Blame it on the internet – that seems to be Andrew MacDougall's take on political talking points and the growing tensions between the media and the Harper government.But if the former PMO comms director has some interesting thoughts on how social media is transforming political news, it is his failure to confront the real issue around talking points that is most revealing.According to MacDougall, in the 24/7 news cycle things happen so quickly that there is no longer time for the media or the government to think through their responses or research the facts.Although he finds this lamentable, holding one's tongue is not the answer, either. That would only leave the space to opponents, who would quickly fill it with their own spin. In the 24/7 world, it's kill or be killed.Moreover, there are partisan benefits to jumping out in front of an issue. The talking heads that appear on air a few minutes after a major news event are often desperate for a credible sound bite—and that is an opportunity for the government.With a few well-crafted lines, you can often get them to say just about anything. “It's like shooting fish in a barrel,” he says—and who could resist that?MacDougall has written an interesting and candid, first-hand account of what it's like these days at the interface between government and the media. I enjoyed reading it.But there is an “Aww shucks” quality to his story of how news happens that seems more than a little disingenuous. Indeed, his view of the process sounds remarkably fatalistic—especially for a government that prides itself on its skills in strategic planning and management.In MacDougall's view, life in the 24/7 cycle is an endless barrage of events, information and opinion. As the government's chief spin doctor, you do what you can to shape it in your image. And that's about all any comms director can do.I agree that today events often move at lightning speed or come out of the blue in a way that makes the old pre-internet days seem Jurassic. And I suppose if you're either a reporter or the prime minister's communications director, you have to respond. So, fair enough.But as far as I can tell, many (most?) of the really big stories over the last few years did not come out of the blue: F-35s, the Keystone and Gateway pipelines, the economic update that led to prorogation, several omnibus budget bills, cancellation of the census, the senate scandal, the Fair Elections Act…All these stories were either deeply connected to the government's agenda or to its governance style. And that doesn't sound much like MacDougall's 24/7 world where news just happens—which brings me to his view on talking points.He sees them almost as a natural consequence of the new news cycle: “If you're being asked for reaction all day, every day, on every issue, at a moment's notice and with tight deadlines, you'd dig deep in your bag of rhetoric to come up with something, anything, to say.”We don't have to disagree to think this misses—or more likely avoids—the real issue around talking points. The infuriating thing about them is not that everyone in caucus has the same answer to questions from the media.It is that, no matter what the question, MPs and spokespersons parrot the same lines ad nauseum—even when these are clearly at odds with the facts or expert opinion. And the charade can go on for weeks, as we saw with the Fair Elections Act.It is like getting to a bar at 7:00 pm to join a group of friends who have been there since lunch. The real discussion is over and now there's just a lot of embarrassingly bad speechifying.In fact, MacDougall's view that talking points are a response to hyper-activity in the 24/7 news cycle feels more like a diversion that lets him sidestep their real role. And that is to set up a firewall around key decisions and/or decision-makers.Consider the latest: When the government received a “public report” containing assessments of the four fighter jets that could replace the F-18s, its first instinct was to hold release until after cabinet had reached a decision. Why?Obviously, it thinks an informed public debate might compromise its ability to control public opinion. And how would it defend this decision? Talking points, of course. (Under opposition pressure, the government has now signaled that it will release the report—a hopeful sign!)This is a long way from MacDougall's futuristic world where talking points are the government's best defense against a Tsunami of information and opinions. On the contrary, as we've learned over the years, their real purpose is nothing less than to stop the media in their tracks.So could the government survive without them in this new world?At one point, MacDougall ribs the talking heads: Instead of faking that they know what is really going on, he says just once he would like to hear one of them say, “how the hell would I know, IT JUST HAPPENED! Come back to me in an hour after I've read the freaking press release!"Well, wouldn't it be nice if, just once, we heard the government say, “How the hell would we know? The issues are so complicated that there is no single right or wrong answer. Why don't we sit down and talk it through with you?”I don't know if that day will ever come but, if it does, I predict that talking points will not be a part of it.Dr. Don Lenihan is Chair of the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team and Senior Associate at Canada's Public Policy Forum in Ottawa. He is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and public engagement, accountability and service delivery. Don's latest book, Rescuing Policy: The Case for Public Engagement is an introduction to the field of public engagement, a blueprint for change, and a sustained argument for the need to rethink the public policy process. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan