Nuanced. - 176. Mo Amir: What Role Does Media Play in a Democracy?

Episode Date: November 13, 2024

Aaron Pete sits down with Mo Amir, host of This is VanColour, to discuss bias in news, trust in media, political polarization and the craft of conducting meaningful interviews. They explore the role of media in fostering an informed electorate, the challenges of balanced reporting, and the importance of an informed democracy.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. Legacy media or independent media? Is there one that you trust more? As hosts, the currency that we deal in is trust. I'm speaking with someone today who has had his foot in both camps. We explore these discussions and so much more. My guest today is Mo Amir.

Mo, it is an honor to have. you on. I've been following your work. You helped me prepare for some of the interviews with the BC leaders. Would you mind first introducing yourself? Aaron, well, first of all, cut that out. The honor's all mine. Thank you for having me. It's a privilege anytime someone wants to talk to me in this type of format. So I'm really excited. My name is Mo Amir. I am the creator and host of This is Van Color, which started as a podcast, very similar to what you have here. And now is a TV talk show in its fourth season on Czech, Thursday nights at 9 p.m. And on top of that, I'm also a political commentator. I like to call myself the most bleeped political commentator in British

Columbia, because I think I hold that title. And until someone else challenges it, I'm going to keep saying that. So what are the rules here? Do you bleep? Do you just add anything goes? Anything goes? Oh, we're going to get crazy, Aaron. Let's do it. Can you take us back to the beginning? When did you? you start to get interested in broadcasting, communications, and sharing your voice. Yeah, I mean, I kind of stumbled into it. I've always been like a bit of a news buff and just keeping on top of current events. I have a master's degree in political science and a business degree, a bachelor's in business as well,

both from SFU. And so just a wide array of different interests. And it's kind of a silly story, but what happened was I was a big yogi. You can't tell from my current physique, but back in the day, I was going. twice a day. I was going in the morning and in the evening. And I sustained an injury. It wasn't too bad, but it like took me, it would require about two months to recover. And all of a sudden I had all this free time. And then I just came up with this idea of like, hey, what would it take to start a podcast? And this was back in 2018. And I looked for studio space and just I know nothing about

the technical side. So I just needed help on that and found a studio that. And found a studio that. was willing to help me out. And then it was kind of in the midst of the 2018 municipal elections in BC. So I focused in on Vancouver. I do live in North Vancouver though. And just started from there. And then, you know, as you've probably experienced as well,

you think it's going to be one thing and then it slowly evolves into something else. And so once that started kind of gaining a little traction, I was doing commentary for CK&W, then eventually started doing commentary for CBC, which I still do on a weekly basis and for some special events as well. And then in 2021, check news. It's a broadcaster here in British Columbia that only broadcast to British Columbia just said, hey, do you want to make this into a TV show? I knew nothing about

TV. And I was like, yeah, let's do it. And that's its own learning curve, right, of adjusting into a new format. So that's kind of my journey in a nutshell, I guess. What were the standout moments, like the milestones that you hit for yourself by your own standard during that period of having the podcast start to take off? Yeah, there were a few. I mean, the first is when you get asked by, like Linda Steele was at CKNW at the time. She had the Linda Steele show, it was the afternoon drive, basically. And I had interviewed her. It was a lot of fun.

And she, you know, she handed me her business car and said, hey, you should come do some commentary for us. And so being on, like, quote unquote, legacy media or mainstream media was definitely a big breakthrough. And I'll always feel indebted to Linda for, you know, seeing something in me and giving me that opportunity. And then, you know, the other thing was for me, it was when the Vancouver Sun or other outlets would start picking up things that were happening on my podcast or conversations that were happening. So then I realized, like, oh, people are listening. You know, it's not amazing listenership at the time, but, like, clearly there's a few people that do listen to the show. And so those were kind of things that made me realize, like, okay, let's keep going. I never had a long-term plan of what this was supposed to be.

Even today, I maintain that having stumbled into this space, I'm here for a good time, not a long time. and I've just kept myself open to whatever opportunities may arise and just stayed grounded in terms of focusing on what I'm passionate about as opposed to, you know, trying to meet a market. What are you passionate about? Oh, just things that are local. I mean, particularly local politics, obviously, or provincial politics, I would say. But more than that, I think different perspectives, different walks of life,

things that maybe I've not been exposed to, I think that very much interests me. And I'm more than willing, as much of a commentator as I am, or some people might call me an ideologue, I'm more than willing to have my mind changed or listen to different perspectives. And I like chatting with people who come at an issue very differently. And so, you know, despite some of the toxicity you might see online of me being this or that. Like, I have good relationships with people who have very different opinions. And I do see value in exposing yourself to that. How has your view of being a host evolved since the beginning to now? Yeah, great question. I mean, I think, I don't know who inspired you necessarily to start this. I think I've heard you say Jordan Peterson. And Joe

Yeah, so I'm also of the Joe Rogan cult. I don't listen to him that much anymore. I did listen to the Trump podcast, though, because everyone had to. But it was Rogan, right? And you start thinking, like, oh, what if we just do these conversations or whatever? And that's a lot harder to do. You do have to come in as an interviewer, and you do have to at least be very conscious of what you want to get out of that, the person that you're interviewing, right? And so I'm not saying it's an agenda. I'm saying it's like a game plan of like, I want to talk to Aaron and I want to get his point of view on independent media, right? And the challenges of that. That's not an agenda. That's a game plan. That's a strategy. That's what is required in your prep and your research, right?

So that starts really hone, you really start honing in on that and sharpening your skills. And now that it's in the TV format and you're working in like seven to 10 minute segments, that becomes even more acute because you don't have a ton of time to waste. And we don't edit, right? It's still live to tape. So you want to make sure that you ask a question in a way that will get to the meat of the issue for the viewer. Yeah. And then how do you go about preparing those questions? and has your perspective, perhaps, when you started, evolved when you have to also consider challenging guests and making sure that you do get to some sort of answer?

Yeah, good question. So what was the first part of that question? The preparation that's involved as well. Like, how do you tie that in to make sure that you deliver on not only going through that game plan, but making sure that you hold them accountable to an answer? The preparation depends on a guest, right? So if it is a politician, it's a much different preparation because then you're going to be. kind of looking at things that they've said in the past and you're looking for other issues of what have they said about an issue can I find contradictions in terms of

holding them accountable hey you said a this day and then you said B the other day which one is it and so politicians I think require a different amount of prep did you learn that or did like were you taught that no no I think you just learn it over time and again I'm not saying I'm some expert, you continue to develop skills. Again, I've only been doing this now for six years, so it's still relatively new. So politicians require a different amount of prep because you're looking at what they've said, and then you're also looking at the issue as well. When it comes to just like, let's just say it's a general expert or someone who's speaking

from life experience or a journalist, then you're looking at just the issue, right? Because it doesn't make sense to, let's say, there's a report. on health care in this province. I'm not going to look at every single thing they've ever said because they have a much different role and you can hold them accountable in terms of trying to make sense of something, but it's not the same type of accountability that you would hold a politician to. So it does depend on the guest.

