidate explain the process of critical (or uncritical) thinking. Go ahead, change your mind or vote inconsistently--but be able to explain why. It's entirely possible to mature in outlook, to decide that a course of action obviously isn't successful, or to change your mind because of a personal experience. Just tell us.

And now we're back to the follow-up question, the kind of question that Stephen Harper dismissed as "gotcha journalism"--a double pejorative to him. But follow-up questions--indeed, all questions about actions, platforms, and behavio(u)r--to public figures are legitimate. I'm glad Katie Couric asked Governor Palin how "being able to see Russia" equates to "foreign policy experience." I'm glad the public called Senator Clinton on her "phone call at 3 a.m." ad when she was the one who got to roll over and go back to sleep.

People running for office often claim that they want to get out and hear what the people in their riding or district are saying. They want to be known to their constituents. Fabulous. Whatever. But don't put on a v-necked sweater and expect to be done with it.

To be a public figure, you have to be answerable to the people who loan you their power. We can't all be there, so we let journalists ask you questions on our behalf. And you have to treat us, and our journalist proxies, with respect.

So--go journalists and bloggers. Use those search engines on our behalf.

And the rest of us--if you don't already know this, you should. All conversations, even by email or text messaging, are now public conversations. So behave with the civility public discourse calls for.