I sent out a message on Twitter saying I was working on a piece on Canadian journalism in 2008.

I received the following tweet (actually, the only response) by @jayrosen_nyu on Jan. 1: "Small case study in Harper's suspension of Parliament. Who explained it best across the press and blogosphere?"

That would be as much a master's thesis as it would be a blog post. :)

But I'm going to attempt to tackle it and examine the issue of what happened and how the media should apply those lessons to political coverage in 2009.

You can see this evolve in real time, so pitch in some thoughts, if you wish.

First of all, here's where you can review the chain of events.

Reality check time

In the immediate aftermath of the Nov. 27 statement, the Tories insisted politicians had to show some leadership on cutting expenses.

Sure, but the Tories also knew full well that they have a major fundraising advantage over their opponents (to their credit), and that Harper loyalist Tom Flanagan has said the party has a strategy to financially wear down its opponents. The plan to eliminate public funding would disproportionately hit the Liberals and especially the BQ.

Decide for yourself whether it's telling the Conservatives didn't mention eliminating the funding during either the campaign or throne speech.

The media did cover this off in terms of the news of the day, but did they break it out enough online to ensure that this angle didn't get buried? I dunno. Why don't you hunt around to the major news websites and tell me what you find.

If you can't find very much, ask yourself about why our recent history has disappeared so quickly (this all took place less than six weeks ago).

However, if the government was being disingenous about its motives for attacking party financing, I really wonder if the opposition parties expect everyone to believe they would have launched the coalition if the economic update hadn't included the financing clause.

Much of the background on public financing got lost. For example, while it was easy to hear the conservative rhetorical question about why should even one public dollar go to supporting political parties, I seem to remember one argument at the time being that it made your vote worth something. Even if your party didn't win, it would get funding if it captured at least two per cent of the vote. This would theoretically encourage people to get out and vote.

If someone could point to a backgrounder on the issue that got published anywhere, I'd be most grateful.

The media did better on the issue of whether a coalition government would be constitutionally permissible (it is).

CTV.ca offered an FAQ on the coalition, published Dec. 1. It also published an analysis by The Canadian Press's Jim Brown on Dec. 4, which said that Harper's protestations about how it would be undemocratic to change governments without a new election are simply wrong.

But as a Dec. 2 Globe and Mail headline noted, 'It's a PR war now' (a quote from an unnamed senior Tory).

Toronto Star columnist James Travers fretted that on Dec. 4 that  "our democratic literacy is so weak that suddenly concerned citizens are struggling and often failing to understand events in their capital. That makes them vulnerable to the spin, misinformation and remanufactured truth now inflaming passions and pushing tempers into the red zone."

Remember words such as "coup d'etat," "treason" and "sedition" were being thrown around -- and that was by Conservative MPs.

However, politically, it worked for Harper. He identified a wedge issue, pushed it and turned public opinion his favour*. In a Harris-Decima poll conducted for The Canadian Press and released Dec. 8, 70 per cent of respondents thought the Harper government should stay in power. Ignatieff would be named Liberal leader on Dec. 9, but the poll didn't find that much more support for a coalition led by him instead of Dion -- 38 per cent vs. 32 per cent.

* On Dec. 3, the Globe and Mail published a story about Harper that could be seen as disquieting. Here are the opening paragraphs:

Realpolitik and the media

In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, the New Yorker published a damning indictment of Bush's record during his first term in office (my blog posting from the time). As we know, Bush won re-election.

Afterwards, I thought to myself, "but how many copies of the New Yorker do they sell in Nebraska, Oklahoma and Wyoming?" -- classic "red states" that went heavily for Bush.

In the Canadian context, I wonder how influential the two national newspapers are in reach compared to television or cumulatively, to local metro and community newspapers or radio?

The West, for example, was quite unequivocal: It didn't want the Harper government ousted by a Dion-led coalition comprised of socialists, separatists and opportunists, as one long-time Tory put it (although trying to cut public financing at a time when your opponents are perceived as weak apparently isn't opportunistic).

I haven't lived out west since 2000. I didn't follow Western media coverage of the crisis as it unfolded and so I can't say whether they tried to fact-check the various sides, offer a fair range of opinion or address gaps in peoples' knowledge about how our political system actually works.

However, I do suspect it wouldn't have made much difference. Vast swaths of the West are congenitally conservative and they wanted the Harper Tories to stay.

Both sides were dishonest about their motivations for both triggering and responding to this political crisis.

One could fairly conclude the Tories were aggressively mendacious on the issue of whether the coalition was constitutionally legitimate -- an approach they maintained throughout the crisis.

But policitical communications is about persuading, and Harper is nothing if not a skilled political communicator.

On Dec. 9, Harper had a sit-down interview with CBC TV's Peter Mansbridge. The questions about the crisis start at 6:40 on the video.*

* Bizarrely, the CBCNews.ca story based on the interview almost entirely skipped over Harper's machinations, focusing instead on the budget. The headline was Harper aims to unveil fiscal stimulus package in late January.

"... I'm not there to play parliamentary games. We were elected to provide our economic plan. If Parliament rejects our economic plan, obviously there will be consequences, but first, let's get everybody focusing on what those economic actions should be and the government will come forward and present a wide range of economic measures in January."

He skipped over first delaying a confidence test on his economic statement and didn't mention the fact that he asked the governor general to prorogue Parliament, thus shutting things down until January.