And we also do a lot of fun and light segments. So when I know that it's going to be very light and it's supposed to be more on the entertainment side, then you're just thinking about, okay, how do we take subject A and make it fun. How do we make it engaging? I mean, we just did a segment on the show about ketchup potato chips. And I love that challenge because it's like, okay, we got six or seven minutes. How do we make this like pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, where we're not losing the audience on just talking about how we like ketchup potato chips, right? Interesting. I like that. Can we explore specifically how you prepared for the provincial leaders discussions? What was on your mind when you were

preparing for them? And what did you view your role? Yeah, so I didn't, I didn't interview the leaders during the campaign period. I interviewed John Rustad and David Eby in June. And part of that prep, I mean, this is where the challenge becomes. It's like, you know that they're going to be interviewed so many times over and over again. So how do you create questions that hopefully have a little bit of shelf life from June onto the election? How do you create questions that are just not the same that everyone else is asking, and then how do you maybe look at your previous interviews with them and hold them accountable to things they maybe have said in the past, right? And so it's an interesting challenge, and it is difficult because these guys are going to get asked,

and Sonny first know as well, they're going to ask the same thing over and over again. So where's my unique angle? Where am I finding it from? How am I framing it in a way that might be slightly different? And that becomes the challenge. So I know I'm not being super specific, but this was back in June, so I can't like go through the whole process. But the overall philosophy was that, knowing that we had an election later in the year. Was there a guest, one of the leaders, that you were the most nervous to interview or that felt like there was the biggest weight to interview?

Well, not in this cycle, but I'll tell you, I was a... I was like the first major critic of Kevin Falkin, and I just, I was like, this is not the guy, and I don't know, like, I don't think he represents the type of opposition we even need. And it wasn't an ideological thing. It was just, I just felt that he was out of touch. And so I had been very critical of him. And then, uh, this would have been in 2020, having him on the show. Then you're like, oh man, I've talked so much shit about you. And we have to have this conversation. And, and I think he's, you He was nervous, too, right? But it was a good conversation, and I had interviewed him, I want to say three times, twice on his own, and then one, actually, him and Sonia together. I had them on the show. And it was all good, right? Like, that was just kind of nervous because it was, I didn't know what the energy was going

to be like. And as you probably know, the energy of a conversation is very interesting. If you get someone who comes in very stoic and maybe even with a bit of an edge, you end up adopting that. But if you get someone who's coming in kind of loose and cool, then you kind of adopt that as well. And so it's a bit of a dance, right? And I think we both came in with somewhat nervous energy, but it ended up being all right. I was the most nervous to interview John Rustad. Why? Because I felt like there was a caricature of who he was when you read that he's a climate denier, that he's a denialist of all these issues, that he's not a fair player in the game,

that he's not to be taken seriously. Like, I went in reading all of these articles that were very critical of who he was and what he stood for. You were reading too many Mo Amir articles, was your problem. And then knowing that, like, I could be going in to an interview where he's, he doesn't speak that way. He doesn't come across that way. Like, one of my biggest learning lessons was the Kathy Newman, Jordan Peterson interview.

Okay, yeah, yeah. Is that the infamous one where he was getting really snappy? Yes, but where she was. was saying, so what you mean is, so what you mean is, and she had a vision of who he was. Yeah, you can't do that. And he went in, or she went in with that vision, and then the interview just showed her assumptions kind of through that interview. And I didn't want to repeat that with John Rustad. So I tried my best to take him that information while knowing that this is a human being. This is, this is a flawed person just like everybody else. And so trying to leave that door

open. But I was the most nervous because I didn't know if he was just all of these things. And it was just going to be that simple or if he was going to be something different. And then when he starts going like, no, I believe in climate change, but like I don't believe it's A, B, or C. Like, it's just, it was more nuanced than what I had anticipated. So one thing I've maintained consistently, both on my show and on CBC when I do commentary, John Rustad is a very pleasant man. Yeah. Like, he's actually, he's kind of soft spoken. Uh, he, he, he is very different than a lot of different, than a lot of different politicians where it does feel like he's listening to you. And so as much as I agree with, as much as I disagree with a lot of his policies and some of the things that he espouses,

I've always enjoyed chatting with him. And I think, you know, going back to the, the Kathy Newman and Jordan Peterson thing, that's what I mean in terms of differentiating a game plan versus an agenda. An agenda is, I'm going to, I'm going to pown, I'm going to dunk on this guy or whatever, whereas a game plan is, I'm going to try to reconcile some contradiction that I see, or I'm going to try to get a straight answer on this one question, right? But, like, you do see it where interviewers clearly go in looking for a slam dunk on someone, and I just think that that's the wrong approach to any interview. When did you learn that?

When did I learn that? I don't know if there was a particular moment, but I don't think it's actually, I don't think it's ever been my style. to have an antagonistic interview, right? So even from the start, as cringes, maybe some of those interviews were, they were never directly antagonistic. Do you think that's because you were going into it in good faith of, like, building your own, that's what I think my prediction would be the core is, is that we didn't come through this traditional system

where you were given opportunities to perhaps interview these people, so you felt an authority. You're trying to make a name for yourself? Exactly. we went in with humility through this process. Yeah, maybe. I mean, part of it's just my natural predisposition. And I think that it's funny because I'll meet particularly conservatives, and I'm saying

small C conservatives, he'll be like, oh, you're, you're like a really nice guy. And it's just like, well, yeah, of course. Like a commentary is much different than talking to a human being, right? And I will still hold my beliefs. But just because I, you know, make some jokes about a politician. it doesn't mean that I'm going to make necessarily the same jokes to their face, right? Like it is, we have to understand that there is, especially when you're on television and you're doing a talk show, there's an entertainment aspect to it.

But at the same time, when you're face-to-face to someone, you have to give them grace. Because you want, like for me, the worst possible thing you can have in an interview is someone who either doesn't know the answers. and you're like, okay, well, why are you here? And I told you, like, I always give discussion topics ahead of time. Right. This is what we're going to talk about. Because I want them to be prepared.

Right. It has to be informative. As much as it is entertainment on one side, you want people to gain some information out of it as well, right? It's not just like, I watch the show and Moe destroyed this guy in a conversation. It's like that, that sucks to me. I don't like, like, do you ever watch Pierce Morgan? I was originally a fan, and I just became something turned off by it because it's now like four people in a box just yelling at each other. For sure.

