Nuanced. - 165. Steve Paikin: Can We Trust Government Funded News?

Episode Date: August 14, 2024

Aaron Pete speaks with Steve Paikin on the role of curiosity in journalism, the evolving media landscape, and the impact of media biases on political coverage in Canada, along with invaluable advice for aspiring leaders. Send us a textThe "What's Going On?" PodcastThink casual, relatable discussions like you'd overhear in a barbershop....Listen on: Apple Podcasts   SpotifySupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

Welcome back to another episode of The Bigger Than Me podcast. Here is your host, Aaron P. We have a lot of different issues facing us around the world, which makes great journalism that much more important. We need voices that are balanced, thoughtful, and hold power accountable. Today I'm speaking with the anchor of TV Ontario's flagship current affairs program, The Agenda. We talk about hosting debates and the importance of curiosity in journalism. My guest today is Steve Paken.

Steve, I am a huge follower of great journalists, so it's an honor to speak with you today. Would you mind first briefly introducing yourself? Sure. Steve Paken is the name. I have for 18 years hosted a program on public television in the province of Ontario. TVO is the channel. The show is called The Agenda, but I've been at TVO 32 years, having done four other shows before this one. and I've been in journalism full-time, oh my goodness, 42 years now, 1982 was my first job. So I've been at it for a while.

May I ask, what got you interested in the craft? Inate curiosity. I think I'm just the most curious person I know. And as a result, I went off to university, Aaron, and I really didn't have a clue what I wanted to do. And I think somehow, well, through a series of serendipitous experiences, I managed to find my way into journalism, which is just as well, because it's the kind of thing you can make a living at if you're curious. So that's, so far it's working out okay. What do you think makes a great journalist? I'd start with what I just said, curiosity.

I've spoken from time to time in journalism schools across the province of Ontario. And one of the things I say to the young students who are in those programs is if you just want to be famous, like if you're going into journalism just because you want to be on TV and you want to be famous, I really don't have too much to say to you because to me that's the wrong reason to go in. You know, it's sometimes a byproduct of being in that business. But if that's really all you want, like I got nothing to say to you. But if you're curious about how the world works, If you want to find stuff out and try to analyze and convey that information to other people, that I can help you with.

I can give you some advice on that. So that's my brief speech. Can you give a reflection? You've been in journalism a long time, and it seems to be shifting. Conversations are constant around where the industry is going, whether or not it's going in the right direction or the wrong direction. What are your reflections on that? Well, it's both, of course. It's going in the right direction in some cases and in the wrong direction in other places.

You will not be surprised to hear me say, as a guy who's worked in legacy media my whole life, I'm deeply concerned about what's happening to legacy media right now. I'm deeply concerned about the fact that major newspapers don't seem to be able to find a business model that will support their continued existence. I find that extremely problematic for the smooth functioning of democracy. On the other hand, I'm very happy to see a lot of the sort of smaller, digital, you know, more independent voices starting to bloom and getting a lot of that going. I like that. You know, where it's all going to shake out, I have no idea.

But I think there's plenty to be happy about and plenty to be deeply concerned about. One piece on that is we used to have, it felt like, more shared narratives. We'd read the same newspapers. We'd have debates on the topics that were in the newspaper. Now it seems like everybody has their own echo chambers or their own areas of discussion. And so there's more division on what are the important topics we should be talking about. Do you think that that's increasing? Not only increasing, but a real problem as well.

Yes, there was something. And look, we're not going to go back, so there's no point in lamenting over it, but there was something kind of sweet. Well, for example, I used to cover, I was a daily on-the-ground reporter at the Ontario legislature, whatever, 30 years ago. And there was something kind of cohesive, more socially cohesive about a society

where most people at some point picked up a daily newspaper during the course of the day and had this shared experience, as you've put it, of understanding what the big is, issues were of the day and how we were sort of all going to figure out a way to resolve these issues. I'm not saying we don't have that anymore because, of course, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Sun, the National Post, they're still out there, making Toronto one of the truly great newspaper cities in North America. I mean, four daily newspapers is really quite

amazing. But they don't have the heft they once had. They don't have the ability to set the agenda that all of politics, therefore, would follow, they don't have that anymore. And there are a lot of smaller voices that are shining lights on different things, which, again, is great. But in the process of all of that happening, we do seem to have lost this ability

for us all to be more cohesive around, I don't know, a single narrative or a single project or something like that. I don't know what we do about it. I don't know, I mean, some days, It seems very frustrating on some days, and other days I choose to see the glass half full, so I don't know. Who do you think is the most disadvantaged by us not having that shared narrative anymore? Oh, wow.

