Dear Queen's Park Press Gallery,

I revere your tireless work during the most important period for Ontario since war and Great Depression.

I must raise an alarm, and ask you go even further and suspend natural impulses.

I do so as the ex media liaison for Public Health Ontario.

This sort of reporting is deceptive, and contains built in assumptions that doesn't leave the reader any room to question it, or demand more context.

It reveals you are unconsciously accepting narratives at face value.

You are missing red flags you wouldn't know to look for.

Because you do not know anything about public health leadership dynamics. I do.

Your eyes have not been focused there for many, many years.

You should not accept at face value any movement during this crisis especially under this government.

Red Flag One

"Personal medical ressons"

Anyone who has lived on this planet for a few years knows this is a suspicious line that's usually a cover for something else.

It is *especially* suspicious from the head of a public health agency during a pandemic.

Why would the head of a Public Health agency refuse to tell us what his personal medical reasons are?

That's antithetical to what Public Health is, and champions.

"Reasons"? That's not medical language.

If it is exhaustion or mental health reasons...

..I would expect, as a public health official who was very candid and public about my mental health struggles, and took that risk making me an easy target because I am not powerful, to make some sort of public disclosure.

Which would be consistent with public health's mission.

But in Peter's powerful position it would afford him immediate and vast public support. Powerful people become heros, the rest of us get stigmatized and shut out.

So, I have questions about that narrative being floated around.

Red Flag Two

"Senior government official"

No senior bureaucrat would talk like this to a reporter.

"WE" infers political occupiers of office. Why would a bureaucrat use the royal "we"?

So "senior govt official" in this context can be a little deceptive bc it's too broad.

And "we love the guy" is politician or political staffer language, not to mention, a Fordism.

Plus this govt has made bureaucrats fearful of arrest.

*So we know the anonymous source is a politician or staffer.*

And Christine Elliott definately wouldn't use that language.

So the "anonymous source" is 100% the Premier's Office.

Which begs a couple questions.

1. Why is the Premier's Office using the anonymous source tool, and why are they insisting on the very broad title of "govt official" to suggest the whole universe?

2. Why is the Premier's Office going to pains to assert Peter's competence?

Why are they spinning for him? It suggests a conflict.

If Doug Ford is your spinner, and you head up Public Health, something is wrong. Deeply wrong.

That's our consistent experience with Doug Ford.

Red Flag 3: Built-in story assumptions weaving a hero narrative

The overriding media narrative doesn't allow for an alternative view at all. It tells us you haven't talked to anyone except the political level. Bc you want to believe, which is natural in a public health crisis.

You may not know you made the same mistake with Clement.

I have always been interested in the personal dynamics and contributions of leaders and officials during SARS. Every key official I was able to question in confidence, people who were in the room, disputed your reporting.

Officials told me news reports of Clement's competent steering of the crisis was grossly exaggerated or flat out false. They told me he struggled to grasp core concepts in briefings and was actually a hazard.

*You have a tendency to swallow govt political PH framing in a crisis*

That's also bc PH at the provincial level is still wedded to the same restrictions ministry officials are, even tho they are technically stand-alone.

They will not tell a reporter these stories. They adhere to strict hierarchies and *legal HR muzzling*.

So, you are relying on

Your entire reporting narrative on Peter's performance is relying on Ford, and your personal opinions about his presentation as reporters. You found it compelling. I get that.

But these people disagree. They objected. They won't say so directly but they went as far as they could

ASIDE: As I am writing this in real time, more points are coming. If you have a concern, I may be addressing it shortly.

Also, this is the music I am writing to.

It is fabulous, inspiring brain food.

So back to the point.

If the Top 2 authorities in public health widely embraced by the public and their profession opposed Peter's presentation, that tells us something major.

Peter acted to please the premier, overruling professional public health guidelines and pandemic plans

Your reporting is compromised when you fail to note the subtle but also clear objections from the public health profession.

You should take greater care to qualify story framing which currently tells the public Peter's presentation enjoyed consensus approval.

Not even close.