And I'm like, what value do I get out of this? And they're talking about like really heavy issues, whether it's global conflict or whatever else. And I just, you know, it's turning me off. And so just not, that's just not my style, I guess. Yeah. Sorry, I feel like I'm rambling here and there, but. to Dragon and Pearce Morgan. I guess the link that this brings us back to, though, is I do feel like there is this separation

between traditional media and the willingness to kind of develop your own themes and your own approach and your own vision for how the conversation is going to go. And I think you've done a really, really good job of creating this really good space for conversations, like watching yours. I watched your interviews to prepare. and there was just nothing else really like it when you're watching these four minute segments of like just question answer, question answer,

and the interviewer isn't able to show their personality or their quirks or who they are. And I think that's something that kind of revives in your show. And I'm just curious, was that a conversation you had to have with Czech? Was that just something that you were able to bring with you? Is that what they were looking for? No, I think they understood the vibe

and that's what they wanted. And, you know, again, in being, a relative outsider into the business, uh, that's the space that I was trying to carve for myself. You know, I, I, I respect, you know, everyone in the press gallery and, and, and, and all the journalists that we have in this province. Uh, but for me, it's like, okay, well, how do I carve out a unique space for myself? And a lot of people have, you know, you think about, uh, Bob Crownbauer and, uh, Vancouver's awesome, or you think about the guys at the Daily hive, like, they were kind of doing the same thing of like, okay, here's how a lot of media looks

like, how do we make it slightly different, and how do we make it work for a general audience? And I think a lot of, there was a lot of conscious thought as the podcast and television show evolved into how do we make this slightly different. And so that's the space that I continue to carve out for myself. And it's nice that it is resonating with people. You know, again, here for a good time, not a long time. But, you know, why would I try to, and maybe this is something that you think about as well, it's like, why would you try to imitate someone who's already doing that thing, right?

Don't you want to carve something that's a little more unique and maybe harder to imitate? And I'm not saying one is better, one is worse. It's just we all develop our own styles. And especially when you come outside of the system, there is some appeal to that, right? I think trust is the big thing that authenticity kind of creates the pathway in for people and that's at least what I've seen is like the overwhelming feedback on all three interviews

was that like I didn't get in the way of them answering the questions I just let them go and like I understand from like I'm not a journalist so I understand from their perspective there's parts where you want to push back or disagree more but I do feel like so much of it Like, if you're biased against her, if your political leanings are already against them, then you're going to find that commentary on how they're perhaps wrong or incorrect. My role was just to more humanize these individuals who are putting themselves forward for a position. I don't know if you feel the same way, but it's still, like, I serve on counsel for my First Nation community.

And the responsibility of trying to make sure 650 members are taking care of is, like, I lost a patch of my hair as a consequence of the stress I felt. I don't understand. How you do that for a whole province. And, like, that was really fascinating to me in the preparation. It was, like, how do we show that these people are trying to develop a vision with a bunch of people from their, like, political leanings that they also probably don't agree with in a way that will benefit everybody? And that's a heavy job to apply for. Like, who are you and why are you applying for them? Yeah.

Yeah, and that actually is one of the biggest challenges is when do you step in to push back? And that's something that I continue to grapple with. And I hope I get it right more times than not, but I'm sure I get it wrong as well. It's like, when do you intervene and stop someone? And you're right. Like, it shouldn't necessarily be a personal pushback. And I try to do that with, you know, with Eby and with Sonia for Snow as well. And for me, it's, again, I try to work on a framework of logic, right?

Like, using their own words or actions against them. Okay, you're saying that we're pointed in the right direction, but all these metrics are saying the opposite. You know, so that becomes the challenge of when do you push back. And I think if you're pushing back from a place of, like I said before, just trying to get a dunk on someone, it's probably not a good idea. But if you're pushing back of like the interview, the subject who's being interviewed, you're not making sense. Explain this to me. That, I think, is a much better place, right? So it can still be good faith.

But, yeah, I think that's always the challenge. And it's especially a challenge when you're working in these smaller segments, right? When you have a longer chat, then you can always revisit something. 100%. But when you're in a smaller, you know, eight minutes or whatever it is, then it's like, okay, you really have to be on the ball. An overwhelming response that I've heard from the leader of the federal conservative party is that a majority of our media leans towards the left. And I would personally think that there's just more good faith attributed to individuals who lean, who are leaders of whether it's the NDP or the liberal government, that there's just more deference given to them than conservative individuals.

What would you say to that? I like what John Rustad said on your podcast about this, where he, you know, he himself also said that he felt that there was a media bias, but he felt that he was treated fairly. And so there can be two different things. And this is the strange balance that I try to reach is on one hand, I'm a commentator who has certain beliefs.

I like to think I'm centrist. but left on very specific files. But then I'm also an interviewer who is supposed to be fair. I don't like the word objective. I like the word fair. This idea of objectivity being completely neutral, I think, is a bit of a myth. It's so hard to separate yourself from your own beliefs in that type of work. But in terms of like a media bias, I mean, I guess.

I guess there's probably, I guess a lot of people that are in media lean, left, but at the same time, then a lot of people on online media lean right, right? I've noticed that. Yeah, so it's like, you know, are we talking about equity now, like ideological equity? Like, it kind of seems like a fool's errand. I do think that if someone is being held back in an organization because of their ideological leanings, then that's a problem. I'd be the first one to say that.

I don't know if that's necessarily happening. but why do people who lean left gravitate towards mainstream or legacy media and why do people who are further right? Why do they go to independent media? I don't know. That's a sociological question. I don't think I can necessarily square myself. Well, I would predict someone would argue that a lot of government-funded media leans left and a lot of independent media can't get some, like Candace Malcolm talked about how she couldn't get True North Media, like, approved in Ontario to cover their provincial election as a consequence of not getting support from the- But the other problem, the other problem with

that, though, is that, you know, when you are working for a big station, you are accountable on so many different levels. Like, you cannot, there's certain language that you have to use, and I'm not saying that it's mandated police language. It's just like, you can't call someone a liar, right? But you see people who have internet shows, and they might be on the right, or left, they call people liars all the time. And it's like, dude, that's defamation. Like, you could get sued for calling someone a liar. That is like one of the no-no words that you're not allowed to call someone. And so there's just a, almost a greater rigor, I would say, when you are working with a legacy media organization that does have certain standards and has to abide by those things

versus the wild west of the internet. And we see that, right? Like, I'm not going to call out any specific outlet, but like sometimes online media that is working quote-unquote independently just gets things wrong. I saw a piece in one of these right-leaning places about deep cove in North Vancouver is turning into a 15-minute city. And I think the article's still up, and it's like, I grew up in that neighborhood, and I went there, and it's like, it's not a 15-minute city. They're literally just trying to expand a walking promenade. They're not even expanding transit, Right? So it's like there's these different standards that I think media have to abide by, or I should say traditional media has to abide by, that maybe makes it seem that way. You could also argue that academia is leans left, right? And most journalists, trained journalists, will come out of some sort of academic background. So maybe that has something to do with it. I'm sure it's a multi-factored reason of why we see that. But I don't deny that reality that there's also probably an urban rural divide.

