‘The minister has worn out her message box. It’s irrelevant and stale.”
“He’s just moving to a new message box.”
“The message box doesn’t cover this.”
“She just reads from her message box and sometimes she reads her lines twice.”
The above is a random sampling from a few weeks of legislative debates where NDP MLAs disdainfully refer to cabinet ministers’ talking points, and their reluctance to depart from them. There are lots more. They all have a certain contemptuous tone aimed at Liberal ministers who read what’s put in front of them, and refuse to go off-script.
So imagine my fascination when the B.C. NDP posted a help-wanted ad for a new communications director this week. Who are they looking for to fill the post of communicating on behalf of the party to which all those message box-hating politicians belong? The ad makes it clear.
“The successful candidate is a strict message-box disciplinarian, who can explain values-based communication and knows how to develop and test messages.”
A strict message-box disciplinarian. The mind reels at the implications. It suggests two shocking things right off the top. One is that the NDP, so dismissive of Liberal message boxes, in fact has a few of its own. Who would have thought?
And they are so important to the party that it’s ready to employ a “strict disciplinarian” at union rates (CUPE Local 3787) to keep people stuffed inside them. My thoughts and prayers are with the party members who tiptoe outside the box once this new Comms Tyrant takes up the whip.
The idea that the Opposition has its own set of message boxes isn’t exactly a revelation. Say “Site C dam” to any NDP MLA. They’ll recite “should be referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission” as if it’s a favourite Christmas carol.
Say “B.C. Ferries” and they’ll respond “should be part of the marine highway system.” Nobody knows what that means. But it’s comforting and familiar. It’s their message box, and it’s where they’re most at home.
“Liberals had enough money for a new B.C. Place roof, but not [insert urgent need here].” That one has been in common use for years.
They’re already pretty good at staying in their own message boxes, so it’s surprising the party needs a strict disciplinarian. The phrase conjures up images so vivid they can scarcely be described in a family newspaper.
I asked one New Democrat privately about this exciting new requirement and his mind went to whips and leather instantly. And I was there ahead of him. After all, the acronym is SMBD.
The other surprising thing in the ad is that the successful candidate will also have “a demonstrated ability to build meaningful relationships with media.”
I’ve never had a meaningful relationship with a communications director, so I am looking forward to the opportunity. Most of my relationships are built on me resenting the fact they take hours to answer or not answer my questions, and them complaining when I get things wrong.
That’s hardly the basis for a lasting bond. I look forward to taking long walks in the park with the NDP’s new communications director and talking meaningfully about our feelings.
But the two main job requirements seem mutually exclusive. The one time reporters really need a meaningful relationship with a communications director is after someone has escaped from the message box. So if the flack is going to be a strict message-box disciplinarian, we hardly need a meaningful relationship.
Just So You Know: If you’re interested in applying for this job, don’t bother. It’s posted as a formality. Trish Webb started appearing as an NDP spokesperson during the recent byelection campaigns. She has been a longtime communications person with various metro Vancouver transit entities and did a stint as communications chief for the city of Edmonton. She was also press secretary to former premier Glen Clark in 1996, the year he won the election. And another job requirement noted in the ad is: “Having served as a press secretary to a senior political figure is a strong asset.”