Good question and a hard question, the most disadvantaged. I tend not to break up our society into different groups. I tend to want to, I mean, certainly in my own career, when I do my job, when I'm broadcast, when I'm when I'm posting a program, I never really think, well, this will be good for this particular sect of our audience or of our society. And therefore, I'm going to sort of narrow cast to them. I don't think that way. I always think about 16 million Ontarians and speaking to them. And of course, there's lots of spillover. I mean, I work for TVO, the O being Ontario, But the reality is with social media, people across the country, people around the world, in fact, are able to consume our content.

But I'm still very focused on the 16 million, and I don't tend to break it up into smaller chunks than that. So I'm not really narrow casting, so I don't think of your question in that way. I'm still, even though technically I don't know that this exists anymore, I'm still broadcasting. So that's a lousy answer to a good question. Yeah, the way that I came about that question is I'm just thinking about who's advocating for vulnerable populations. How do we make sure that their voice is still being heard while these changes take place and making sure that we don't leave anyone behind as how we communicate on complex issues start to change? I'd like to think that regardless of what model we're pursuing in media nowadays, days that we all have an eye towards vulnerable populations. I mean, I know that is certainly a huge

part of what we do at TVO. I know that we are focused on the issues that vulnerable populations certainly, I mean, they're never far from our minds. But it's not to say that if you work for one of these smaller digital publications that may be a single interest or a much more narrow interest, that they can't focus on that as well. I hope it's not the case that the most vulnerable among us are somehow being left behind worse because of the media landscape we operate in now. I hope that isn't happening. Is there a cause for concern with government-funded media? Sure. Although I've got to say, I'm a lot less perturbed about it than I think a lot of people are. And that may be because I have worked for government-funded media for 40 years.

I used to work at the CBC before I worked at TVO, and they are both publicly funded media. And never once during the course of my doing my job have I ever thought to myself, hmm, can I cover this story given who my funder is? Or do I have to pull my punches given who my funder is? or do I have to sort of do this differently, given who my funder is? I just never thought that way. And I think I don't, listening, I could be incredibly naive about this, Aaron, but I don't think so. I think the people who work in publicly funded media, like the CBC, like TVO, like various

newspapers right now, legacy newspapers, I don't think they think, oh boy, I better not cover this story because it's going to do. tick off the government of the day and jeopardize our funding. I just don't think journalists think that way. I think they go, I think they try to find stories. Damn the torpedoes. So I'll be a little story on this. The chair and CEO of TVO, oh gosh, I guess about 20 years ago, was a woman named Isabelle Bassett. And she had been a former Ontario cabinet minister. And then she lost her seat and she got appointed by the government of the day, which was the same government she had just been defeated by, as a part of, they gave her this job. And Mike Harris was the Premier of

Ontario and then he stepped down and his replacement was a guy named Ernie Eves. We're going back to 2002 now. And Ernie Eves and Isabel Bassett were life partners. So we have a situation where the Premier of Ontario, our chief funder, and the chair and CEO of TVO are, for all intensive purposes, husband and wife. And I can tell you, never once did she interfere in the job that I tried to do. And never once did I say to myself, ooh, I better go easy on Premier Eves because after all, I don't want to get in trouble with my boss. It never happened. And that's the tradition that I have come up with, have come up through. So this issue of are journalists able to be independent thinkers while taking public money from the government of the day? I mean,

I clearly see the potential conflict of interest there, but it's never been part of my life, and I don't know that it's been part of the experience of others that I know who are in that situation. Sorry for the long answer, but it's complicated, but I think it's doable. Agreed. And I think that's a really good anecdotal reference point, because we're dealing with this right now where it does seem if you're a journalist at the CBC, you do have some cause for concern with the current leader of the official opposition party if he does follow through on what he's saying. And I don't know how those journalists are processing that challenging circumstance. Well, I don't know about that. But I mean, let's look at the other

side of that coin, which is, yes, the current liberal government of Canada has put, what, $650 million or so towards a fund that legacy newspapers and media can draw from in order to try to stay alive. And despite that, the coverage of the current liberal government of Canada is incredibly tough. And the current liberal government of Canada is what? Anywhere from 15 to 18 to 20 points behind the current Conservative Party of Canada. So if the concern here is that that $650 million is somehow buying sweeter coverage than the current government would otherwise get, show me the evidence. I'm not sure I see the evidence. What I see is plenty tough coverage that has in part contributed to the fact that the liberals are 15 to 20 points behind the conservatives right now.

So someone's going to have to show me the evidence of how the liberals are getting all this sweet coverage because of this subsidy. Because, frankly, I don't see it. I definitely agree within the past year. I guess my pushback would be perhaps we do know that the professional, the professional process of journalism does have more sympathy, I would say overall for liberal and left-leaning viewpoints, just even in the way the debates have been framed in recent years and the discussion topics that are viewed as important. And I would leave you personally out of that category. So this isn't a discussion of your perspective. I've watched a lot of the debates you've done. I've watched a lot of the discussions you've had. But overall, when I watch the CBC and they do

like a power play type show and I watch CTVs, I find Vashi Capellos much harder and then she brings more diverse viewpoints than I find that the CBC has. personally, from my own experience, just watching their different styles. Aaron, I would tell you, I think that's all in the eye of the beholder. I'd love to see a systematic, what do they call it, longitudinal study, comparing private broadcasting with public broadcasting to see if there really is that big difference. I don't know. I see, I mean, let's take the ad issue panel, for example.

I mean, they're plenty tough on the current liberal government. Andrew Coyne is plenty tough on the current liberal government. And, you know, so is Chantelle Ibert, whom I've known for 40 years. And I used to share an office with at Queens Park when we both covered the government of Ontario back in the early 1980s. I appreciate that that is your view. But I think that is a personal opinion of yours. I would be tempted to say, prove it. Because I don't, you know, you can say it all you like.

But the evidence that I bring to this discussion. is, if so many journalists were cooking the books for the federal liberals and presenting issues in a way that supports the liberal agenda, then why are they 20 points behind the conservatives? I think you've got to bring some evidence to that dance. Okay, so I'll try and bring a few reference points. And again, I'm totally open-minded. I'm not trying to be definitive in this or hold a strong position. The first reference point, I would say, is the topics that are viewed.

and you may have heard Jordan Peterson say something similar to this is that the topics that were viewed as important during the last election and the previous election to that, focused on issues that, of course, the Liberal Party had stronger arguments for, but the economy wasn't a top priority. Housing wasn't nearly as important a topic. And so that's one reference point where just the topics that were viewed as important, climate change, indigenous issues, those were kind of the, the market. key issues of the day that were put forward by journalists. Those are of course going to disadvantage what the conservatives would like to focus on, which is perhaps the economy, perhaps housing, perhaps business and economic development initiatives. And I'm not saying that that's right or wrong. I'm just saying that what the conservatives would love to focus on was not the focus of what the debates were focused on. So of course, they're going to be disadvantaged in the conversation because they're having to discuss issues that they'd probably rather not focus on. Well, I'd push back on two things.

I'd say, number one, despite what you just said, the conservatives got more votes than the liberals in the last two elections. So that's number one. And number two, I wonder if another explanation for the phenomenon you've just described is that the conservatives happen to have put forward two leaders who were not as good as the guy who ended up winning the most number of seats. Now, you know, I understand we have a first-past-the-post system that sometimes torques the popular vote and doesn't present in the seat count what the popular vote actually reflects. I get that. But the reality is, and I think you'll get conservative saying this today, Justin Trudeau, I mean, you can say this objectively. He is one of the best campaigners most of us have ever seen. You know, whether you like it. his government, whether you like his governing style, whether you like the decisions he's made. That's another question. I put that to the side. As a guy on the hustings, he's one of the best ever. As two guys on the hustings, the last two conservative leaders were not. Let's just put it that way. So I think that might have had something to do with the phenomenon you've just described.

Okay. The second example I would give is I've interviewed, I don't know if you know her Candice Malcolm, who runs, who's the founder of True North Media, we're seeing more right-wing, right-leaning independent news than we're seeing left-wing independent news arising. And I would say that that is also a contribution of this phenomenon, because all of those right-leaning media, say legacy media, corporate-funded media, government-funded media, they're all leaning this way. That's why we have to exist. That's how Rebel News is starting. True North Media is saying there's a void here.