You know, the more urban you are, the more likely you are to lean left, especially in this province. So that's probably a part of it. But yeah, I don't deny the fact that, like, a lot of journalists are like center, center left. Some do lean right, for sure. But on social stuff, very much, you know, center, center left. That's actually one of the other questions I wanted to ask about the election. is that you have an overwhelming amount of the land in BC appears to be blue, conservative, but these small cities are orange for the NDP.

And I just wonder what that does from your perspective as a province when we have such a significant divide between how rural communities see things versus how urban folks see things. Yeah. I mean, it is very representative of, of a political polarization and division in our province. Even, you know, you look at, the BCNDP did very well in most of the suburbs except for Richmond. And I'm talking about the Lower Mainland, of course, except for Richmond and Surrey, right?

And so what's happening there? Well, a lot of discontentment with the government, also a lot of, you know, immigrant communities that may have more social conservative leanings. and these are big-ish like these are kind of big challenges of like how do we see what British Columbia should be and what services the government should be providing and where it should be intervening or not

and I think it's I you know it's very polarized again I'm pushing 40 so I can't say for the entire history of British Columbia but it's just never felt this divided on so many different issues and something that some people will see

as completely unacceptable and some things that some people will go, yeah, it's not that great, but okay, I'll tolerate it, right? And I mean things like the quality of candidates that do get run. And that was an issue for the BC Conservatives. I think that's a fair assessment, is that they ran some candidates

that other parties would not have ran. Yeah. Can you tell us about your political commentary? What are your reflections on the election? Worst election ever. It was like, no, it was. And people get mad about that, but it's like, you know, it was interesting. The politics of it was fascinating. But I think when we think of the good of the province, it wasn't that interesting.

And I don't think it was a net good. You had the BCNDP give a very lackluster kind of vision, if you can even call it that, for the province. There was nothing there about economic development. There was nothing there that was really inspiring us about, you know, what does the next decade look like or what should it look like, which I think was really missing. There was a great, I think, missed opportunity to say, Surrey is going to be, you know, the next big metropolis. Let's put some, you know, let's invest tourist dollars there.

Let's invest other infrastructure there that is sorely needed in that region. And then on the other hand, and I want to be charitable to the BC Conservatives because obviously they were riding this wave of anger that a lot of people had in disappointment. And you see that in Surrey where, you know, they don't have enough hospitals, they don't have enough schools, they don't have the same type of transit set up. I know they're building out some more. But like, it's just an area that feels neglected. And so they're riding it. But then at the same time, a lot of these ideas felt. half baked, right? They'd had great slogans. Oh, we'll reduce the wait times. Oh, we'll do

this. But then the route of the route of getting there was not always clear. And then on top of that, you just had candidates that I don't think should have been there. And you had a leader. And let's be honest about John Rustad. Like, again, very pleasant man. Respect him as a human being. But it's like, he said some pretty out there things, right? Like, and people got mad at me because on CBC, on election night, I said he pandered to conspiracy theorists. He absolutely did. He was talking about Nuremberg 2.0. He was talking about forcing kids to eat the bugs. Like, I just don't. It's just hard to grasp how that is a serious contender to be the leader of the province. And that's nothing against John or his experience. He, in some areas, he is very well

experienced. He knows how the legislature works. But, you know, given those options, at least in my own urban millennial perspective, it just wasn't very inspired, right? I noticed that there was such an interesting thing that happened in his life. If you just look at him as a person, you're booted from your party. Oh, the story is great.

The arc, his arc is amazing. But, like, you also just see that, like, exactly what you're saying seems to be the case, which is you're booted from this party. you need to find a new home or you run as an independent. He finds a new home in a party that's been quiet for so long. And like during that period, I don't imagine he anticipated the circumstance he'd find himself in. Right?

Like you're making comments on things. You don't know where you're going to end up. And then now you're leading a party that's doing well in the polls. And how do you reconcile some of these previous statements? Do you stand by some of them? How many of the supporters that you're gaining are those individuals? Yeah. Like, how do you square that circle?

Seems like it would have been a challenge. And it seems like it's a challenge he seems to still be trying to work through. He's going to have, I think, and I'm projecting this at this point, I think he's going to have a very difficult time with his caucus at the start. I mean, it's really going to be a test of his leadership. There are several strong rumors that there are people already seeking his position as leader of the conservative. so there's people maybe wanting them step aside or looking for that opportunity to get rid of him.

He has a very, let's call it, diverse caucus, a lot of different views. He's promised them free votes. He promised them free votes on your show, right? And so, like, but you need discipline for a team to run effectively. And so you've already promised people free votes and devote their consciousness and to vote for their communities, but at the same time now you have to function as a team.

and also you ported issues, longstanding issues from the BC Liberals slash BC United into your party, which still have to be resolved as well, it's going to be tough. He's going to have a very tough go. And so it will be a test of his leadership of how he's able to bring this team together under a shared vision. And I don't know, how is he going to deal with, you know, insubordination if someone says no, you promised me free votes, I'm going to vote this way, or I want to push this private member's bill that will make the party look out there to the public. That's going to be an interesting challenge that he has to face. And your reflections on David Eby, I'd be interested in them as well, because he's an individual that I think many, and I think he would

acknowledge he's much more policy-based. He's worked on many of the files. That was his area of expertise, he wasn't known as a campaigner. He wasn't known in that circle. I think he performed very well in the debates, but like that wasn't his area of expertise. And so seeing him go through that first election as the leader of the party, it seemed like he may have had some challenges trying to emote that vision. Yeah. I mean, I thought David E.B. will always be a good debater. He's probably one of the most cerebral people I've ever interviewed in terms of of when you're interviewing him, you can tell that the wheels are moving in different ways and he's already mapped out how he's going to conclude this, the chat.

As a campaigner, he's not great. I mean, we saw it in the BCNDP leadership race where they had to, had to or felt the need to disqualify the other person that was running, Anjaliapateri. And I think we saw it in this campaign where in the summer, the BC Conservatives were very visible. And I think even throughout the campaign, there were a lot more visible, certainly in downtown Vancouver and in other outlying suburbs than the BCNDP were. I don't know, you know, I've always seen him as a solutionist. I do think that there was a bit of being out of touch with British Columbians. And I think he's kind of acknowledged that, is that there were a lot of concerns, whether,

whether it was public safety, or just the constant idea of like, hey, I swear we're pointed in the right direction. I just give it some time. And it's like people want results. You know, people in Surrey want results. People in Vancouver want results. And they just weren't seeing it. And so his challenge is going to be, he knows that he's probably going to be up against a much

more formidable opposition party by the time the next election rolls around. and his challenge is going to be he's going to need to point to direct results of here's what I did, here's what I accomplished. And in fairness, he did do some, right? Like there's things even when he was in cabinet and his minister that he can point to, whether it was getting ICBC, you know, up and running as an operational business, really. And even some stuff on the housing file I think was good that even developers would would say that they support. But aside from that, I mean, you just look at the dissatisfaction that British Columbians have with every file, virtually every file in this province. And it's like below water, below water, below water, below water. Somehow he kept his favorability up.