Mansbridge asked if it was a parliamentary game to go after the right to strike and to attempt to end public financing of political parties. He said those two measures in particular appeared to provoke the crisis.

"No, but I don't agree with that, Peter. I don't agree with that at all," Harper said. "First of all, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to listen to the opposition and make changes. I'd say I wish we have that kind of input before we take action rather than after. But I think the issue here is very simple. Frankly, after the election, if not before the election, the opposition parties decided they would work against the government as essentially a unified front."

Mansbridge: "You believe that there was a conspiracy right from the get-go."

Harper: "I think it's absolutely clear that was their position*."

* Note: A cursory overview of coverage from the latter stages of the election finds that there was coalition talk floating around, but if memory serves me correctly, Dion poured cold water on the idea of a coalition with the NDP.

Mansbridge: "No matter what you put in that economic statement ..."

Harper: "Absolutely clear that was their position. It's clear from the statements of a number the leaders themselves. It's clear in the lead-up ... to that economic and fiscal update. Iif you look at the lines of attack they were using in the House of Commons. And look, Peter, what I would say is this: It's a very simple choice for the country right now. If that's how the Parliament's going to function, Parliament's going to be very unstable. But I don't think that's what Canadians elected us to do. They elected us to deal with the economy. Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton made it clear, they wanted to defeat the government no matter what. But what I would say to the Liberal party, which I think has deeper and broader longer-run interests, is simply come to the table, work with us. I can tell you, they will have a willing partner if they want to sit down and put their ideas on the table and work together for the best interests of this economy. That's what we were elected to do. If people want to change the government with a totally different government than was elected by the public, then I think that's a whole different issue and that's another election. But I don't think that's what people want."

Mansbridge asked Harper if he had no regrets about anything he did or said.

Harper: "Look, you picked out the political subsidy issue. Let's be very clear: The public firmly supports the government's position on this. Firmly supports the government. And that position, in our judgment, is in the public interest. But what I say to you is this, Peter: the government has shown that the government is willing to make changes to accommodate the opposition. ..."

Harper went on to say that it would not be in the national interest to give the Bloc a veto the governing affairs of this country.

Mansbridge asked about the Conservatives' co-operation with the Bloc over the 2004 Liberal throne speech.

Harper initially brushed off the question, going on to say that none of the opposition parties said they would engage in a coalition.

"I have never as prime minister, nor would I ever, put myself in position where I could not govern the country except by the veto of the Bloc Quebecois. That would be extremely dangerous for me as a prime minister, extremely dangerous for any prime minister."

He went on to say that he never had a plan to form a coalition with the Bloc.*

* On Dec. 2, the Liberals released a Sept. 9, 2004 letter authored by Harper proposing a coalition with the NDP and Bloc be considered if the Liberals were shown to no longer have the confidence of the House of Commons

With the full benefit of hindsight, I would have asked Harper that if the Bloc made some outrageous demand of the NDP and Liberals, wouldn't he, as a responsible opposition leader, rush in to support the government so it could say no to the Bloc's demands.

Here's the first words out of Mansbridge's mouth after Harper stopped talking.

"Okay, we're out of time."

Had there been more time, perhaps Mansbridge could have challenged Harper on a few points:

• Mr. Prime Minister: The Bloc would have no cabinet presence and agreed to support the government on matters of confidence fo 18 months. How does that give them a veto?
• What in the coalition agreement advances the BQ sovereignty agenda?
• Why do you call them "separatists" in English but ""souverainistes" in French?
• The Globe and Mail reported on Dec. 3 that you were prepared to polarize the Conservative Party on Quebec/ROC lines had Bernard Lord entered the race? Is that true?
• If your government's survival depended on the support of the Bloc Quebecois, would you prefer that it fell?
• Why did you work with the Bloc to destabilize the Paul Martin-led Liberal government in the fall of 2004 over that government's throne speech?
• You said you "wish we have that kind of input before we take action rather than after." What sort of consultation did you engage in with the opposition leaders before the economic and fiscal update? Did the proposal on ending public funding for political parties catch them offguard?
• On Oct. 18, 2004, you said: "They (the Liberals) can't govern as if they have a majority." Why did you attempt to govern as a majority?
• If you suspect they were looking for a reason to bring you down, why did you make it easier for them? Since they had been talking of the need for stimulus, why was the fiscal and economic update almost totally lacking in such measures?
• Why would the opposition parties pass your throne speech, a confidence test, then threaten to bring your government down and create a coalition government over the economic and fiscal update? Why didn't they just bring you down at the first opportunity?
• Why was there no mention of a proposal to cut funding to political parties in either your government's throne speech or in the just-finished federal election campaign?
• If the coalition is invalid because they didn't campaign on the possibility in the federal election (although most constitutional experts say it is valid), how about you introducing highly controversial and partisan measures into your economic and fiscal update that you never campaigned upon?

Sadly, it's too bad Mansbridge couldn't have shown Harper this YouTube video and got his reaction (I don't believe it was available until Dec. 10):

That came from Impolitical, who bills her/himself as a coalition blogger, which is an aborted outgrowth of Progressive Bloggers.

But one question is, did a similar version ever make it to the nation's television sets? There are parliamentary bureaus and video researchers who should either remember or be looking for this stuff.

More to come ...