They're not covering these issues with these perspectives. That's why we have to exist. Now, I watch and I monitor their perspectives because I think it's good to take in news from a variety of sources. But we're seeing much more of that on one side of the spectrum. And I think that may be a response to a lack in the system. Maybe. And I'm all in favor of it, for what it's worth. I think it's great that these other newer, I don't care where they are on the political spectrum, more conservative, more liberal, whatever.

I'm glad they're, I hope they can find an audience. I hope they can give people a future in journalism. I mean, this kind of circles back to the point you were making earlier. One of the things that I really am sad about is that we're putting a lot of people through journalism schools all across Canada. and it may be a terrible, it may be a terrible joke on them. And I think it's, I'm very concerned about this. The fact that we are laying out the prospect

by accepting all of these people to journalism schools, we're laying out the prospect that they're going to be able to have at the end of the day some kind of meaningful career in journalism when we know that's not the case. There are like thousands upon thousands of journalism grads who are being graduated every year into a marketplace that cannot support 10% of them. What are we doing with the other 90%? So anyway, all of which gets back to my point, great, let a thousand flowers bloom, if I can use that expression.

And, you know, let, well, I'll tell you a little story here. I don't know if I'm allowed to tell this, actually. Well, what the hell? True North applied for accreditation for the the press gallery at Queens Park. In other words, they wanted to be one of the officially recognized media representatives at Queens Park so that they could have a reporter there every day reporting on events at the legislature. And the rules for that kind of official accreditation are that you really can't be a propaganda outlet. You have to, you know, you have to be a straight up journalist. And as a result, they didn't get the required votes they needed in order to be, to get their accreditation. But I voted in favor of them. I don't know. I may not be

allowed to say that out loud, but I just did. I voted in favor of allowing them to come in because I'm I'm of the view that unless you're, you know, unless you're engaging in hate speech, if you're engaging in sort of legitimate legal commentary and reportage, you know, it's a big tent. Come on in. Anyway, that's my, that I'm just trying to show you that, that I have lots of time for these newer publications provided that they're obeying the law and they are. Fantastic. That was a great story, and I hope you are allowed to tell that because I think that's really important and needed to be told. What do you think goes into creating a great interview with a person? This is an analogy that I have heard in the past, and I like it. I think doing an interview is like building a house. And you want to start when you build a house with good bricks. Because if the bricks are not good, you know, it's going to be like,

the three little pigs. That house is going to fall down pretty easily. So the bricks are your questions. So a good interview starts with good questions. And there are a series of principles that I try to follow when writing what I hope are good questions. And I learned these principles many years ago from a Carlton University professor named John Swatky. And I have the principles behind good question writing on a little piece of paper above my desk on a bulletin board at work. and I look at them almost every day to remind myself of the principles that I think deliver the best kinds of interviews. So while I'm building that house, while I'm creating that interview, I want the best bricks, I want the best questions. The second thing is,

and this sounds obvious, but you'd be amazed how many people don't do it, listen to the answers. I've never in my life, and I've probably done 30,000 interviews, I've never started a question one and then ask question two and then three and then four, five, six, seven. It never happens. Because hopefully the interviewee will have said something unexpected or interesting along the way that I didn't anticipate and it will require a different follow-up that's off my sheet. You won't hear that or you won't be able to make that to follow up on that if you're not listening. If you're just going one to ten, you're not listening. So that's what I would say.

Start with good questions. Listen very carefully and have as authentic a conversation as possible. Can you share some of those principles? It would be good for me to know. Sure. You know, I think you want to ask lean, open-ended, unbiased, questions that don't have a lot of hyperbole that aren't double-barreled, you know, is it this or is it that? Well, maybe it's neither. Maybe it's a third thing. So don't ask, don't offer two

options when asking a question. Keep it open, lean, neutral, and allow for the possibility that there's another answer out there that you hadn't intended. Stay away from trigger words. Don't be overly fawning. You know, people, people when you're, when you fawn too much, people tend to close up because they're embarrassed that you're overdoing it so the idea is to open people up and in fact i've i frequently uh open with a real softball question because i want people open comfortable not on guard and closed so those are some of the basic principles that i try to follow and and as again as strange it sounds ask one question at a time you'd be amazed how many times I see people ask two, three, four questions at once.

And I always think to myself, which question is this person supposed to answer? So one question at a time, you're doing very well, I have to say. Your questions are lean, open-ended, you're not engaging in hyperbole. You've only asked one question at a time so far. So good on you. Thank goodness. Thank you for the kind words. you approach two different types of debates in my mind.

One is political debates, where you're kind of managing what the issues of the day are and you're managing what you're hearing back from the candidates. But then you also host hot topic debates with usually subject matter experts who are able to kind of give their perspectives on a topic. How do you approach those two? Not in a dissimilar fashion. I think the principles that I just espoused are the same for both types. I, the debates themselves aren't so much different. Where it gets different is where you're doing a debate versus a one-on-one.

If you're doing a debate, this is a real vast generalization here, but when you're doing a debate, you're more of a traffic cop than anything. You know, you want to sort of, you want to set the agenda. You want to make sure everybody's participating with Marcus of Queensberry rules. They're showing mutual respect. They're not screaming at each other, talking at the same time. But in essence, you know, it's their show. When you're doing a one-on-one, you sometimes need to, you know, there's this hockey expression, you know, get in their kitchen. You know, you want to, sometimes you need to be a little bit provocative in order to get the best interview responses in return.

So it doesn't mean straying from the principles I just said, but it often means being more challenging, more provocative to get the best performance out of the person you're talking to. The one that I have is a reference point that is where I first discovered you years ago now was that debate you did on gender, on phrasing with Jordan Peterson and a few other panel members where I think that has like 11 million views now because it was a hot topic and it addressed many issues, but the panelists had such different perspectives and they were so respectful. I'm curious how much prep goes into talking to the participants prior and saying We're going to keep this respectful. I don't know if you ever check out Pierce Morgan's show, but it can go off the rails very, very quickly,

and people can start to sling mud at each other, and that panel didn't have that. So the best arguments really came forward, in my opinion. How do you approach that in the preparation? I, thankfully, have almost never had to say to a group of guests ahead of time, look, I know this is a controversial topic, but I want everybody on their best. behavior here. I don't really need to do that. I think when people come on to the show that I do, the agenda, I think they understand what the expectations are. And the expectations are, we're not going to have a food fight. We're not going to have chair throwing. It's not Jerry Springer.

It's high-level, respectful, thoughtful, engaging, intense, but respectful conversation. I think only once in all the years that I've been hosting that program, and we've done 18 years of it already, I think only once have I ever in the middle of a discussion had to say to somebody, yeah, somebody said one thing, and the other person responded back by laughing in his face and just being quite dismissive. And I just stopped the discussion at that moment, and I said, look, we don't do that here. We're going to show mutual respect. I know this is a very hard subject. It was a, the show was about the civil war between the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. And I said, we're just, we have to show mutual respect because that is, that is the promise we make to our guests and our viewers on this program. And we were fine after that.

Fantastic. The other piece I saw in that was that you were willing to assist each guest in making sure that the point they were trying to make was heard, understood. and kind of steel manned so that the other people can respond not to the weakest form of the argument or because they stuttered or because they misspoke, but you hoped to make sure that they were able to say what they needed to say maybe the guest was nervous, maybe they were overwhelmed by what they were hearing. And so you kind of just made sure that they got to their end of their thought before you moved on. Is that strategic and intentional where you're thinking of those things and saying, I want to make sure each guest gets their opportunity to kind of deliver the best argument they have? So everybody hears the best form? Yes. I am not interested. I mean, look, there is a place for it. There's a place for gotcha journalism where the idea is to kind of embarrass the guest and I get it. But that's not what we're about. We are really about a clash of ideas and allowing and creating an environment where the guests can put their best foot forward. And I appreciate the fact that there are some guests on our program who are very skilled and great speakers and are not nervous about hammers and lights and all of the sort of fake environment we're surrounded by. But I'm also aware of the fact that a lot of people who come on the program have never been on television before in their lives and that the environment around them can be off-putting. And so I want to try to even that playing field as much as possible, not to take one side of the argument over another, but just to make sure that

people feel that they were heard and that they got a chance to make their points. And I think that's okay. That's not putting your thumb on the scale for any particular point of view. That's just making sure that you've got an even playing field. There's constant discussions. I'm sure you heard them throughout your education around whether or not journalists should try and demonstrate impartialness, whether or not they should show their preferences, whether or not that's more genuine and transparent because maybe they do have a position on the issue. You are a person I find, I don't know what your actual political leanings are, what your actual definitive perspective on an issue is. And I'm just curious,

how do you think about that issue of remaining impartial, not showing your bias? Is that a best practice still? Yes. With one exception. No, two exceptions. Okay. I think from time to time I'm allowed to have a little fun. I'm a Toronto Maple Leaf hockey fan. I am a Hamilton. I'm from Hamilton originally. I'm a Hamilton Tiger Cat football fan. Truth be told, I'm a Boston Red Sox fan in baseball. I fell in love with the Red Sox before the Blue Jays existed. And so if we're doing a subject, if we're having a discussion on the program about any of those things, I am happily going to put my thumb on the scale for one of those three teams and I don't care. But that's sports and it's fun and everybody understands that there's different rules between putting your thumb on the

scale for the Leafs, you know, there is another NHL team in the province of Ontario. So technically, if I'm supposed to be completely neutral in all things, I shouldn't care whether the Leafs beat the Senators. Well, I do. And I don't mind telling people about it. And if they have a problem with it, well, I'm sorry, tough luck. But that's kind of from the candy store of life. I would never be that way as it related to political parties or controversial issues, that kind of thing. I said two exceptions. So that's one, which I think is harmless. The other exception is, how am I going to put this? Okay, the other exception is, I think Donald Trump's different.

I don't think he is of the tradition of most candidates for president that I have seen over the course of my 64 years in my life. And I don't think, I think one of the things we've learned over the last eight years is that you can't necessarily. play by the same rules as it relates to covering him that you do with everybody else. And that means you cannot create a false equivalence. You know, when I came up as a political reporter, you could easily not show any favoritism among conservatives, New Democrats, liberals, greens, whatever. because at the end of the day, they all believed in democracy, they all had a greater or lesser degree of collegiality for each other, they all believed in the peaceful transfer of power if you

lose an election, and they weren't sociopathic, narcissistic, convicted of sexual offenses, not to mention other things as well, people with authoritarian tendencies. And this guy is. And so I think you actually have to cover his issues in a somewhat different way because he is so outside the mainstream of what is normal, I guess is the way to put it. Now, that's not related to issues. I still think you play the game straight ahead as it relates to issues. But Trump himself is a different cat. And as a result, I think you have to cover them differently.

Interesting. The last piece on this is do you feel like you have, the issue that I guess I'm running into personally is I want to understand what I believe without kind of, even though when you approach an issue, you don't want to demonstrate your biases and you want to shoot straight with people. but you also have to be able to kind of come to conclusions, and I don't want to end up being a person where I'm kind of like, whoever speaks to me, like maybe I'll take that in, like maybe they're right, maybe I'm more like, it's you still want to develop a philosophy for how you kind of come to your own decisions in your own life. How do you balance that? Because I'm sure you have opinions, viewpoints, things you've kind of determined are your priorities in your life that may reach the political stage? How do you kind of balance that where you're still allowing your

to have your own perspectives and you've read the articles, you've spoken to the people, you understand the issue relatively well, but then you don't bring that to the stage. How do you make sure you kind of allow yourself to come to conclusions without letting it bias you? It's not that hard, actually, Aaron. Number one, I love my job and I want to keep my job. And one of the conditions of having the job is understanding the reality that I don't have the same free speech rights as other people in this country do.

I am not allowed to share opinions on the air about a wide variety of issues that are controversial that we cover. I'm just not allowed to. And those are the rules of the game. And if you don't like the rules, then don't go into this game. But I like the game and I'm content with the rules. So I don't have a problem with any of that. To be sure, if I'm interviewing, for example, a rookie cabinet minister who's been in the job for 10 minutes. And I know full well that my knowledge of Queens Park goes back to the 1970s.

Well, my firsthand knowledge goes back to the 70s. And I wrote a book about the Premier of Ontario from the 1960s. So my knowledge goes back about six decades, if not more. But people don't tune in for me to embarrass a minister who, you know, is doing their best. And I still don't see it as my job. I can certainly challenge them on what they have to say. I can put them to their paces, make them earn their stripes. But you said, I think somewhere in the course of that question, you said, you know, you want to come to a conclusion at the end of things.