But I just don't know how long that can last for. What issues are you enjoying covering right now? I enjoy. Well, I'm enjoying taking a break from politics in general. I know we're talking about it now, but like even, you know, the first nine episodes or the first eight episodes of our show were all about the election and then the ninth one. We just did a fun one. In terms of what do I enjoy, it's a good question. I mean, I think that I've always maintained that the big issue is health care in this province, just because it cuts across urban, rural, homeowner, renter, young, old. We all are reliant on the, the same system and it affects us all. And it's, I don't know how you call it anything else but a disaster. And I know that they're, you know, they're touting that, oh, we've hired more nurses per capita than any other province and we've brought in more family doctors. But like,

it is not even how I remember it when I was a kid. I remember if I got sick as in elementary school, we'd get a doctor's appointment the day of or the next day. And I'm one of the lucky ones who has a family doctor, I can't go in to see my family doctor for like two weeks. And it's like, well, and then you want to go to a walk-in, you've got to make an appointment there too, right? And then you hear the horror stories of the ER rooms and the weight's there. And so it's not even just an interest, it's like a personal interest thing of like, how do we dig ourselves out of this hole? Like, I'm sure maybe it is getting slightly better incrementally, but we're at a point now where the health policy is basically don't get sick or injured

because, oh, it's going to be real tough, you know? So, again, I would say I'm personally interested, not just on an intellectual level, but like on my day-to-day level of just how much longer can we be in this place with such a faltering health care system. Yeah, it's remarkable to see the challenges that it's facing, and it does feel like on some of these things, key issues, housing included, I would put housing in there as well. It seems like there's a growing

hopelessness in the system. And I find that somewhat remarkable that we can be in this circumstance where it doesn't feel like anybody has kind of the three next steps for people to kind of grapple with. But the difference with housing, though, is that you have a population that has a self-interest in keeping home prices high. And that's homeowners, right? If you're a homeowner, you don't want to lose equity. You don't want to go underwater on your mortgage. So there's a bit of a divide on the housing file, right? And obviously, long term, it's not good because we've created an environment where even if you come here, do well, work hard, like you cannot get into the housing market. But, and we've unfortunately created this divide of haves and have-nots when it comes to

intergenerational wealth based on homeownership. But again, you do have a good segment of the population that is invested in this system that will still be okay. But with health care, that's everyone. And so that's the one thing I see where it's like, I don't know. That I feel more hopeless and maybe because it's the privilege of being a homeowner, I guess. And I'm not saying housing isn't an issue. I'm just saying that for a lot of people, it isn't an issue. Right. And then who would you like to have on as guests? Who are like some of the individuals that inspire you or that you'd be interested to speak with? Oh, man. It depends. Well, I mean, there's like the easy one, right? There's like, oh, I'd love to talk to Seth Rogen because that'd be so fun.

And again, my show was very locally based, so I'd love to talk to him on like dream guest level. I've already hit some of my dream guests. Like Trevor Linden was one of my dream guests just because he was like, he was my hero when I was a kid. So to be able to chat with him was so cool. Tell us about that. Well, so I had met him throughout my life at different junctures in my life, but being able to interview him was just so, it was surreal. And I remember I showed him these photos of like when I was a kid and I got my photo with him and he's like, oh, my God, you're making me feel so old. And he's such a nice guy. And so, you know, that was, I wouldn't say nervousness, but like, it was surreal.

It was really cool. I'm trying to think who else was my dream. I mean, when I started the podcast, finally enough, David Eby was my dream guest. He was the attorney general at the time, but this was pre-Cullen commission, and there was so much hype around getting the Cullen Commission going, and I wanted to talk to him about it, and he was such a fierce opponent in the BC legislature when he was an official opposition that I, you know, I really wanted to chat with him, and being able to chat with him was a big accomplishment. for me at that time. I feel much differently about standing politicians now than I do, that I did maybe back then, but nonetheless, in terms of other dream guests, like, if we're talking about just the entire, like, world, I think we talked about this.

We're both, I may be a lapsed UFC fan, but I'd love to talk to Chail Sunnan. Whitney Cummings is my favorite comedian. I'd love to chat with her. I'm trying to think who else is. There was a time when I really wanted to chat with Chief Adam Palmer. There was a lot going on with the VPD and their relationship with the city. We tried and I think maybe because of some of my commentary they didn't want to come on and that's fine. That's there, right?

So I'd love to chat with him at some point. I feel like it'll come to me in terms of other people that I would love to. I would love to, you know, I'm trying to get Christy Clark back on the show. She was a guest during the podcast days and we've tried to get her on the television. show hasn't panned out yet. I'm still optimistic, but I would love to get her thoughts on what's happening and like unfiltered thoughts, but the challenge with that is she may be reentering the political arena, so her answers might be shaped in that interest as opposed to just like unfiltered.

Here's what I think. How does that feel to prepare for interviews like that as well? I mean, I think, and one thing I try to do is you, you want to. want to keep things slightly unpredictable, right? So I am fair. I give them a discussion topics, but you can make it unpredictable in terms of how you frame the question or even just, again, the tone and the mood that you set. And a lot of that has started pre-interview. So anytime I have a guest, especially if I haven't met them before, I like chatting with them for like 15, 20 minutes just to like maybe they'll be at more at ease. I know I will be more at ease. That helps.

but in terms of prepping for it, again, with someone like Christy would be like, what's happening in the news right now, what are the big topics, has she commented on XYZ, you know, can we get something out of her for that? So it is kind of dependent on circumstances, I guess. Right. You have an organic way that you came into this, and you've talked about how you're not here for a long time, you're here for a good time. I'm just wondering, what does it mean to you to have been able to follow something through

to fruition in such an impactful way that you're having to. helping contribute to an informed democracy during an election. Oh, man, you make it sound so elevated. It's a privilege. It's really, it's wild, right? And it's funny talking to friends about it. And I remember over the summer had a party, and one of my friends is like, it's just so weird that you're on TV.

And I'm like, I know it is weird, right? Like, and so it's surreal, but then there is a responsibility that I think you have to the audience. And again, whether we're doing a very light episode that's more fun or a more serious episode, I think the overall goal is always to be to engage them in local issues or things in their community that maybe they didn't know about before. And so I take that responsibility very seriously as much as I say, you know, I'm here for a good time, not a long time, but I do take the work seriously, even if the segments are fun, even if the segments are very serious. I don't know.

How do you see it? I mean, you're, you tell me, like you had all three leaders during the election campaign. Did you feel? What kind of sense of responsibility did you feel? An immense weight. The first one to confirm was David Eby's team. They gave me a call and they said, let's run this. We've got the date.

Does this work for you? And confirmed it. and the idea of being able to contribute to something like that, I thought of it as like I have a responsibility to contribute to an informed democracy. I chose not to vote in the election because I took that responsibility. You were going that neutral. You were going that objective that you were not going to vote. Yes.

And I don't want to have a final position on so many of these issues. Sacrificing your democratic right for democracy. Okay, okay. Because like even at a very, very, very. deep level, I feel like had I voted for one side or the other, I would have been biologically showing my bias to myself. And so, like, I think that's interesting. That's an interesting way to look at it.

It's something that I carried in my mind and I thought a lot about all throughout because I found that the interviews really eye-opening that these are just people that as much as people hear about, maybe this is just provincial politics, but like as much as people have talking points, I could tell that for many of them, they weren't perhaps ready for the way that I phrased the question. Yeah, there you go. The one that I think ended up on, Tim,

my producer mentioned, who ended up on Global, was my question about, are you going to fire Bonnie Henry? Right. To John Rustad was like, I wanted it to be pointed, I wanted it to be clear, I wanted the audience to have to, but like, none of, I don't share my speaking notes. Yeah. I don't share what I'm

planning on asking because I don't know until like I do my research all the way up and then I do the morning of like I go through trying to figure out what was asked but then I do try and like I don't have any speaking notes I don't have anything kind of memorized up here it's I want it to be organic because all throughout

so when I went to UBC for law school every day I was driving out from Chilliwack to Vancouver and listening to five hours of podcast today and so I was consuming so much of the content But what I liked was when I could press play and let go. Yeah. And I think for most people who listen through that medium, that's what they're looking for. Yeah.

And if it feels like I'm trying to steer it too much, it's the one thing I didn't like in certain interviews is when it was like they dropped that conversation because they need to move on to the next thing. And so I didn't tell any of the leaders and I found it really surreal. You didn't give them any discussion topics of like here's, okay, yeah. Yeah. Because I'll give them broad-based like, hey, I want to discuss health care. I want to discuss whatever. Yeah, I mean, that was a very pointed question that you asked. It's interesting because when I, when was that?

So you interviewed him in September? I interviewed them in August. They released in September. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I remember when I had rushed out on, my big thing was the unvaccinated healthcare workers, which he's talked about. But no one had asked him about what that costs to bring,

because he said that he was going to. pay back wages, which, again, is a great slogan, and especially if you feel that they deserve that, it's great, but no one was asking him how much that cost. And I did kind of back of the map and math, and I was like, do you think taxpayers want to pay this much? Yeah. And, you know, I wasn't particularly satisfied with his answer, but he did give an answer. And he was clearly just like, it was evident that no one had asked him that. And so that's, you know, very similar thing that I try to look for is like, okay, he keeps talking about this, but there's like maybe an obvious question or something direct that he hasn't, that anyone hasn't addressed

at this point. Do you feel like there's more, I, okay, I feel there's hope because as you discussed, Joe Rogan interviewing Donald Trump, that clearly was a considered plan to have potentially both candidates come on the biggest podcast show right a week before the election. Like, I think that was a considered idea that that was kind of the final big shot to try and get the word out. Yeah. And then with us, I feel like there's something unique. Ten years ago, you wouldn't have gone on a podcast.

I don't think Christy Clark would have gone on a podcast in order to get the word out. Oh, yeah. I mean, the media is shifting in this direction, and I find that really interesting. Oh, yeah. That's amazing. And, again, I would not exist in this space if the barrier trance tree was low to produce a podcast. and I wouldn't exist in the space if we didn't have social media, particularly X for me, right?

Or Twitter. And so that's pretty amazing. I think where it becomes, and I'm saying this as someone who came from that realm, it's like where it becomes an issue is when you have someone like Donald Trump on the Joe Rogan experience. And again, I'm a guilty Joe Rogan fan.

I'm not a fan of everything he says or whatever, but I've been a longtime listener still. Isn't that a crazy thing you have to say? I know, because people get a whole weird. Like you side with any person on all things. He's a Rogan guy. I mean, most dudes of a certain age dabbled with Rogan. We just have to be honest.

But, you know, I listen to that interview, and it's like, and maybe it's just because of the uniqueness of Donald Trump is like, the guy says things that are crazy and may not be true. And you almost need someone with a skilled interviewer, which Joe is, fair enough, but also someone who just has a wealth of knowledge to be able to push back even gently against some of the things that Donald Trump says. And that's not an ideological thing. That's like a truth thing. And so that's the problem with also just like, oh, and I'm not saying you specifically, I'm just saying when you have a person like Trump, it's like, oh, let them speak. And it's like, but what if they're saying, what if something they're saying is just complete nonsense?

or just not based in reality. And this is going out to, you know, 100 million people. Is that valuable to society? I don't know. I mean, I don't think so. Because people are not treating it like a softball interview. They're treating it like, oh, the greatest, the biggest interview of the century or decade or whatever.

If it's just Joe Rogan with some comedian, you know, that's a lot different. But, or sorry, if it's just Donald Trump with some comedian, that's a lot different. but Joe Rogan isn't seen in that light and as much as I may enjoy some of his content you know and I don't have an answer for this it's just a question that I'm posing is like does he have a responsibility to be better prepared

on and to push back against some of the things that that Donald Trump is going to say? Yeah. Right? Yeah, I think that is an open-ended question. Like I think that is something that all hosts of shows in this new independent world need to start to grapple with. Audience Capture is another one that I've regularly asked people who have huge substack

followings or who've gone that path. Like, what's your responsibility to stay balanced? Because, like, I'm sure you've seen it. Like, when your numbers do well on something, you could just go back to the same well again and again and again to try and fish for the same results. And you, as an interviewer or a host, have to resist that. But to me, in that circumstance, and I think in my own. own interviews, the mindset is like, what are, and it's an apt name, but like, what are average

Joe's wanting to know? Because those are the people that don't get the opportunity to ask a question into a sitting president or the potential next president is like the JFK files, aliens, like, these are all. You're right. And there were some, there were, there were a couple of gems in that, in that interview. I mean, I see it in a very similar way. I, I, I, because we're on television and the main medium now for This is VanColor is television. I really try to make it for a general audience. And the ethos is like, if you know nothing about a subject, don't worry. Like, you can follow along. Because part of the problem with a lot of political media, and I'm speaking as someone who has experienced this just as a consumer, before I was in media or podcasting,

you'd watch some of these political panels and you're like, I don't know what they're talking about. Like no one gave me a proper setup of like what the issue is and like, you know, what the stakes are. And I saw that a lot in US media particularly because that's what I was consuming in university. And so my thing is always just like, okay, let's just try to approach it from a way

that if you know nothing about this, if you don't even know the guest, can you still follow along? And I think that becomes very key. and I think that's what people on the internet do very well. Yeah. You know, that realm of like internet political media, whether it's Hussein Piker on the left or, you know,

we can say Joe Rogan on the right, they do that very well. Right. But then the problem becomes where are the checks and balances of accountability? Yeah. Right. One last. Who do you complain to if Joe Rogan, uh spouts misinformation i'm speaking it hypothetically 100% like i guess like my is like if i think his

listeners and you can disagree but like i think they're some of the smartest in terms of their willingness but it's such a wide net like i don't i guess that that's why i like i believe that the population is far smarter than most people give us our population's credit for, because we don't like some of the positions we end up with, but I do think that the best hands, the safest hands, that's why we have a democracy, the safest hands are still our own. And the reason that he's the biggest is because he does things in a way where people feel they can trust him to get things wrong as well.

And uniquely, when he was perhaps wrong or you disagree with some of his positions on certain things, like there was that kind of cancellation that happened to him about things he had said, he comes out and apologizes. And he's built a unique trust. I think that's what great hosts do. They build trust with the individuals listening to them. And they, for the most part, own their mistakes when they do fail. But you know, in this conversation, we may have gotten things wrong.

In every conversation, you're likely going to get something wrong. Yeah. I'm going to watch this back and cringe at some of the things I've said, because that's just the nature of a long-form conversation. Exactly. But once we start to decide we have to remove something like disinformation, then the arbiters of what that is start to control that. And that's another challenge. Exactly. And so I like that, like, I think your story is really inspiring because it shows that the system is still capable of seeing talent and embracing that. Thank you for that. That's very nice. But I think that's assigned to like young up-incomeers, people who are interested in what you're doing, people who are watch your show. Maybe I could do this the same. And like, that's what I think Joe Rogan inspired in me and perhaps a little bit in you is this idea that like, you have a voice. You can start to ask the questions yourself. He doesn't have a monopoly on asking questions. We don't. That that's what an informed democracy does. It asks questions. Totally. And again, I'm not discounting

the intelligence of the general public. I do think that the general public is speaking to their lived experience and what they're experiencing and of course there's intelligence in that. I do think that oftentimes, I'm not speaking about everyone, I'm just saying oftentimes there is a

confusion of different roles, right? So one of my favorite tweets that I get on a consistent basis is, why don't you report about this? It's like, well, I'm not a reporter. Like, that's not actually my job. I'm a talk show host, and I'm an opinion.

And the other favorite one I get is like, you're so biased. And it's like, well, of course, because I'm an opinionist. Like you give your opinion from your vantage point. And biased is different than partisan. Ideological is different than partisan. Like, I think there is a certain level of media literacy that I benefited from being in school and a lot of other people as well. And even people who didn't go to, you know, school to learn about those things, I think understand them. But I think as a general population, we should be teaching media literacy in, like, primary school, like grades maybe five and up and in high school. Because I do think that some people can't distinguish the difference between them. And they can't distinguish the difference between something that is fair and something that is objective. Like those two things are also very different in my mind, and I think in the mind of a lot of people. Joe Rogan can be fair, and he often is, but he's not objective, right? Describe the difference. Well, I think, well, fairness goes back to that idea of like, you're coming on to my show.

I'm going to ask you some tough questions. But also, I ask everyone tough questions. Objective is, like, I'm not showing you any of my bias. Or let's say you make a good point, and I go, that's a fantastic. point. I slipped that in. Oh, my God, he's gassing up the guest, right? And so, like, objective is one of those things that I think we all carry different biases. We all, especially as hosts, we carry different biases and different perspectives. And to try to hide that, like, I don't understand what the point is. People know where I stand on a lot of different issues, maybe not

everything, hopefully. But there's no, there's no question that I'm not objective. But you can ask anyone that's being on my show, was I fair? And I think most of them would say yes. So, you know, like, I see a difference that way. And again, I understand it's a nuance. Yeah. But I think it's an important nuance to understand. The last piece I just wanted to ask about is how do we continue to inspire people to find their own voice in the way that you have done so eloquently? Like, how do we support people in that I need more hot takes in this economy? Is that what you're suggesting, Aaron, that everyone...

I mean, I'm joking, but Jay-J. McCullough, when I interviewed him, he talked about this, and he's like, we have too many people giving out too many hot takes. And I don't necessarily disagree because we also need more local news and local reporters, right? Like, that's the base from which you build opinions and voice and all this other stuff. Obviously, you build it from personal experience as well, but, like, that's... that base of, like, people actually doing the journalisming is very important. So I wish actually more people funneled into that. I started this late in life.

Otherwise, maybe that would have been the route that I would have started in. But in terms of finding your voice, very important. I think everyone's entitled to that. We all have social media, so you can, you have that platform, right? And how you grow it and what it becomes is, you know, what you work towards, I guess. In terms of what you're doing, I think it's just. understanding that there's an indelible nature to the internet.

And so while it is great to express your opinion, you should be very careful and very considerate of, is this something that I want to live with for the rest of my life? And that's something Brent Chapman should have probably asked himself, and maybe some of these other candidates that get in trouble, is like, would I want to be held accountable to this statement? And listen, we've all said or typed stupid things on the internet.

I'm not saying we should spiral into purity culture. I'm just saying that if you want to be opinionated, you know, think about things in a way of, am I being bigoted? Am I insulting someone's physical appearance? Am I being dishonest? Or do what? Am I informed enough? Have I read enough?

Have I seen enough of the other side and my side? whatever other side to give an opinion on this. Because it's very easy to like type something out and throw it out there in the world in the ether. But it can be very difficult to bring it back once you have. So I would encourage anyone to absolutely use their voice, but also recognize that there's a whole world beyond the internet as well. Right.

And so, you know, this is something that I've thought about consciously of like you know, you obviously, all of us want to be a good person within our own circles, but then at what point do you say, if I really feel passionate about something, I should actually get involved myself? But then if you do get involved, does that affect your voice as a host or whatever, right? So these are all important questions, but I would encourage everyone to use their voice. And also just treat others with kindness. Treat people who disagree with you. And I'm saying people that disagree with you, not people that are rude to you, but people that disagree with you. Treat them with kindness, because most people are pretty chill. I don't know. Like, that's my

experience, is that most people are very chill, even when you disagree with them, and they just want to, some people just like chatting and thinking about these things. And that's how you move people. You don't move people by hammering on the head with something. And I'm sure some people see my commentary that way, but, like, at the end of the day, you don't have to read it, right? or I'm not forcing you, you can only talk to me if you believe this. To clarify a little bit, my question is not voice in a political sense, but I'm curious, there has to be a certain level, and I think I have it, and I think you may have it when you started, a little bit of, like, self-delusion of, like, willingness to take the plunge and start it and run with it.

