In the world of media, transparency is a cloudy term.
If you ask a journalist, transparency is the honest and full disclosure of documents, behaviour, conflicts of interest and all manner of information pertaining to a particular issue.
And in cases where legal matters are pending or people's characters may be unduly disparaged, the journalist than is transparent about the reasons why gaps in information exist.
If you ask a spin doctor, however, transparency becomes an exercise in "due diligence" and "plausible deniability."
Seems there were some expert media handlers on hand today at a press conference meant to shed light on the Tasering of an 11-year-old resident of a group home after he stabbed a youth worker.
But after hearing the assigned police spokesperson respond "I don't know" to almost every question, that term "plausible deniability" jumps to mind.
It's wise to withhold judgment in such sensitive situations, and a much-needed investigation is underway, but why hold a press conference when the spokesperson has not a clue what's going on?
That's not transparency, it's the appearance of transparency - a very different thing.
And when we're told that not one, but two RCMP media information officers are in town to handle that one case - when the entire P.G. detachment has one media officer for all cases all year round - we get the full scope of the type of hands the organization has on this deck.
And who can blame them? Tasering is already an issue steeped in controversy, and when you add in the fact it's most likely the youngest person ever to be Tasered by police, stand back and watch the condemnation fly.
The RCMP's best defence against whiplash conclusions would be to answer something - anything - to shed light on this situation.
For example where did this take place?
The RCMP representative could not tell media where it happened - even vague whereabouts were unknown.
Did the boy live in a group home? Unknown. (We were able to uncover some information about that from the Ministry of Children and Family Development.)
How about the child's size? That information too is unavailable. And a follow up question would be have Tasers been approved for individuals of this size?
What was the child's behaviour at the time of the Tasering? Information not available.
And a follow up question would be what about the emotional after effects of such a young person already in emotional distress?
The RCMP would be wise to take the same route taken after a recent mugging victim complained that a police officer dropped off the suspect a few blocks later, claiming he was swamped with calls that night and couldn't take the time to process the alleged robber.
Come clean and explain what will be done to make sure similar behaviour is not repeated. That was a shining moment for P.G.'s finest.
Being transparent doesn't always mean admitting to wrongdoing - it's very possible the circumstances of this case actually saved the 11-year-old boy from more harm, who knows? But reporting the facts is the only approach to avoid speculation to run rampant -- and it may also save the RCMP's credibility.