Well, I don't. I don't think that's my job. I don't think it's my job to ensure that there is a sort of agreed upon conclusion to every panel discussion or every one-on-one interview. my job is to provide the environment where those ideas come forward and it's the viewer's job or the listener's job to come to the conclusion, not mine. So those are the rules and I'm happy to play by them. Yeah, sorry, when I said to come to a conclusion, I just meant from your own life. Like, I'll speak to like a minister in BC and kind of go, okay, like this is kind of how I'm starting to think about it after the interview. And I don't share that during the interview,

but I don't want that to kind of color my commentary moving forward, even though maybe I learned something or I understand something better that may swayed me personally in my vote in the next election or something one way or the other based on that understanding. I hear what you're saying. But, you know, one of the things that you must have when you have this job is you must have a level of humility. And by that I mean, yeah, I've been around longer than most of the people that I interview. but I think you still have to be humble about what you know and what you can learn. And, you know, I'll tell you a little story on that. Dalton McGinty is a former Premier of Ontario. He was Premier from 2003 to 2013. And I remember him telling me a story once in an interview where he said, you know,

most of the issues by the time they get to my desk, you could flip a coin as to know which way to decide them, you know, if they were easy to decide, Cabinet would decide them and on we'd go. By the time it gets to my desk, The facts might be 51% on one side of the ledger, 49% on the other, and so you make your decision. And then two weeks later, the facts may change, and it may be 51, 49 the other way. And he said, that's just life. And, you know, what we do is we do the best we can with the information that we have,

and, you know, that's the way it goes. And I think, you know, when you've done as many shows as I have, and you've seen how complicated the issues are, And you've seen how the facts can change over time, it keeps you humble. You know, you realize that being the decider in politics is a tough and lonely job, and they have it for a reason, and I don't have it for a reason. You know, they were prepared to put their name on a ballot, to run in an election, to put up with the brickbats that come along with the job. And I've never done any of that.

And, you know, for that reason alone, if not for. other reasons. I have a lot of respect for people who've got the guts to put their name on a ballot and stand for office. One of my favorite parts about your career is how multifaceted you are in each of the endeavors that you've moved into, whether it's interviewing, writing, hosting debates, and then documentaries and exploring topics in a more deep and thoughtful way where you're, I imagine, able to learn a lot more about an issue and get into that. What has it been like to create so many documentaries and really explore those issues. It's so different than perhaps hosting an interview or hosting a debate. Well, you've put your finger on where we

started this conversation, which was curiosity. My intense curiosity and desire to understand how the world works stems from, well, I don't know. I guess I inherited it probably from my parents, but I've always wanted more than one outlet to pursue that curiosity. So, you know, do I go cover events as a reporter and put stuff out on social media about them? Yes. Do I write columns for the TVO website? Yes. Have I written, I don't know, eight or nine books over the years?

Yes. Have I done a handful of documentaries over the years? Yes. Do I host a TV show? Yes. Do I host another show called TVO Today Live, which is in front of a live audience in a theater auditorium? Yes. Do I do a little five-minute YouTube show called Ontario Chronicle because it can tap into my knowledge of Ontario history, having lived in the province,

almost my entire life? Yes. These are all different vehicles through which I satisfy my curiosity. And I've been blessed to be able to work at a place where the distance between having an idea and actually see it happen is really short. I think there are lots of other media outlets, places you can work, where to have an idea and then the hoops you have to jump through to get that idea into fruition are so difficult. And one of the things I love about TVO and why I've stayed there for 32 years is that the things that I want to do, generally speaking, I can do. And I really like that about the place.

Steve, it has been such an honor to speak with you. As I said, I follow your work. I look for those voices that are doing a great job at interviewing, hosting debates, because it's something that I'm trying to develop and make sure that I learn and do properly and thoughtfully. And so I really appreciate you being willing to take the time and such a great example for others moving into the space. That's very kind of you. Let me ask you. How old are you? 28. You're damn good for 28, I got to say. Well done. Like, you're impressive. So my, I mean, this is worth what you paid for it, but my advice to you is keep on, keeping on. Just keep doing this. Keep doing lots of this. You have a wonderful curiosity. You have a very good on-camera manner. You don't come across with a kind of arrogance that too many people in media have. You seem to be very well grounded. So, Aaron, I've never met you before, but count me among your fans now. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. Hopefully we can do this again as we lead into other elections because I'd love to hear what your perspective is on how we.

we ask a good question through these tumultuous times, to say the least. Happy too. Thanks and great to meet you.