So, like, people may not, like, be into political. So people who are already interested in doing that. And whatever they, whatever inspires them, you did something in the beginning where you were like, I'm going to go down this path. Like something's happened to me. I'm going to go down this path. I'm going to follow through. And like, I don't know if you know the stats on starting a podcast, but they're horrendous. Like most people don't get to episode one.

Most people don't never get to episode 10. Yeah. Most people never get to episode 100. Like most people say they're going to start and they don't start. And it's true for art. It's true for theater. It's true for whatever endeavor. Most people don't follow through.

You know what I think it is? It used to be like, I'm going to write a book one day, and now it's like, I'm going to start a podcast. And it's like the one has replaced the other, even though starting a podcast, I would argue, is much easier than writing a book. I think if you are truly inspired, feel inspired, and if you are very interested in this space or any creative venture, just fucking do it. You learn along the way. I think a lot of people get trapped in the planning stage and they overplan and then they talk themselves out of it. Oh, no, it's going to be way too difficult.

I think this goes with entrepreneurship as well. Just start doing the groundwork. And you'll start to see openings of where you can exist in that space. But if you just sit at home and start looking on the Internet, how do I say, oh, man, there's going to be, oh, man, I don't know how to do I do. this, you'll never get anything done. And so it's like, you know, as I just told you earlier, it's when I had the idea, I knew that I had to act on it right away. And the first thing I did

was look for podcast space, right? And as I was doing that, and then I started conceptually thinking of what the show would be like, who would I have on. But you could multitask those things. So as silly as it sounds, it's literally just start doing it. And who knows? And who shows what that might become. You know, you might start thinking of a podcast and then it actually becomes, you know, something else. Maybe it becomes a book. I don't know. But yeah, you're right. Like people get excited about something and they almost have this like self paralysis of like, oh, it's going to be so much work. The other thing is any goal, and this is kind of my basis for goal setting is people focus focus too much on the end result. And it's like, just focus on the process. So if your goal is to get

fit, don't think about like all the weight you want to lose or how, you know, big your arms, how big you want your arms to be. Think about, okay, I got to go to the gym three times a week. Yeah. Work on the process. And in that process, that's where you should be deriving your reward from. Oh, man, I did it. I set out the goal of three times a week, I did it. And I don't know, that's work for me. What keeps you going? The first was that if I was going to do it, I felt a huge responsibility to my mother who lives with us and my partner of like, if I'm going to spend $2,000 to $3,000 on podcast equipment, like this can't sit in a closet. Like this can't be something where I said I was going to do it and I don't follow through because that money could have gone to

home repairs. It could have gone to lots of car repairs, all types of other uses. And I'm asking them to trust me with this. So I have to take on that responsibility to actually follow through. And the other piece was, I'm not going to stop until I feel like I've delivered on what I wanted it to end up. Well, what do you want to deliver? I'm not sure. That's a week by week, month by one thing. But until I felt like I had delivered what I wanted to in this endeavor. And I've learned so much by speaking with so many different people, but I've also grown as a consequence of going through this process and I'm not done growing. So I perhaps I'll be done when I'm done growing in this area. One thing I would say is I like to set certain benchmarks. And usually it's a time-based benchmark, right? So let's say I'm

committed to a process. And I did this for the show, for the podcast as well. I said, let's do 30 episodes, right? And at 30, we will reassess where I'm at. And if I actually still want to do this. Because then it kind of forces you to at least get to that finish point. So you feel somewhat accomplished. And then you can decide what you want to do. And I remember at 30, that's when the K&W stuff started. And I was like, well, I have to keep going now. And I do like it. And so I found that in terms of goal setting, that can also be very useful. Because it just provides like a self assessment, right? And that's anything. Again, going back to the fitness stuff or whatever. It's just like any goal you set, set a period of time. Ask yourself if you stuck to the process

that you committed to and then decide, okay, do I still like doing this or not? Because at least that way, you're not just like giving up in the middle of it. Yeah. Have you ever felt the desire to like, I want to stop doing this? No. No, the good. No. No, the where I want to take it has has changed and modified, but my favorite response from my guest is often, that's a really good question. Tim tracked that for a while, how often I was getting that. Did I drop any of those, Tim? Yes, sir.

Okay. Good. No, no, you're, I think, especially in this realm, passion is everything, right? And, like, you just have to do what drives you. and the hard, tangible goals of what you want to achieve, I think gets in the way of, like, the fun that this is. 100%. How can people stay in contact with your work?

Oh, man, if you weren't bored already. This is VanColor. Thursday nights at 9 on check. You can follow me. My main social is X, Twitter, at VanColor. Color is spelled the British way with the U. I don't know, I'm on TikTok, I'm on Instagram. You'll just look me up, please, if you're interested.

As I said, I find you to be a huge inspiration to me, to me personally. You're so kind. Stop. Stop. Because I think, one, it takes a lot of risk to start this. I, unlike many others, like, understand what that starting process can feel like when you're on your own trying to book gas, trying to plan things. And to follow it through to where you've taken it is really inspiring. and it's a, it's a, we have a lot of criticisms of legacy media. You hear them all the time, but the fact that... And it should be criticized. Like, it's not beyond reproach or beyond criticism, so yeah.

But when I see you being able to play the role that you did during the election, that gives me a lot of hope. As I've told Vasi Capello's, I find she gives me a lot of hope that we're figuring this all out, that we're getting through this in a good way, because you can point to stats that things aren't going the right way. But in these moments, I have a lot of solace in that the right voices, I feel like, are getting the right guests and reaching the right people and inspiring people to tune in and get informed on. Aaron, that is so kind of you. Thank you for that. That means a lot to me.

And listen, I love seeing what you're doing. I'm inspired. I feel a certain kinship for people that go through the same thing. And I think it's so cool. And I hope you just keep it up because, again, who knows what this will become. and what it will evolve to. I've seen some of the guests that you've had. I've seen some of the numbers that you've posted

on some of your interviews. It's so impressive and so keep up the good work. Truly, and I do mean it, I wouldn't take an hour and a half drive just to talk to anyone, but I'm here because I do hold your work and what you're doing with a lot of reference as well. So thanks for having me on.

Appreciate it. This is VanColor. Go check it out. I can't recommend it enough. Watching the YouTube videos. The quality is there. The audio is. like everything is coming together nicely and you bring such a sincere energy to it so i highly

recommend everybody go check it out thank you