The grey clouds hung over Media land as we checked and cross-checked facts pertaining to maintaining infrastructure, and exercised our limited arithmetic skills to decipher municipal budgets.

All the while, we dined on a bitter diet of doomsayers and their predictions that we would soon be denizens of the street, clad in discarded barrels and selling apples to get by.

Then, in a glorious flash of light, Ontario PC leader John Tory is beaten in a byelection and resigns his position. Locally, federal Liberal candidate Rebecca Finch quits the party and there's a leaked memo with some juicy quotes from the outspoken Ms. Finch.

Eureka! Praise the patron saint of pundits! Political reporting had returned and it was time to feast.

What's better than being on the beat when politicians are in some measure of distress? We can be journalism's NASCAR fan; sitting in the stands, swilling our beer and waiting for someone to crash and burn.

And all we have to do for our paycheques is whip up some recycled commentary, sprinkle on some negative quotes and spice it with alarmist phraseology. (For instance, don't say 'angry,' say 'outraged'; don't say 'internal disagreements,' say 'internal strife').

Politics is the cash cow of the media pseudo intelligentsia - high returns on minimal investment.

John Tory accommodated the media gluttony since the 2007 election when he announced full funding for faith-based schools. Great stuff. All we had to do was follow the guy around on the bus, jot down the same copy, insert a fresh quote from yet another reactionary half-wit who was mad as hell, and pass it off as topical journalism.

We could have done the investigative thing. We could have figured how much such financing would affect the overall education budget. We also could have researched the cost of funding students already in the faithbased schools, in comparison to funding the same kids if they were moved to the public system.

But why bother? Party down, dude! Pass me another beer.

Now, with Mr. Tory gone, the pundits are turning a quick buck with platitudes on what would have happened if he had been more politically savvy and attained the premiership.

An answer to this question, if one really exists, could be found by gauging the performance of Dufferin-Caledon MPP Sylvia Jones. She was, after all, executive assistant to Mr. Tory when he was our local representative and could not help but, to a certain extent, be mentored by him.

I don't share the same political stripe as Ms. Jones and often dispute her outlook on several issues. I am also convinced she is an outstanding MPP.

As community and social services critic, she has tempered her conservatism with compassion and been instrumental in the passing of crucial legislation. She has assembled a crack constituency team, is highly visible to the public and is accessible by the media.

On the other hand, she's the type who issues a stream of releases that spark public debate, keep the political reporters informed and, thus, force them to actually do their job. What a party pooper!

As for Rebecca Finch, she was, and remains, in the vanguard of a generation of Canadians waking up and clamouring for change. They are insightful, educated and ticked off at the meaningless mudslinging and anecdotal needling that take up too much time on Parliament Hill. They want results and they expect their elected representatives to get the job done.

She gave it her best shot during the campaign; maintaining a sense of decorum when the black ops boys from the bowels of Conservative headquarters proceeded to take snippets from her past writings and falsely, not to mention ridiculously, accuse her of marginalizing the crimes of Hitler and Stalin.

And, of course, the media devoured it all like ravenous hounds.

Now that she's leaving the party, someone in the party association ranks releases what is clearly an internal memo to the press. The result of such a petty, spiteful action is a riding association hurt by a public perception of divisiveness.

I have to ask the Dufferin-Caledon Deep Throat: What's your point? Are you trying to fracture the local Liberal riding association for the sake of the Liberal party? If so, you're the type of person who would give up Catholicism for Lent. But you are also clever enough to know that the media will pounce on the cheap thrill and easy story.

Ms. Finch deserves better than this. Then again, in our world, the fates might not permit a frank and honest soul like Rebecca Finch to go gentle into that good night.

What worries me is that, one of these days, the folks in elected office will decide the mainstream media needs them more than they need the mainstream media. Bi-partisan committees could get together at Queens Park and Parliament Hill and say "ignore these parasites. If anyone is truly interested in what's going on here, they can read and compare our websites and blogs."

Oh sure, we will don our crusader's armour and declare war on this censorship. Unfortunately, in the midst of this holy hoopla, some wise-cracking guy on the street will pass by, snicker and holler out: "Yo, Don Quixote, what wind mill you attacking today?"

(Ouch. The last thing a political reporter wants is to come face to face with is his overblown sense of public credibility).

What it all boils down is that, in the world of politics and political media, there are more and more semantics and less and less substance. Maybe, just maybe, politicians will be more forthcoming, balanced, and issues-oriented in their dealings with the media if maybe, just maybe, the media was more straightforward, balanced, and issues-oriented in its reporting.